Notifiable?

[C&GStudent]

Rewire of an upstairs lighting circuit using cable of the same current carrying capacity and following the same route. Connecting to existing 6A MCB. Is this notifiable? Elec Guide to BR seems to suggest not, although it's not toatlly clear.

Can someone give a definitive answer please!?

P.S. it is replacemement of cable with no CPC.

 

[Spark123]

I wouldn't like to say, the wording in the law says as non-notifiable "(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only", which I read as replacing one cable which is damaged but non-the-less is still a grey area. I'm sure there are ways around this, it's maybe a good one to ask your local area building control office. Please can you let us know how you get on for future reference? Cheers

 

[JohnD]

... "(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only"

You'd better damage it then.

 

[Adam_151]

You could also interpret it as that you have a lighting circuit, you are going to take all the lighting points off it, and then you are then going to repeatedly add new lighting points to an existing lighting circuit... doesn't work for the bathroom one tho .

I'm not sure the building control office will be any help interpretting it, its not one of their favourite buiding regs and they are rarely that hot on it

 

[plugwash]

if it were me i'd just do it, in the unlikely event of anyone noticing you could always say it was damaged first.

btw why are you replacing intact cable without also moving points etc?

 

[didthathurt]

You have to bear in mind, when interpreting Part P, that, according to case law (involving the Inland Revenue, out of interest) a piece of legislation or regulation intended to restrict an activity (which part P is) should always be interpretted in the most restrictive way reasonably available. That does mean that any attempt to "stretch" the scope of non-notifiable work beyond a strict interpretation of the wording would not be legally sustainable.

 

[C&GStudent]

... "(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only"

You'd better damage it then.

Interesting John D, this is the exact quote i'm having trouble interpreting myself. It seems if the cable was somehow damaged throughout its length, it would be non-notifiable changing the cable for the whole circuit. As i do not intend to change any positions of points, and follow the same cable route.

However to change it for the reason of no cpc seems a grey area whether its notifiable or not.

This is a friend of mine's house and he has metal light fittings and metal switches everywhere so it needs to be done really.

If its notifiable however, i shall be leaving it for one of you Competent Person Scheme members.

Anyone else got any answers?

 

[Pensdown]

If you know what your doing then IMO replace the cable. You will struggle trying to find a sparks to do it, it not worth their time.

If BC find out, tell them a Mr P Wash said is was fine

Is it the only cable in the property with no earth?
Has the property got a MET?

 

[C&GStudent]

Yep, its the only cable with no earth, it has a MET as well.

Thanks for the advice Pensdown, i will probably change it, although i'd like to issue a MWC for it, but don't want to find out it was notifiable in future and get shafted!

 

[Pensdown]

As nearly all minor works outside of notifiable locations are not notifiable issuing a MWC will back up your case if Mr BC gets involved. If you issue an installation cert you will be admitting to installing a new circuit which is notifiable.

I like your plan

 

[securespark]

It is notifiable, and yes, PP says you can replace a SINGLE cable damaged by fire, flood, impact or rodent in the circs mentioned, but not the whole circuit......!

 

[didthathurt]

I've just looked up the actual wording. The doc says that "Replacing the cable for a single circuit only, where damaged,......".

The bold the is of note. It doesn't refer to single legs or single cables, just to single circuits so - no, replacing the entire cable for your lighting radial is non-notifiable provided that you use the same size cable along the same route.[/b]

 

[Spark123]

The law says "replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only"

 

[nozspark]

This is the actual quote from table 1 (page 3) of the part p doc, however I would suggest that it means that you could replace the damaged section only, without notifying.

Replacing the cable for a single circuit only, where damaged, for example, by fire, rodent or impact

 

[C&GStudent]

This is the actual quote from table 1 (page 3) of the part p doc, however I would suggest that it means that you could replace the damaged section only, without notifying.

Replacing the cable for a single circuit only, where damaged, for example, by fire, rodent or impact

If this interpetation is correct, the quote from PP seems to suggest you could replace a damaged section of cable on one circuit, but if there is damaged cable from more than one circuit to be replaced, it becomes notifiable.

This seems illogical.

My money is still on non-notifiable as the exact wording 'Replacing the cable for a single circuit only' seems to be stating cable from a whole circuit can be replaced?

I'm enjoying the debate!