Part P and building control

[spongsdad]

Just a thought guys. What benefit does all this argument bring to people who want to use this forum for its intended purpose, which I naively thought was about diy? All that is apparent is an attempt to justify some huge egos. The rest of us are totally mystified. Can I suggest that you study law instead of electricity and leave the rest of us to use common sense. For heaven's sake, if we need a law degree to enable us to decide whether something is notifiable or not, then truly the law is an ass and the lawmakers are even bigger asses.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've never said that it is. But you've claimed that "fused spur" means just an FCU, which does not include any cable at all.

Just an FCU was in the context of you claiming that it also included lights or sockets etc supplied from it - the foundation of your belief that fused spurs didn't need to have their own exemption. A fused spur includes cables just as much as a socket or a switch or a light does.

Should we take this comment as being an acceptance that you were wrong on that point?

Depends how desperate you are to find a way out of the mess you've argued yourself into.

But as I keep pointing out, you'll find similar inconsistencies throughout whatever varying interpretations of schedule 4 are used.

Not with mine - that's what makes them right.

I haven't suggested that the cables associated with adding a socket are an intrinsic part of the socket. I've said that they are an intrinsic part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

Same thing - they are part of an indivisible operation. Were they not the work of adding the cables would be separate from the work of adding toe socket and therefore would require it's own specific exemption.

Yes, all part of the work, but not all part of the socket being added.

Adding the socket is the work, the work is adding the socket. Adding the cables cannot simultaneously be part of adding the socket and not part of adding the socket.

You aren't adding one thing. You're adding a socket, plus the mounting box, plus the cable, plus clips, etc. The exemption in schedule 4 is in 2(c) as "work which consists of adding a socket," because you can't add the socket without also installing the cable and other necessary items.

Then in the contest of Schedule 4 it is one thing. It has one label. It has no separately identified sub-tasks or components. It is indivisible. It is atomic. It is a single complete process the whole of which is a single notifiable, or not, event.

And you'll find those exemptions in 2(c)(ii) - "Work which consists of adding a socket." That doesn't make the socket, box, cable, etc. all one item.

It must.

It cannot mean anything else.

Were it not to be one item within the context of is it/is it not notifiable then each task or component which you decide are actually distinct tasks or components in their own right would require their own distinct statements of exemption.

You can't have it both ways - either "work which consists of adding a socket" is a single item which incorporates the socket, the cables, the box, the clips etc, and that is the granularity of Schedule 4, or it is not, in which case driving down the level of granularity would require a correspondingly more granular set of statements of exemption.

Since that granularity is not there, we are left with only two choices.

a) The granularity is how it appears, and "work which consists of..." does encompass all of the tasks and components which make up "work which consists of...".

b) The granularity is greater than it appears in which case adding a socket may well be exempt but the cables for it never are.

Which would you like?

And the section of the regulations which states, or even implies, that is...... Where?

It is a natural, inescapable, and inconsistency-free result of saying that "work which consists of..." is a single item which consists of all of the components you will use and tasks you will perform in order to complete the "work which consists of...".

It's necessary to add cable to feed a new socket. Therefore adding cable is an integral part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

I agree.

Go and look up what "integral" means.

Cables are not an inseparable part of the socket. They're a part of the work which consists of adding a socket.

They are an integral part of that work.

Go and look up what "integral" means.

But you've said that running the cable for a non-fused spur in a kitchen is exempt, if it's feeding a new socket or light elsewhere.

The cable is an integral part of the work of adding the socket.

If the socket is not being added in the kitchen then the work, in the context of an exempt, or not event which is at the limit of the granularity of Schedule 4 is not notifiable. The socket is not notifiable, and the integral cable is therefore not notifiable.

It's very clean, it's very simple, it creates no inconsistencies, and it fits perfectly with the concept that the cables are an integral part of the socket - I don't know why you're resisting it. You keep complaining about inconsistencies in Schedule 4, but whenever I present you with a way to remove inconsistencies you reject it.

So why should a fused spur be any different?

It's not. A fused spur is at the same level as a socket, a switch etc.

Are you just arguing over whether the FCU itself is in the kitchen or not?

I'm not arguing over it - either the FCU is in a kitchen or it is not. Apart from uncertainties arising from the undefined boundaries of open-plan spaces, is it/is it not in a kitchen is going to be unarguable.

Not it isn't. Schedule 4 makes no explicit mention of an FCU whatsoever. It is implied by the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii).

Regard "fused spur" as being "FCU + cables, clips, box etc which are integral to it" and determine the notifiability by where the FCU is and inconsistencies vanish.

Regard "fused spur" as being "FCU + cables, clips, box etc which are integral to it", and an instance of "work which consists of..." and you can see perfectly well why it has it's own recognition as such.

Regard "fused spur" as being "FCU + cables, clips, box etc which are integral to it" and not also including any other instances of "work which consists of..." which have their own recognition by Schedule 4 and you'll see that it needs its own recognition.

Again I'm offering you an explanation for it's presence, a logical answer to your question about why does 2(c) need to mention fused spurs, and I'm maintaining, not damaging, the consistency of Schedule 4, and yet still you reject it.

One might almost think you had an ulterior motive for trying to "interpret" Schedule 4 in ways which create inconsistencies and for rejecting obviously consistent meanings.

Which is no worse than many of the other inconsistencies in the regulations.

Schedule 4 hangs together perfectly and consistently once you regard "fused spur" as "FCU".

Maybe not. Why shouldn't adding a switch where deemed necessary be an integral part of the work consisting of replacing equipment?

Oh.

So now you want to remove the words "and switches" from 2(c)(i) because the adding of switches can safely be subsumed into the work consisting of replacing the equipment, because switches are an integral part of that?

Are there any more changes you'd like to make to resolve inconsistencies which stem from your rejection of an explanation which has no inconsistencies.

Then it would become notifiable.

So I've offered you an explanation of why 2(c)(ii) has the words "and fused spurs" and you reject that, thus leading to adding a fused spur losing its exemption.

Have we found your ulterior motive? Are you actually trying to get Schedule 4 to exempt fewer things than it does now?

Is it inconsistent that you could add an entirely new fused spur to sockets without notification but not to add an FCU to convert an existing non-fused spur into a fused spur? Yes, of course it is.

So why choose a route which actually creates that inconsistency over one which does not?

Just like many other things which are inconsistent in the regulations, with or without that reference in 2(c)(ii).

You seem to not like inconsistencies, and to be using their existence as a reason to dispute the validity of the legislation.

So why reject an explanation which not only doesn't create inconsistencies but actually resolves ones you thought were there?

For example, you still haven't made any attempt to explain the apparent inconsistent use of the supposedly simple conjunction "and" in schedule 4.

Do you want to interpret a syntactical, rather than semantic, inexactitude in a way which means that you'd have to add both fused spurs and fused spurs for it to be non-notifiable?

All along I've presented meanings which resolve, not proliferate, problems. All along I've presented meanings which remove, not create, inconsistencies. All along I've presented meanings which make more, not less, sense.

And all along you've rejected them in favour of an approach which proliferates problems, creates inconsistencies and now you want to suggest that "adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit" means you'd need to add both for it to be non-notifiable?

If it said "adding socket outlets or fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit" I expect you'd be arguing that you couldn't add both because it says socket outlets or fused spurs....

But you've said that a "fused spur" either (a) stops at the FCU, or (b) is just the FCU.

Where does a socket stop?

If cables can be an integral part of adding a socket can't they also be an integral part of adding an FCU?

Yes. You said that the fused spur is either just the FCU itself, or stops at the FCU. So according to either of your interpretations of "fused spur," where is the exemption for installing the flex outlet unit? It's not a socket, a switch, or a light. And what about the cable running from the load side of the FCU? If the fused spur doesn't go beyond the FCU, where's the exemption for that cable, since it can't then be an integral part of the work of installing the fused spur?

Hence "If we say that "fused spur" means [supply cable + FCU + load cable] would that make a difference? ".

If fused spur means FCU, and if "work consisting of adding a fused spur" includes the cables integral to its installation, just as "work consisting of adding a socket" does, then where's the problem?

As for a flex outlet plate, does it do anything? Can you carry out functional testing on it?

Or is it just a cosmetically acceptable alternative to one of these

which does the same job, but looks naff?

And the tags on that last diagram illustrate the point. The exemption for a fused spur should extend right up to the socket, as the cable downstream of the FCU is part of the fused spur.

So can't the supply cable for the socket be an integral part of that any more?

Or, even though fused spurs and sockets are hierarchically equal, and the both have cables integral to them, do you want inconsistency in what's an integral part of adding a socket?

But if you changed the socket on that diagram for a flex outlet unit, the exemption under 2(c)(ii) for a socket would no longer apply. If the fused spur then stops at the FCU, what exempts the cable on the load side of the FCU and the flex outlet box?

The same thing that exempts cables and junction boxes integral to the installation of a socket.

Only probably? Why aren't you sure, when you seem quite sure about the rest of schedule 4?

Are you talking about JBs which are integral to the work of adding something recognised by, and at the limit of the granularity of, Schedule 4?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

Just an FCU was in the context of you claiming that it also included lights or sockets etc supplied from it - the foundation of your belief that fused spurs didn't need to have their own exemption. A fused spur includes cables just as much as a socket or a switch or a light does.

That's not what you said earlier. You were claiming that "fused spur" is synonymous with "fused connection unit." You've also claimed that a fused spur ends at the FCU, implying that the feeder cable is part of the fused spur but not any cable downstream of the FCU.

Just what exactly do you think that the term "fused spur" includes?

But as I keep pointing out, you'll find similar inconsistencies throughout whatever varying interpretations of schedule 4 are used.

Not with mine - that's what makes them right.

Yes, with either your interpretation or mine the result is a whole host of inconsistencies. You seem to be trying to read things into schedule 4 which aren't written there just to remove a few of them.

Just because one interpretation of the regulations results in more inconsistencies does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is incorrect. The law is full of inconsistencies.

I haven't suggested that the cables associated with adding a socket are an intrinsic part of the socket. I've said that they are an intrinsic part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

Same thing - they are part of an indivisible operation. Were they not the work of adding the cables would be separate from the work of adding toe socket and therefore would require it's own specific exemption.

Saying that the cable is part of the socket and saying that the cable is a necessary part of work which consists of adding a socket are not the exactly same thing.

Adding the socket is the work, the work is adding the socket. Adding the cables cannot simultaneously be part of adding the socket and not part of adding the socket.

Adding the cable is not part of adding the socket itself, but it is part of the work which consists of adding the socket. There's a subtle difference.

You aren't adding one thing. You're adding a socket, plus the mounting box, plus the cable, plus clips, etc. The exemption in schedule 4 is in 2(c) as "work which consists of adding a socket," because you can't add the socket without also installing the cable and other necessary items.

Then in the contest of Schedule 4 it is one thing. It has one label. It has no separately identified sub-tasks or components. It is indivisible. It is atomic. It is a single complete process the whole of which is a single notifiable, or not, event.

So if you were adding a fused spur to feed a new socket, fitting the FCU to make the spur fused would also be part of your "atomic" work of a single, complete process. But according to you, without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii), that would be notifiable because of the new FCU.

You can't have it both ways - either "work which consists of adding a socket" is a single item which incorporates the socket, the cables, the box, the clips etc, and that is the granularity of Schedule 4, or it is not, in which case driving down the level of granularity would require a correspondingly more granular set of statements of exemption.

But that's what you're doing with your interpretation that adding a fused spur for a socket would be notifiable but for the reference to "fused spur" in 2(c)(ii). The FCU would be a necessary part of the task of adding a socket on a fused spur, just as the cable is a necessary part of adding the socket on a fused or a non-fused spur. As you've just said, you can't have it both ways.

Since that granularity is not there, we are left with only two choices.

a) The granularity is how it appears, and "work which consists of..." does encompass all of the tasks and components which make up "work which consists of...".

b) The granularity is greater than it appears in which case adding a socket may well be exempt but the cables for it never are.

Which would you like?

That is exactly my point with regard to your interpretation that fitting an FCU to add a socket on a fused spur would be notifiable but for the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii).

Either:

(a) the ancillary items necessary to carry out the single task of adding a socket are implicitly exempt as "work which consists of adding a socket," and that would include both the cable and the FCU, or

(b) you would need to find an explicit reference which exempts both the cable and the FCU.

Which of those options would you like?

For your interpretation (b) regarding the FCU, you would then be left with the consequence that installing a socket on a non-fused spur would also be notifiable, because there's no explicit exemption for cable.

If you want the cable to be implicitly exempt, then you have to go with (a), which would also make the FCU implicitly exempt as a necessary part of the overall task of adding the socket.

It's necessary to add cable to feed a new socket. Therefore adding cable is an integral part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

I agree.

But you don't think that adding an FCU to install a socket on a fused spur would be an integral part of that task. You're introducing one of those inconsistencies which you dislike.

Cables are not an inseparable part of the socket. They're a part of the work which consists of adding a socket.

They are an integral part of that work.

That's what I said. They're an integral part of the work which consists of adding the socket, not an integral part of the socket itself.

Are you just arguing over whether the FCU itself is in the kitchen or not?

I'm not arguing over it - either the FCU is in a kitchen or it is not. Apart from uncertainties arising from the undefined boundaries of open-plan spaces, is it/is it not in a kitchen is going to be unarguable.

But the location of a fused spur is not so simple when part of it is in a kitchen and part is not.

Regard "fused spur" as being "FCU + cables, clips, box etc which are integral to it" and determine the notifiability by where the FCU is and inconsistencies vanish.

A socket is in one particular place. Arguments over the boundaries of an open-plan layout aside, either it's in the kitchen or it isn't.

But a fused spur can encompass an area in the kitchen and an area outside it. A socket is just a socket, and the cable is incidental in terms of being a necessary part of work consisting of adding the socket. The cable is not just such an incidental part though, it is an integral part of the collection of items which comprise a fused spur. As such, a fused spur may be part in a kitchen and part outside it. Why, when a fused spur comprises both the FCU and associated cables, should its official location then be determined solely by the location of the FCU?

Again we come back to a simple question: If the intent was that the FCU itself were accorded some special status in its own right, as in determining whether or not a fused spur is deemed to be within a kitchen or not, then why do the regulations not simply refer to a fused connection unit instead of a fused spur?

Which is no worse than many of the other inconsistencies in the regulations.

Schedule 4 hangs together perfectly and consistently once you regard "fused spur" as "FCU".

So you think that for legal purposes we can simply choose to redefine what a term means in legislation if it removes an inconsistency?

Maybe not. Why shouldn't adding a switch where deemed necessary be an integral part of the work consisting of replacing equipment?

Oh.

So now you want to remove the words "and switches" from 2(c)(i) because the adding of switches can safely be subsumed into the work consisting of replacing the equipment, because switches are an integral part of that?

The reference in 2(c)(i) relates to adding equipment, which is distinct from replacing equipment.

Have we found your ulterior motive? Are you actually trying to get Schedule 4 to exempt fewer things than it does now?

I'm not trying to get it to exempt any more or less at all, merely pointing out how it can be interpreted. What would be any ulterior motive anyway? I've been against the entire mess of Part P from its inception, and as far as I'm concerned no electrical work in one's own home should be notifiable.

For example, you still haven't made any attempt to explain the apparent inconsistent use of the supposedly simple conjunction "and" in schedule 4.

Do you want to interpret a syntactical, rather than semantic, inexactitude in a way which means that you'd have to add both fused spurs and fused spurs for it to be non-notifiable?

The law is pedantic over such "semantic inexactitudes."

But you've said that a "fused spur" either (a) stops at the FCU, or (b) is just the FCU.

Where does a socket stop?

If cables can be an integral part of adding a socket can't they also be an integral part of adding an FCU?

I've never said that they can't.

If fused spur means FCU, and if "work consisting of adding a fused spur" includes the cables integral to its installation, just as "work consisting of adding a socket" does, then where's the problem?

But "fused spur" does not mean just an FCU, as has been pointed out numerous times already. Why do you want to try and redefine "fused spur" to mean just an FCU when a fused spur, by definition, already includes the cables?

As for a flex outlet plate, does it do anything? Can you carry out functional testing on it?

Or is it just a cosmetically acceptable alternative to one of these

{.....}

which does the same job, but looks naff?

Yes, functionally it's almost the same. But if a fused spur does not extend beyond the FCU as you have claimed, where is the exemption in schedule 4 for fitting either one?

And the tags on that last diagram illustrate the point. The exemption for a fused spur should extend right up to the socket, as the cable downstream of the FCU is part of the fused spur.

So can't the supply cable for the socket be an integral part of that any more?

Of course the cable supplying the socket can be an integral part of the work which consists of adding the socket. But that doesn't stop it from also being a part of the fused spur.

But if you changed the socket on that diagram for a flex outlet unit, the exemption under 2(c)(ii) for a socket would no longer apply. If the fused spur then stops at the FCU, what exempts the cable on the load side of the FCU and the flex outlet box?

The same thing that exempts cables and junction boxes integral to the installation of a socket.

But you've said that the fused spur doesn't extend beyond the FCU. How can the cable and outlet box then be part of the work consisting of adding a fused spur, if the fused spur ends at the FCU as you have claimed?

Are you talking about JBs which are integral to the work of adding something recognised by, and at the limit of the granularity of, Schedule 4?

Yes, the provision of a new junction box which relates to any "work consisting of" which is exempted by schedule 4. So it could be a junction box used to tap into an existing circuit to spur off for a new socket or light under 2(c), or it could be a junction box (including a flex outlet type) added while replacing some equipment under the exemption in 1(a).

For heaven's sake, if we need a law degree to enable us to decide whether something is notifiable or not, then truly the law is an ass and the lawmakers are even bigger asses.

Indeed. The mere fact that the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs is vague and open to interpretation in some respects shows how badly written the regulations are.

The Approved Document is supposed provided guidance on these issues, so if somebody followed the advice offered in that officially issued document, is it likely that it would be queried, even if it is wrong, as has been claimed here?

But in many cases nobody really gives two hoots about the minutia of whether some minor job is officially notifiable or not. They're just going to get on with it and do it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's not what you said earlier. You were claiming that "fused spur" is synonymous with "fused connection unit." You've also claimed that a fused spur ends at the FCU, implying that the feeder cable is part of the fused spur but not any cable downstream of the FCU.

Just what exactly do you think that the term "fused spur" includes?

[code:1]Socket ≡ socket. The exemption for "work which consists of adding a socket" necessarily includes exemption
for the cables, clips, box, junction boxes, crimps, blanking plates, conduit, trunking
capping etc which are an integral part of it.

Switch ≡ switch. The exemption for "work which consists of adding a switch" necessarily includes exemption
for the cables, clips, box, junction boxes, crimps, blanking plates, conduit, trunking
capping etc which are an integral part of it.

Light ≡ light. The exemption for "work which consists of adding a light" necessarily includes exemption
for the cables, clips, box, junction boxes, crimps, blanking plates, conduit, trunking
capping etc which are an integral part of it.

Fused ≡ FCU. The exemption for "work which consists of adding a fused spur" necessarily includes exemption
spur for the cables, clips, box, junction boxes, crimps, blanking plates, conduit, trunking
capping etc which are an integral part of it. [/code:1]

Yes, with either your interpretation or mine the result is a whole host of inconsistencies.

Show me mine. Specifically show me any which mine actually create.

You seem to be trying to read things into schedule 4 which aren't written there just to remove a few of them.

Such as?

Just because one interpretation of the regulations results in more inconsistencies does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is incorrect.

Not only is it incorrect, it is incorrect to the point of utterly perverse lunacy to deliberately seek to create inconsistencies.

The law is full of inconsistencies.

I'm concerned purely with the few lines which make up Schedule 4.

Saying that the cable is part of the socket and saying that the cable is a necessary part of work which consists of adding a socket are not the exactly same thing.

Within the context of what activities Schedule 4 exempt from notification it is.

Adding the cable is not part of adding the socket itself, but it is part of the work which consists of adding the socket. There's a subtle difference.

No there isn't.

So if you were adding a fused spur to feed a new socket, fitting the FCU to make the spur fused would also be part of your "atomic" work of a single, complete process.

If you decided that it was sensible to class a functioning device with protective device selection aspects as nothing more significant than a piece of choc-block.

But according to you, without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii), that would be notifiable because of the new FCU.

I find it hard to class a functioning device with protective device selection aspects as nothing more significant than a piece of choc-block.

We are dealing with what Schedule 4 is, and to see whether the way that it is works, which it does, 100% by treating "fused spur" the way I say.

One could speculate on how it would work were it worded differently, but even if we agreed with your assertion that adding a fused spur when adding a socket could be defined to be an integral part of the socket, thus we could easily remove the explicit reference to fused spurs, we are then, according to you, left with:

what would happen if all you wanted to do was to add an FCU - no other work of which it could be an incidental part, e.g. if you found an unfused spur with more than one socket on, and so you wanted to add an FCU before the sockets?

Then it would become notifiable.

It seems a bit rich for you to object to me saying the same as you.

But that's what you're doing with your interpretation that adding a fused spur for a socket would be notifiable but for the reference to "fused spur" in 2(c)(ii). The FCU would be a necessary part of the task of adding a socket on a fused spur, just as the cable is a necessary part of adding the socket on a fused or a non-fused spur. As you've just said, you can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways - I'm dealing with Schedule 4 as it is, not deciding that I don't want it to be as it is, and therefore rejecting definitions so that I can claim that it is faulty and thus claim legitimacy for proposing that it should be written differently, with more and more changes needed to resolve inconsistencies I keep creating.

I don't regard FCUs as trivial as a bit of choc-block, and neither does Schedule 4.

Given the fact of how Schedule 4 is, my explanation of what a fused spur is makes it all work perfectly well.

Your rejection of my explanation, and your suggested alternative of how Schedule 4 might be creates the problem of an FCU on its own becoming notifiable thanks to your removal of its exemption.

You said so yourself.

That is exactly my point with regard to your interpretation that fitting an FCU to add a socket on a fused spur would be notifiable but for the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii).

what would happen if all you wanted to do was to add an FCU - no other work of which it could be an incidental part, e.g. if you found an unfused spur with more than one socket on, and so you wanted to add an FCU before the sockets?

Then it would become notifiable.

Either:

(a) the ancillary items necessary to carry out the single task of adding a socket are implicitly exempt as "work which consists of adding a socket," and that would include both the cable and the FCU, or

(b) you would need to find an explicit reference which exempts both the cable and the FCU.

Which of those options would you like?

For your interpretation (b) regarding the FCU, you would then be left with the consequence that installing a socket on a non-fused spur would also be notifiable, because there's no explicit exemption for cable.

I wouldn't have any such problem at all, because I'm not tampering with the way that Schedule 4 is - I'm leaving the explicit mention of fused spur in there, which means I don't have to try and make it part of adding something else and I don't have to resolve a problem entirely created by you suggesting that the explicit mention of a fused spur be removed and simultaneously saying that I'd end up with a problem because your removal contradicted my position.

You can't challenge my position regarding Schedule 4 as it is by saying that it becomes invalid when applied to an alternative version of Schedule 4 which you've decided to create.

If you want the cable to be implicitly exempt, then you have to go with (a), which would also make the FCU implicitly exempt as a necessary part of the overall task of adding the socket.

I don't have to do anything of the sort because FCUs don't require an implicit exemption - they already have an explicit one in Schedule 4.

But you don't think that adding an FCU to install a socket on a fused spur would be an integral part of that task. You're introducing one of those inconsistencies which you dislike.

No I'm not.

I'm dealing with Schedule 4 as it is.

If you want to add a socket on a fused spur where is the inconsistency in the socket being exempt and the fused spur being exempt?

What doesn't work because fused spurs are explicitly mentioned?

That's what I said. They're an integral part of the work which consists of adding the socket, not an integral part of the socket itself.

Fine - then read Schedule 4 more precisely.

It's not the socket which is exempt from notification, it's the work which consists of adding the socket. If you want the exemption to apply to the actual adding of just the socket itself during that work then it has to apply equally to the actual adding of the cable.

But the location of a fused spur is not so simple when part of it is in a kitchen and part is not.

It is when you say that fused spur ≡‎ FCU.

Again I am offering you a definition which simplifies and which creates no inconsistencies and again you reject it purely because you don't like the word they used, and you persist in that rejection despite all of the problems which arise.

A socket is in one particular place. Arguments over the boundaries of an open-plan layout aside, either it's in the kitchen or it isn't.

Ditto for FCU.

But a fused spur can encompass an area in the kitchen and an area outside it.

An FCU cannot.

A socket is just a socket, and the cable is incidental in terms of being a necessary part of work consisting of adding the socket.

An FCU is just an FCU, and the cable is incidental in terms of being a necessary part of work consisting of adding the FCU.

An fused spur is just a fused spur, and the cable is incidental in terms of being a necessary part of work consisting of adding the fused spur.

The cable is not just such an incidental part though, it is an integral part of the collection of items which comprise a fused spur.

It is no more or less incidental than the cables for a socket.

You could install a socket with no cables. It would do SFA, but it would still be a socket. Because of the pointlessness of that it's obvious that the action labelled as "work which consists of adding a socket" encompasses the addition of all the necessary materials integral to adding a socket.

You could install an FCU with no cables. It would do SFA, but it would still be an FCU. Because of the pointlessness of that it's obvious that the action labelled as "work which consists of adding a fused spur" encompasses the addition of all the necessary materials integral to adding an FCU.

As such, a fused spur may be part in a kitchen and part outside it. Why, when a fused spur comprises both the FCU and associated cables, should its official location then be determined solely by the location of the FCU?

For exactly the same reason that when "work which consists of adding a socket" is examined for notifiability it is the location of the socket which is relevant, not the location of the associated cables.

Again we come back to a simple question: If the intent was that the FCU itself were accorded some special status in its own right, as in determining whether or not a fused spur is deemed to be within a kitchen or not, then why do the regulations not simply refer to a fused connection unit instead of a fused spur?

I don't know why they used that term.

All along I've taken your suggested alternative meanings, and suggested alternative wordings, and said "OK - if you're right what about.....".

Do me the same courtesy.

Schedule 4 can be regarded as a process which you run to produce a result, that result being a determination of whether the work you want to do is exempt.

What wouldn't work if Schedule 4 was worded like this: (non-electrical parts removed for clarity)

[code:1]1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of -
(i) any new fixed cabling, or
(ii) a consumer unit;

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit
protective measures are unaffected;

(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where the circuit
protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by the
increased thermal insulation;

(e) installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding;




2. Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location;

(b) does not involve work on a special installation; and

(c) consists of -
(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii) adding socket outlets and FCUs to an existing ring or radial circuit.


3. Work on -

(a) telephone wiring or extra-low voltage wiring for the purposes of communications,
information technology, signalling, control and similar purposes, where the wiring is
not in a special location;

(b) equipment associated with the wiring referred to in sub-paragraph (a);

(c) pre-fabricated equipment sets and associated flexible leads with integral plug and
socket connections.


4. For the purposes of this Schedule -

"kitchen" means a room or part of a room which contains a sink and food preparation
facilities;

"self-contained" in relation to a fixed building service means consisting of a single appliance
and any associated controls which is neither connected to, nor forms part of, any other fixed
building service;

"special installation" means an electric floor or ceiling heating system, an outdoor lighting or
electric power installation, an electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system
which is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of
the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994(a);

"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations,
seventeenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British
Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2008(b).[/code:1]

So you think that for legal purposes we can simply choose to redefine what a term means in legislation if it removes an inconsistency?

I'm not redefining anything - there is (despite what Stoday says) a huge amount of precedent of people using the term "fused spur" to mean FCU, and it is a perfectly realistic scenario, given that the legislation was instigated and defined by people who were, or had been, actual electricians rather than scientists, that when they asked the civil servants to add "fused spur" to the list of "lights, switches and sockets" they did indeed mean FCU.

And using that definition does make Schedule 4 work without any problems at all.

I'm not trying to get it to exempt any more or less at all, merely pointing out how it can be interpreted.

All of your interpretations lead to having to make changes to it to make it work, mine does not.

What would be any ulterior motive anyway? I've been against the entire mess of Part P from its inception, and as far as I'm concerned no electrical work in one's own home should be notifiable.

That may well be the case, but it would be reprehensible in the extreme for you to allow that to colour your judgement when it comes to dealing with Schedule 4 as it is.

This whole thing started, remember, because you were trying to find a way to declare the addition of new smoke alarms, i.e. new fixed electrical equipment, to be non-notifiable despite Schedule 4 as it is not doing that.

The law is pedantic over such "semantic inexactitudes."

OK - fine.

I'm just as happy with saying that "adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit, or adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit means adding any or all of those as I am with saying that "fused spur" means FCU.

But if you believe that the way Schedule 4(2) is written has to be taken exactly as it is if we can't proceed with it as if it were written differently, then I look forward to you informing people that they can't add just a light or just a switch - they have to add both for it to be non-notifiable, and that they can't add just a socket outlet or just a fused spur, it has to be both.

But "fused spur" does not mean just an FCU, as has been pointed out numerous times already.

I say it does, and saying that makes sense, is justifiable in terms of usage and is justifiable in terms of the operation of Schedule 4.

Why do you want to try and redefine "fused spur" to mean just an FCU when a fused spur, by definition, already includes the cables?

I'm not redefining it - I'm saying that's what it means. I'm changing nothing - I maintain that it has always meant that.

Yes, functionally it's almost the same. But if a fused spur does not extend beyond the FCU as you have claimed, where is the exemption in schedule 4 for fitting either one?

The same place as the exemption for fitting a junction box as an integral part of work which consists of adding a socket.

Of course the cable supplying the socket can be an integral part of the work which consists of adding the socket. But that doesn't stop it from also being a part of the fused spur.

As "fused spur" ≡‎ FCU then the cable is not "part of the fused spur" it's an integral part of the work which consists of adding the fused spur.

"fused spur" ≡‎ FCU may offend you with it's terminological inexactitude but it doesn't break the working of Schedule 4, it doesn't create inconsistencies with the say Schedule 4 describes and deals with sockets, switches and lights, it doesn't introduce any discrepancies with the way to deal with junction boxes and other ancillary items when used with fused spurs/sockets/lights/switches and it is not inconsistent with respect to what we know the intention of bringing electrical work within the scope of the Building Regulations was.

But you've said that the fused spur doesn't extend beyond the FCU.

"fused spur" ≡‎ FCU.

Can an FCU extend beyond an FCU?

Can a socket extend beyond a socket?

How can the cable and outlet box then be part of the work consisting of adding a fused spur, if the fused spur ends at the FCU as you have claimed?

In the same way that the cables are part of the work of adding a socket.

"Socket" consists of a socket supplied by cables.

"Fused spur" ≡‎ FCU.

"Fused spur" consists of a fused spur supplied by cables.

FCU consists of an FCU supplied by cables.

All of them "stop" at the point of the socket/light/switch/fused spur aka FCU, but all of them when considering "work consisting of..." incorporate the necessary addition of cables, boxes, clips, conduit, junction boxes, flex outlet plates aka junction boxes, trunking, capping, crimps, sleeving etc etc etc which are integral to the installation of the /light/switch/fused spur aka FCU.

With fused spurs aka FCUs there's no problem with designating a load cable and flex outlet plate as an integral part of what you install when installing a fused spur aka FCU.

There is a problem with saying that equipment supplied by the fused spur aka FCU is an integral part of what you install when installing a fused spur aka FCU, and that's what I meant - you were still trying to incorporate equipment supplied by a fused spur aka FCU into the fused spur aka FCU in order to make the installation of the equipment exempt via the exemption for fused spurs aka FCUs.

Yes, the provision of a new junction box which relates to any "work consisting of" which is exempted by schedule 4. So it could be a junction box used to tap into an existing circuit to spur off for a new socket or light under 2(c), or it could be a junction box (including a flex outlet type) added while replacing some equipment under the exemption in 1(a).

So in those situations it would be just as implicitly exempt as the cables, boxes, sleeving, crimps, capping, conduit, trunking etc etc.

The mere fact that the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs is vague and open to interpretation in some respects shows how badly written the regulations are.

It isn't vague etc, unless you reject the reasonable and explicable meaning of "fused spur".

It may very well describe a regime which you don't think should exist, or it may well describe a regime which you think is inconsistent (e.g. the kitchen/utility room nonsense), but that does not mean that the way it describes that regime is faulty within itself.

The Approved Document is supposed provided guidance on these issues, so if somebody followed the advice offered in that officially issued document, is it likely that it would be queried, even if it is wrong, as has been claimed here?

That the AD clearly contradicts [the law] means that in practice nobody would ever get done for following the AD, but it does not mean that the AD is right and what it says in the law is wrong.

 

[holmslaw]

Just a thought guys. What benefit does all this argument bring to people who want to use this forum for its intended purpose, which I naively thought was about diy? All that is apparent is an attempt to justify some huge egos. The rest of us are totally mystified. Can I suggest that you study law instead of electricity and leave the rest of us to use common sense. For heaven's sake, if we need a law degree to enable us to decide whether something is notifiable or not, then truly the law is an ass and the lawmakers are even bigger asses.

They enjoy spouting bollerx at each other, otherwise known as care in the community.

 

[Stoday]

They enjoy spouting bollerx at each other, otherwise known as care in the community.

I'm sure the old codgers will continue until one of them loses the faith or the will to live.