Notification again - more on CU replacement & 'new circu

[JohnW2]

(for background) In this thread, the following spin-off discussion (slightly abridged) arose....

Have we discussed this before? I don't recall.

Yes, at length There have actually been whole threads which were essentially about the question of 'what is a circuit' and 'what is a new circuit'.

How can you install a CU without creating new circuits?

It totally depends upon how one defines 'a new circuit' (which, in turn, depends upon the definition of 'a circuit'). The Building Regs don't help. The BS7671 definition of 'a circuit' is in terms of wiring/equipment which shares a common OPD. I suggested that the only realistic way of interpreting this was in terms of the 'primary' OPD' - i.e. that in a CU or switch-fuse supplied directly from the installation's meter - and that any further OPDs downstream of that 'primary' one did not create separate (hence 'new' when first installed) circuits.

If you don't accept my 'interpretation' then you are probably in the position of having to say that any OPD (whether MCBs/RCBOs in a CU, an FCU or whatever) creates a 'new circuit' (hence needing notification) - but that would mean that a fused spur from a ring or radial circuit (explicitly non-notifiable even under the old rules) would now be notifiable - which I don't think any of us believe is the case.

I remember the 'new circuits' thread(s) but don't recall it being proposed that although the new rules state 'replacing a CU' is notifiable therefore 'fitting a new one' would not be. Can't argue with the logic, I suppose.

HOWEVER, aren't CUs supplied with sub-mains which lead to new circuits? That would be different than FCUs etc. Or did I miss that as well.

... that's a different issue, but we did touch on that one before as well. The wording of the legislation is clear - it is only 'replacement' of a CU that is notifiable. However, as we discussed, it is rarely going to be possible to 'install a new CU' (apparently non-notifiable) without creating 'new circuits' (either to feed it, or for it to feed), so the job would end up being notifiable, anyway. However, that only applies to what I called 'primary' CUs.

HOWEVER, aren't CUs supplied with sub-mains which lead to new circuits? That would be different than FCUs etc.

If, as will usually be the case, it is a new submain, then that is clearly a 'new circuit' and, in any event, that CU would probably qualify as a 'primary' one as I have called it.

The situation discussed in this present thread is very different. The shed CU appears to get its power from an existing sockets circuit, via what is probably at least two 13A fuses (and some RCDs!). That sounds like 'extending an existing circuit to me'. For whatever reason, the OP has got a CU on the end of all that. Had it been just a socket or two, and maybe an FCU for some lighting, I don't think you would have argued with the notion that the whole lot was merely an extension to an existing circuit (hence non-notifiable), would you? If so, it wouldn't make sense (to me) if ('unnecessarily') installing a CU in the shed (instead of just socket(s) and FCU) would suddenly make it notifiable - would it to you? In this case, I guess it's a question of 'when is a CU a CU?'. This one is totally unnecessary, and could be replaced with sockets and FCUs, so I really don't (personally) feel that it deserves to be notifiable, do you?

I can't argue with that. Installing unnecessary parts would, I agree, not affect the notification process.

IMO, it certainly shouldn't - which is the basis of my argument. Glad you agree.

However, you need to understand that I am inclined to extend my argument to situations in which the CU is not quite so (if at all) 'unnecessary'. We had a thread recently in which there was a 'proper' exsting supply to a CU in one outhouse. This was 'extended' to a second outhouse, where another (new) CU was installed. I would again be inclined to interpret that as 'extending an existing circuit' and installing (not replacing) a new CU - hence, again, arguably all non-notifiable. What would you say about that?

In fact, I suppose that almost any CU in a location such as a shed or garage could be argued to be 'unnecessary', since it could be replaced by a series of FCUs (one for each socket if necessary, and one for the lights).

 

[JohnW2]

In the above-mentioned other thread ...

I'm not trying to be aggressive when I say this, but, if faced with a judge in a court of law, how would he see your interpretation of the wording? I happen to agree with you whole-heartedly, but I don't feel that that is how the folks that wrote it intended it to be interpreted.

Firstly, (initially in other threads) I only offered that interpretation as a starting point for discussion, since it seemed to me to be the only one which 'worked'. However, although some have expressed disagreement or nervousness about that interpretation, I don't think any one has yet come up with an alternative which would be consistently workable.

Secondly, even judges are constrained by the written law. If there is a lack of clarity or ambiguity, they can offer an interpretation, but when the law is clear, they cannot make an 'interpretation' which is inconsistent with the word of the law, even if they believe that the written word does not correspond to what was 'intended'. Only legislators can correct that.

So, as far as CUs are concerned, I think a court's hands are tied. The new legislation (in England) is very clear - 'the replacement of a consumer unit' is notifiable, but installing a new CU (which is not replacing a previous one) is not. As above, I don't think a judge could do anything about that, no matter what (s)he thought about 'intention'. In practice, of course, a 'new CU' is very likely to be associated with (non-contentious) 'new circuits' (to and/or from it), so the job as a whole would end up as notifiable, anyway.

It's the 'new circuit' issue which is the contentious one. Since the Building Regs themselves offer no clarification, the next-most-obvious place to look for definitions is in BS7671. As I've explained, my suggested interpretation (introducing my concept of a 'primary' OPD) is the only one I can think of which doesn't introduce anomalies. The alternative, if one considered any OPD as creating 'a circuit' (hence a 'new circuit', if it hadn't been there before) would mean that anything wired via an FCU would become notifiable - which I really don't think was the 'intention', do you? (after all, most things wired via FCUs were non-notifiable even under the pre-April rules).

Do you have a propsed definition of 'new circuit' in mind which would not result in such anomalies? Indeed, what do you believe that the folks who role the new rules 'intended' to be meant by 'a new circuit'? At first sight, it sounds straightforward enough, but the moment one starts thinking, it gets far more difficult - and I suspect that they might have not done that 'thinking through'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Secondly, even judges are constrained by the written law. If there is a lack of clarity or ambiguity, they can offer an interpretation, but when the law is clear, they cannot make an 'interpretation' which is inconsistent with the word of the law, even if they believe that the written word does not correspond to what was 'intended'. Only legislators can correct that.

With some emphases of mine -

http://statutelaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/6.html : ..court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations.


http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_09.htm :

In fulfilling their task of applying the law to the facts before them, the courts frequently have to interpret (i.e. decide the meaning of) statutes....
.
.
Whilst Parliament may make laws, judges interpret them.
.
.
There are also a number of presumptions that the court will take into account in ascertaining the intentions of Parliament...


Even though is is on the website of an organisation which is not disinterested, it's an actual transcript, not their own summary which could be biased or misleading

http://www.freebeagles.org/caselaw/CL_hs_Curtin (2)_full.html :

"Mr Lawson-Cruttenden has several times referred to the 1997 Act as a "victims' charter". The legislators who passed that Act would no doubt be surprised to see how widely its terms are perceived to extend by some people. It was clearly not intended by Parliament to be used to clamp down on the discussion of matters of public interest or upon the rights of political protest and public demonstration which are so much part of our democratic tradition. I have little doubt that the courts will resist any such wide interpretation as and when the occasion arises, but it is unfortunate that the terms in which the provisions are couched should be thought to sanction any such restrictions. "

The last one not only shows that courts do make decisions on what they believe Parliament intended, but also in this case the judge said that he thought other courts would make the same decision.

 

[JohnW2]

In fulfilling their task of applying the law to the facts before them, the courts frequently have to interpret (i.e. decide the meaning of) statutes.... Whilst Parliament may make laws, judges interpret them. ... There are also a number of presumptions that the court will take into account in ascertaining the intentions of Parliament... ... The last one not only shows that courts do make decisions on what they believe Parliament intended, but also in this case the judge said that he thought other courts would make the same decision.

IANAL (but my No. 2 daughter is, so I'll ask her!) but, as I said, my understanding is that the ability of a court to make such decisions (whether or not on the basis of what the court believed the legislators intended) is restricted to those situations in which there is some scope for 'interpretation' - i.e. lacks of clarity/exhaustiveness, ambiguities etc. Hence if (as in 12(6A) of the Building Regs) there is a list of notifiable works, one of which is 'replacement of a CU', with no other references to CUs in the list, then I personally can't see that there is anything to 'interpret' as regards what the law says about works relating to CUs. It would have be only too easy for them to write 'installation of a CU', or 'installation or replacement of a CU' had they so wished, and had that been their intention.

My little daughter is currently on holiday but, on her return, I will try to get a barrister's view for you.

In any event, this is somewhat of an aside. What is your view of how the new notification rules (in England) should be interpreted and/or your view on what was 'intended' by the legislators?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, you need to understand that I am inclined to extend my argument to situations in which the CU is not quite so (if at all) 'unnecessary'. We had a thread recently in which there was a 'proper' exsting supply to a CU in one outhouse. This was 'extended' to a second outhouse, where another (new) CU was installed. I would again be inclined to interpret that as 'extending an existing circuit' and installing (not replacing) a new CU - hence, again, arguably all non-notifiable. What would you say about that?

I think it comes down to whether the additional work has been done correctly - or not.

Fitting additional CUs on an already protected outside circuit (MCB and RCD in house) is pointless and would, in my opinion and as you say, be an extension of the existing circuit.

However, were the circuit not protected (at the house) and an existing CU in the first shed were installed correctly then providing power to a second shed could be done either -

by extending the existing socket circuit to include another FCU for lighting.
Then it seems to be agreed that this would not be notifiable or -

the sub-main extended to the second shed and another correctly installed CU with MCB and RCD fitted then I suppose the 'new' circuits but not the extended sub-main would be notifiable.

If that makes sense it does appear to be ridiculous that a bodge because of ignorance is not notifiable but correctly designed work is.
Although I suppose legislation cannot cover bodges.

In fact, I suppose that almost any CU in a location such as a shed or garage could be argued to be 'unnecessary', since it could be replaced by a series of FCUs (one for each socket if necessary, and one for the lights).

Quite.

As for new CUs not being notifiable, I would think that that is almost 'obvious', in a way, because a new CU - in a new property - will have many new circuits.
A new CU in a shed, which was not there before, will have new circuits.

So - in both of these cases the work is notifiable.

A replacement then being the only alternative for a 'new' CU in an existing installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

IANAL (but my No. 2 daughter is, so I'll ask her!) but, as I said, my understanding is that the ability of a court to make such decisions (whether or not on the basis of what the court believed the legislators intended) is restricted to those situations in which there is some scope for 'interpretation' - i.e. lacks of clarity/exhaustiveness, ambiguities etc. Hence if (as in 12(6A) of the Building Regs) there is a list of notifiable works, one of which is 'replacement of a CU', with no other references to CUs in the list, then I personally can't see that there is anything to 'interpret' as regards what the law says about works relating to CUs. It would have be only too easy for them to write 'installation of a CU', or 'installation or replacement of a CU' had they so wished, and had that been their intention.

Oh I agree - there's nothing they can do about that.

But they might take a view on what they thought the legislators meant by "new circuit".

In any event, this is somewhat of an aside. What is your view of how the new notification rules (in England) should be interpreted and/or your view on what was 'intended' by the legislators?

I would be amazed if they actually intended provision of a new CU to be non-notifiable. I suspect that they thought that a new CU would be caught by "installation of a new circuit". but failed to think about the lack of clarity of what is meant by circuit. Again - my belief is that they meant a circuit originating at a CU or DB.

Electricians seem to have no difficulty in deciding what counts as a "circuit" when completing schedules for certificates, do they.

 

[JohnW2]

Fitting additional CUs on an already protected outside circuit (MCB and RCD in house) is pointless and would, in my opinion and as you say, be an extension of the existing circuit.

Indeed - and, hence, not notifiable.

However, were the circuit not protected (at the house) and an existing CU in the first shed were installed correctly then providing power to a second shed could be done either - by extending the existing socket circuit to include another FCU for lighting. Then it seems to be agreed that this would not be notifiable ...

Indeed - and, IIRC, that is precisely what the OP was proposing in that thread.

or - the sub-main extended to the second shed and another correctly installed CU with MCB and RCD fitted then I suppose the 'new' circuits but not the extended sub-main would be notifiable.

Yes, I imagine so - if there were no protection in the house, then OPDs in that new CU (installation of which would not, in itself, be notifiable) would qualify as my 'primary OPDs', and would therefore create 'new circuits' (which would be notifiable). In the absence of protection in the house, the same would also be true if one did not install a CU in the second shed, but merely a series of FCUs (or even switch-fuses?).

If that makes sense it does appear to be ridiculous that a bodge because of ignorance is not notifiable but correctly designed work is. Although I suppose legislation cannot cover bodges.

Yes, it makes sense (and corresponds with my thoughts) but, yes, it's also pretty ridiculous. You call it 'bodging because of ignorance' but, as you have illustrated above, it could actually be a deliberate, non-ignorant, approach designed to avoid the need for notification.

As for new CUs not being notifiable, I would think that that is almost 'obvious', in a way, because a new CU - in a new property - will have many new circuits.

Indeed. I've repeatedly said that, in practice, the fact that the legislation does not require notification of installing a new CU will often/usually be of little consequence, since the job will usually be associated with 'new circuits', which will render the job notifiable.

A new CU in a shed, which was not there before, will have new circuits. So - in both of these cases the work is notifiable.

Well, that is the more contentious issue, which we are discussing. If, instead of a CU, one had just FCUs in the shed (fed from an existing circuit'), then I think we could probably agree that it would not be notifiable, couldn't we? Is it then reasonable that the situation should suddenly change if one ('unnecessarily') 'replaced' those FCUs with 'a CU'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

A new CU in a shed, which was not there before, will have new circuits. So - in both of these cases the work is notifiable.

Well, that is the more contentious issue, which we are discussing. If, instead of a CU, one had just FCUs in the shed (fed from an existing circuit'), then I think we could probably agree that it would not be notifiable, couldn't we?

Yes, but that was not the scenario I quoted.

Is it then reasonable that the situation should suddenly change if one ('unnecessarily') 'replaced' those FCUs with 'a CU'?

That would not be "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before".
You would not install a new CU from a ring spur.
If supplied from the house CU then it is a new circuit anyway.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh I agree - there's nothing they can do about that. But they might take a view on what they thought the legislators meant by "new circuit".

They may, indeed - as witness all our discussions, there is plenty of scope for 'interpretation' of that. However, I wonder how they would make that decision - in the absence of technical expertise of their own, judges would presumably have to turn to expert witnesses. As we've seen in our discussions, the difficult thing (both in terms of drafting the legislation and subsequent interpretation thereof) is in finding a definition of 'new circuit' which catches things which we would probably all agree were 'obvioulsy new circuits' but not catching things connected to existing circuits via FCUs (most of which were probably non-notifiable even under pre-April rules). That is a particular issue in these 'shed' discussions, when a series of FCUs 'from an existing circuit' is often a perfectly reasonable alternative to 'a CU'.

I would be amazed if they actually intended provision of a new CU to be non-notifiable.

Me, too - but as we've agreed, there's nothing that courts can do about that - legislation would have to be changed.

I suspect that they thought that a new CU would be caught by "installation of a new circuit". but failed to think about the lack of clarity of what is meant by circuit. Again - my belief is that they meant a circuit originating at a CU or DB.

I suspect they thought that, too - but I don't think they gave enough thought to exactly how much debate there could be about the meaning of 'a new circuit'. As I've said, I'm not at all sure that 'originating at a CU or DB' is good enough.

Electricians seem to have no difficulty in deciding what counts as a "circuit" when completing schedules for certificates, do they.

You tell me! It goes without saying that in many/most cases it will simply be 'obvious', but I'm not so sure that it's so easy with the sort of grey areas we are talking about - particularly when an 'unnecessary' CU [which could just as easily be FCU(s)] is part of the picture. I imagine that most electricians would say that it was a 'new circuit' if it arose from a 6A MCB in a CU, but not if it arose (from the same feed) from an FCU - but is that necessarily logical (particularly, in context, if the difference might cost someone £400!)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, that is the more contentious issue, which we are discussing. If, instead of a CU, one had just FCUs in the shed (fed from an existing circuit'), then I think we could probably agree that it would not be notifiable, couldn't we?

Yes, but that was not the scenario I quoted.

I realise that, but I was establishing the starting point before going on to say ...

Is it then reasonable that the situation should suddenly change if one ('unnecessarily') 'replaced' those FCUs with 'a CU'?

That would not be "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before".

Eh? You've lost me there! You have a shed in which sockets and lighting is supplied via FCUs. There is no CU in the shed. You then put a CU, with MCBs, into that shed and use those MCBs to feed the (existing) circuits which were previously fed from FCUs. In what sense is that not "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before"??

You would not install a new CU from a ring spur.

You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but isn't that precisely the situation described by the OP which gave rise to this discussion? (well, he didn't say it was a spur from a ring, it could have come from a radial final!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That would not be "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before".

Eh? You've lost me there! You have a shed in which sockets and lighting is supplied via FCUs. There is no CU in the shed. You then put a CU, with MCBs, into that shed and use those MCBs to feed the (existing) circuits which were previously fed from FCUs. In what sense is that not "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before"??

No, I agree if the circuit is already there.
I was talking about a brand new supply which if it involves a CU would be notifiable because of the circuits.

You would not install a new CU from a ring spur.

You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but isn't that precisely the situation described by the OP which gave rise to this discussion? (well, he didn't say it was a spur from a ring, it could have come from a radial final!)

Yes (no distinction between a ring and a radial) but that is what I meant earlier by a bodge.
I don't think legislation can cover all eventualities if someone is going to do something silly.

One of the rules could have been 'unnecessary CUs are notifiable'.

After all, they have removed the notification requirement for outside power which could have covered this (assuming sheds are outside, of course).
As they have done that I don't think wondering about it too much is warranted.
All this would now equally apply if it were in the house and someone installed a CU in the bedroom.

 

[JohnW2]

Eh? You've lost me there! You have a shed in which sockets and lighting is supplied via FCUs. There is no CU in the shed. You then put a CU, with MCBs, into that shed and use those MCBs to feed the (existing) circuits which were previously fed from FCUs. In what sense is that not "a new CU in a shed, which was not there before"??

No, I agree if the circuit is already there.

Does that really make any sense in terms of common sense? Even if they were not existing circuits, one could add them at any time (even after a CU had been installed) with FCUs without notification, since (I thought that we had agreed) new wiring fed as a 'fused spur' from an existing circuit is not a 'new circuit'. If so, is it really any different connecting that new wiring to an MCB in the CU than connecting it via an FCU to the sample supply as is supplying the CU?

I was talking about a brand new supply which if it involves a CU would be notifiable because of the circuits.

If you are talking about a new CU fed from a 'brand new supply' (in itself probably a 'new circuit') derived from the 'origin' of the installation, then I don't think anyone would disagree that new circuits had been created, hence notifiable.

You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but isn't that precisely the situation described by the OP which gave rise to this discussion? (well, he didn't say it was a spur from a ring, it could have come from a radial final!)

Yes (no distinction between a ring and a radial) but that is what I meant earlier by a bodge. I don't think legislation can cover all eventualities if someone is going to do something silly.

As I said before, it might be 'bodging' in an electrician's eyes - but, from the legislator's viewpoint, it's also a potential way of 'getting around the legislation' - something which careful drafting of good legislation should do everything possible to prevent.

One of the rules could have been 'unnecessary CUs are notifiable'.

I thought we had agreed that they shouldn't be notifiable (on the basis that the work wouldn't have been notifiable had FCUs been used)

After all, they have removed the notification requirement for outside power which could have covered this (assuming sheds are outside, of course).

I don't think so. Didn't we agree (in pre-April discussions) that electrical work within an outbuilding did not count as 'outside' (and nor, indeed, did the feed to it from the house, provided it did not supply, say, outdoor sockets or lighting on the way), and therefore was non-notifiable, even then?

All this would now equally apply if it were in the house and someone installed a CU in the bedroom.

It would indeed, if that CU were fed from some 'existing circuit'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That is a particular issue in these 'shed' discussions, when a series of FCUs 'from an existing circuit' is often a perfectly reasonable alternative to 'a CU'.

It might well be, but the fact that an alternative exists has no bearing on whether the installation (new or replacement) of a CU or any DB which is not a BS 1363 FCU should be notifiable. (IMO it should be).

As I've said, I'm not at all sure that 'originating at a CU or DB' is good enough.

What would the problems be?

It goes without saying that in many/most cases it will simply be 'obvious', but I'm not so sure that it's so easy with the sort of grey areas we are talking about - particularly when an 'unnecessary' CU [which could just as easily be FCU(s)] is part of the picture.

If the presence of a CU is material, then whether it was "necessary" or not is immaterial.

I imagine that most electricians would say that it was a 'new circuit' if it arose from a 6A MCB in a CU, but not if it arose (from the same feed) from an FCU - but is that necessarily logical (particularly, in context, if the difference might cost someone £400!)?

There's a 3rd option, which would also not be notifiable - if it originated at the CU, but was a branch from an existing circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

I imagine that most electricians would say that it was a 'new circuit' if it arose from a 6A MCB in a CU, but not if it arose (from the same feed) from an FCU - but is that necessarily logical (particularly, in context, if the difference might cost someone £400!)?

There's a 3rd option, which would also not be notifiable - if it originated at the CU, but was a branch from an existing circuit.

If you mean a situation in which the feed to the new CU was a branch from an existing circuit, that's the very situation we've been discussing- but what you've just written seems to imply that you believe that the presence of the new CU renders the wiring eminating from it to constitute 'new circuits', even though the new CU itself is 'an extension of an existing circuit'. Have I understood you correctly?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What the circuit supplies is irrelevant.

It is either a new circuit or not, and what's supplied by it cannot possibly be of any relevance.

Cable from a JB - not a new circuit

Cable from an FCU - not a new circuit

Cable from a new or hitherto empty MCB - new circuit

Cable from an MCB already supplying a circuit - not a new circuit