Outside Shed Supply

[Flasho]

Can anyone help with this question....
Have an ouside shed which is supplied by a SWA cable from the house supply. The supply is not protected with an RCD and the CU is an old style rewirable fuse type.
The SWA to the shed is terminated into a new CU protected by a 30mA RCD and has a 6A & 16A MCB.
If i run two new circuits for lighting and a 13A Socket, will the whole installation back to the house CU need to be tested, Inspected and certified under Part p or just the new circuits in the shed back to there respective CU.
Cheers if some one can help.

 

[ericmark]

Is Gloucestershire England or Wales? If in England after the 6th April I would not think there will be a problem.

If Wales then old rules still apply. Part P is all about what has to be notified.

As far as testing and inspecting I would always test and inspect back to the meter head. Many houses have lengths of twin and earth feeding the SWA which may not be the same size so I always check.

Testing and inspecting to my mind should be done by the person doing the job. I know in some large firms they have gangs of workers and the one guy with test gear visits each site but to me testing needs also doing before you start.

 

[Iggifer]

I dont see what difference April 6th makes?

New circuits remain notifiable.

Unless the OP doesn't mean new circuits, merely additions to new circuits, but thats not what he said

 

[ericmark]

The Part P does not seem to define a new circuit the same as BS7671. With BS7671 if you fit a FCU the wiring after it will be a new circuit but it seems that's not the case with Part P. Never really worked out why. So unless fed from a Henley block shed CU just the same as a FCU does same job after all.

Still never worked out why people call the ring a "final ring circuit" when if there are FCU's it's not the final circuit.

Also if you connect to the existing B16 MCB it's not a new circuit it's an addition to an existing circuit. Which does not require notifying.

Personally I don't think it's the notifying which is important. It's the inspection and testing and it does not matter if notified or not still needs inspection and testing.

 

[Flasho]

Thanks for all your replies.... It will be new circuits from the shed CU as there are none there now..
Can you clarify the 6th April dilema as I have heard changes are a foot but not sure what and why that should have an effect on this job..
Cheers

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Part P is all about what has to be notified.

No it isn't.

This is Part P:



And it's not changing on April 6th.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Part P does not seem to define a new circuit the same as BS7671.

It doesn't define it at all.

 

[ericmark]

Untitled

• ericmark
• 16 Mar 2013
• 1

This may have not changed but in real terms to comply with this one needs to follow BS7671 there is very little in the Part P document which guides one as to what is required. In the main the document refers to which areas require one to notify rather than what standards must be met.

The big change is now instead of saying what one is permitted to do without notifying it says what one can't do without notifying. Below is what most people are interested with.

Untitled

• ericmark
• 16 Mar 2013
• 1

This Part shows what one needs to notify. However I feel the problem is we tend to ignore the other parts of the building regulations. We do talk about socket heights but the rules on fitting an extractor fan seem to be ignored.

I have seen many extractors fitted where there are open flues which is clearly not following the regulations.

I know BS7671 is not law but I feel we need to drop all the references to Part P and instead refer to BS7671 which following will make the home safe.

Returning to Flasho's question the main thing is if a new circuit is being formed. If he is going to add a MCB or RCBO then he will be forming a new circuit. If not then he is only adding to an existing. It would seem the latter is the case so no need to notify.

However he does need to inspect and test and in the main DIY people don't have the skill or equipment to inspect and test. It would seem that although Part P has provision for third party testing the scheme operators have not yet finalised how this is to be done.

May be a scheme member electrician can help here? Under existing rules are they allowed to test other peoples work? Will Flasho have a problem in getting an electrician to come out and test and inspect what he has done?

Again would a scheme member be signing a multi signature installation certificate as laid down in BS7671 or a EICR as referred to in Part P.

Not being a scheme member I can't answer these questions.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Under existing rules are they allowed to test other peoples work?

Not for an EIC.
An EICR can be done but, presumably, not acceptable for a new installation although if the work was not notified that is all the LA will do.

Will Flasho have a problem in getting an electrician to come out and test and inspect what he has done?

At first impression of the new rule(s) probably not -
but I can see it may become a 'can of worms' if the work has not been done correctly and lead to costs for alterations and/or multiple visits approaching the notification fee.

Again would a scheme member be signing a multi signature installation certificate as laid down in BS7671 or a EICR as referred to in Part P.

No one seems certain but I believe an EICR is all that will be required so -
the changes would seem to be more of a relaxation of what is required (by the LA) rather than any change to the certification procedure by registered electricians.

In other words - I can carry out an EICR for a customer who has done it himself and this will now be acceptable instead of an EIC at present

Supervision throughout the work leading to an EIC can be done now.