JohnD said:
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.
___________________________
Stoday said:
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.