OVERHEATING CABLE

[JohnD]

It appears to me that you are adding your own opinions to what Part P says.

If it meant "exempt work which which alters the circuit characteristics remain exempt, unless the change makes it less safe, or fails to cure an inherant lack of safety" then it would say so.

I am particuarly interested, not in what the documents might say, or could say, or should say, but in what they do say.

 

[Softus]

It appears to me that you are adding your own opinions to what Part P says.

I'm glad it appears like that, because that's exactly what I'm doing, and have been doing, and have been saying that I've been doing.

If it meant "exempt work which which alters the circuit characteristics remain exempt, unless the change makes it less safe, or fails to cure an inherant lack of safety" then it would say so.

Not every piece of legislation says what it was intended to say, or means what it was intended to mean. This is why courts often deliberate over the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and the intent of those who made it.

I am particuarly interested, not in what the documents might say, or could say, or should say, but in what they do say.

Is it the case that you don't find Part P at all ambiguous, or lacking in clarity?

 

[JohnD]

If the docs say that replacing a damaged cable is not notifiable, then I am happy that we carry on proceeding in accordance with what it says, until there is some definitive change that says something else.

 

[Stoday]

Humpty Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Seems to me that in this thread Softus is playing Humpty Dumpty. "Part P means just what I choose it to mean".

Part P has only been operational since January 2005; nevertheless the issues under discussion were updated in 2006. It's reasonable to assume that the wording is now correct and that the law says what's intended.

You can replace damaged cable for a single circuit without notifying. There's nothing about like-for-like or cable sizes. Of course if the original was inadequate you'd want to replace the cable with a bigger one. If you do, it's still a replacement cable because you've replaced the old cable with it; you don't have to notify.

Similarly replacing ANY fixed electrical equipment. The only exception is replacing the consumer unit. Nothing about circuit characteristics. Nothing about like-for-like. So replacing (say) a 30A mcb with 45A does not have to be notified (unless there's some other reason to do so).

The point is, although a technically person can pick holes in this legislation, there has been an opportunity for it to be amended along with the other 2006 amendments, but no amendmant has been made. With all its faults, that's what the law says and that's what's intended.

 

[Taylortwocities]

So, on this basis, a DIYer with an installation consisting of crumbling rubber cable could determine that the cables are 'damaged'.
He could then rewire the whole house and not notify? I don't think that is what is meant by the legislation at all!

Or do you think he could replace one single circuit one week and another the next and wheedle round the legislation like that?

 

[JohnD]

If he has a number of sections of damaged cable, he is allowed to replace them, one circuit at a time. That's what the doc says.

He might change them over a period of years, or I suppose over a few days.

Maybe it should say he mustn't.

But "should" is not enough.

The drink-drive laws say it is an offence to drive with xx mg/ml of alcohol in your blood.

Maybe xx - 1 is also dangerous. Maybe it ought to be xx-10.

Maybe I wouldn't want to drive with xx - 20 in my blood.

but xx is what the law says.

p.s. Does Rising Damp exist?
How about Plastic pipes? Are they OK?

 

[Softus]

If the docs say that replacing a damaged cable is not notifiable, then I am happy that we carry on proceeding in accordance with what it says, until there is some definitive change that says something else.

That seems a very oblique answer to the question of whether or not you find them to be ambiguous.

I'm not inventing meanings as some kind of game. I'm doing it because I observed, because of this topic, a specific scenario in which an unsafe installation can persist, even with a new cable. I note that you've not made any response to that observation, preferring instead to focus on the idea that the existing incarnation of Part P is utterly perfect and that there is no scope for discussion on the matter.

Please see below regarding my suggestion that the BRs are not precise, and are actually self-conflicting and therefore in need of interpretation.
___________________________

Humpty Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Seems to me that in this thread Softus is playing Humpty Dumpty. "Part P means just what I choose it to mean".

You're so wide of the mark that you can't even see the mark. The mark is a dot to you.

Part P has only been operational since January 2005; nevertheless the issues under discussion were updated in 2006. It's reasonable to assume that the wording is now correct and that the law says what's intended.

It's never reasonable to make any assumption at all. Ever. Given the youth of Part P, i.e. it's lack of maturity, the odds are high that it hasn't been as well tested in court as many older statutes (or SIs).

You can replace damaged cable for a single circuit without notifying. There's nothing about like-for-like or cable sizes.

That's exactly my point. If you read all of the Building Regulations, then the fact that there is at least one scenario in which it would be unsafe for a naive amateur to replace a damaged cable means that the BRs are self-conflicting.

Of course if the original was inadequate you'd want to replace the cable with a bigger one.

You would only do that if you knew enough about the subject to know that you should install a bigger one.

If you do, it's still a replacement cable because you've replaced the old cable with it; you don't have to notify.

I disagree, because even if an amateur used a cable of higher CCC, they wouldn't know that it should be tested, and in at least one scenario it's possible for even the new cable to be undersized.

Similarly replacing ANY fixed electrical equipment. The only exception is replacing the consumer unit.

So, not "ANY" (sic.) replacement then.

Nothing about circuit characteristics. Nothing about like-for-like. So replacing (say) a 30A mcb with 45A does not have to be notified (unless there's some other reason to do so).

The reason for doing so is obvious - such a change could render the installation unsafe, therefore the design and installation should be signed off. A naive amateur will not know (a) that this is necessary and (b) how to go about it.

The point is, although a technically person can pick holes in this legislation, there has been an opportunity for it to be amended along with the other 2006 amendments, but no amendmant has been made.

Not yet, but would you like to place a bet that it will never again be amended?

With all its faults, that's what the law says and that's what's intended.

You're now straying, nay, running full tilt, into the territory of being stupid about this. Your argument that the Building Regulations are incapable of improvement is so full of holes you could pump water into it and call it a power shower.

 

[JohnD]

I note that you've not made any response to that observation, preferring instead to focus on the idea that the existing incarnation of Part P is utterly perfect and that there is no scope for discussion on the matter.

You are mistaken.

I am focusing on the idea that if a law says I must do one thing, and must not do another, then I will do the one that is required, and not the one that is forbidden.

From my perspective that seems an entirely reasonable approach.

At my own whim, I might or might not decide to do additional things that I am not required to do. Or I might or might nor decide not to do things which I am not forbidden to do. I might or might not agree with people who offer their own non-binding opinions on what I should or should not do. My whim may change from day to day.

At my own whim, i might decide that a law is in need of improvement, and lobby my MP or the responsible minister about it. Or I might decide not to.

 

[Softus]

But "should" is not enough.

Oh but it is, and I think this is where you're allowing yourself to be misled. This is not only a discussion about what the BRs say, and what Part P requires regarding notification, but about how the BRs could be modified or interpreted in the interests of improving electrical safety.

The drink-drive laws say it is an offence to drive with xx mg/ml of alcohol in your blood.

Maybe xx - 1 is also dangerous. Maybe it ought to be xx-10.

Maybe I wouldn't want to drive with xx - 20 in my blood.

but xx is what the law says.

And yet, if you exhibit unsafe driving that arose because of your individual intolerance to what we could call mild intoxication, you're at risk of being stopped, reported and, potentially, prosecuted, and, potentially, convicted, even though you haven't exceeded the blood-alcohol limit.

Similarly, you might follow the letter of the law regarding replacing a damaged cable, but if the new cable were to become the direct cause of a fire, then you would be at risk of prosecution for failing to make a safe installation.

p.s. Does Rising Damp exist?
How about Plastic pipes? Are they OK?

Somehow I thought you would be above making cheap jibes about unrelated topics when the subject, i.e. of electrical safety, is of considerable gravity.

Was I wrong?

 

[Softus]

I note that you've not made any response to that observation, preferring instead to focus on the idea that the existing incarnation of Part P is utterly perfect and that there is no scope for discussion on the matter.

You are mistaken.

I can accept that, and if I'm wrong then I apologise for any impropriety implied in the suggestion.

I am focusing on the idea that if a law says I must do one thing, and must not do another, then I will do the one that is required, and not the one that is forbidden.

From my perspective that seems an entirely reasonable approach.

At my own whim, I might or might not decide to do additional things that I am not required to do. Or I might or might nor decide not to do things which I am not forbidden to do. I might or might not agree with people who offer their own non-binding opinions on what I should or should not do. My whim may change from day to day.

At my own whim, i might decide that a law is in need of improvement, and lobby my MP or the responsible minister about it. Or I might decide not to.

Well, while you're dancing around deciding whether or not to take any action according to whether or not a particular whim arises on a particular day, there are people who are discussing the merits of a certain interpretation of the existing legislation, and it's very hard to understand why you at one moment challenge the reasoning of that discussion and yet, at the next moment, abdicate from contributing to a conclusion, unless of course your motive is to be mischievous.

 

[JohnD]

Yes

I was hoping this would turn ito a 40-page argument

i take a simple view:

In respect of whether work is notifiable under Part P:

1) What does the law (and SI) say?
2) Do that

 

[Softus]

Yes

I was hoping this would turn ito a 40-page argument

Fair play. It might yet.

i take a simple view:

In respect of whether work is notifiable under Part P:

1) What does the law (and SI) say?
2) Do that

Regarding cable replacement, I don't believe the view can be simple, because:

The OP had an unsafe installation, and, if he has replaced the melted cable with an identical one, following the same route, with the same thermal insulation, then he has recreated the unsafe situation.

To answer your point (1) above...

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

So, whilst Schedule 2B clearly lists the exemptions, for work that may clearly create an unsafe installation, it seems unlikely that it was the intention to make such work exempt from notification.

Since LABC notification is the mechanism for controlling, and reducing, the likelihood of unsafe installations occurring, then the clear (to me) implication is that replacement of a melted cable requires notification.

 

[JohnD]

My simple mind is unable to grasp the concept of attempting to notify a non-notifiable job

"I want to notify replacement of a cable"

"Replacement of a cable isn't notifiable"

"But it melted"

"Look here, it says... not notifiable. Nothing here about melted cables"

"But I want to notify it"

"Well you can't"

"Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?"

 

[Softus]

"I want to drive on the right-hand side of the road"

"Driving on the left isn't a statutory requirement"

"But driving on the right is dangerous"

"Look here, it doesn't say 'must not drive on the right'. Nothing here about driving on any particular side"

"But I want to be told not to"

"Well you will"

 

[Stoday]

So, whilst Schedule 2B clearly lists the exemptions, for work that may clearly create an unsafe installation, it seems unlikely that it was the intention to make such work exempt from notification.

Since LABC notification is the mechanism for controlling, and reducing, the likelihood of unsafe installations occurring, then the clear (to me) implication is that replacement of a melted cable requires notification.

You have missed the point entirely Softus.

Part P applies to ALL electrical installations. Only some of them need to be notified.

The shower cable could have been replaced with wet string; it would still not need to be notified. However, it wouldn't comply with part P because it would not meet the general principles in paragraphs 0.x.

At the end of the day it's the courts that implement the law. There's not a judge in the land who is going to say " Softus, I need an expert like you to tell me how I should interpret this law". The judge is going to look at the words. Full stop. No more.

No judge is going to have an opinion on the safety of the wet string. "Does it require notification?" "No" ergo...

That's not to say that it complies with the other parts of Part P. It just dosn't need to be notified. Imperfect? Maybe. Gets up Softus's nose? Of course. Does he have to live with it? Yes!!!