Changing a garage 20A radial to a 32A ring

[ban-all-sheds]

I was not saying he has a legal right to decide if to comply with Part P, what I was trying to say it is a poorly written document

It would have been helpful if the law itself had contained some prescription on what was required for compliance, but other than that I'd not say that this was poorly written:

and so all we have for clarification is case law, since the only cases seem to be where there is something very wrong, or some one said they are scheme members when they were not, it is near impossible to second guess what the courts would say

The second of those two is an offence under the Misrepresentation Act, not the Building Act.

I think we all know what should be notified

Notification is a separate issue - I'm talking here about your "As to Part P that's up to you. I will not comment" being irresponsibly inadequate.

You should not tell people that it is up to them whether or not they make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering them from fire or injury.

OK in England the law has changed, but Part P was not written by the Welsh assembly, it was an English law which the English realised had gone OTT so modified it, but left the old one in force in Wales.

Part P is still the same in England and Wales.

You will note the poster has not set his location, so how can we really tell him what to do?

We can tell him that if he is in England or Wales it is a legal requirement that he makes reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering them from fire or injury, it is not a matter which is "up to him".

 

[JohnW2]

Notification is a separate issue - I'm talking here about your "As to Part P that's up to you. I will not comment" being irresponsibly inadequate.

We all know that eric talks of "Part P" when he is referring to notification requirements under the Building Regulations.

If you really feel the need to bring that to his attention yet again, why not just say so, rather than write a lengthy post in which you pretend to believe that he was really talking about "Part P"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

People still seem to think all WMs and TDs are 3kW.

Indeed. As I wrote recently, in yet another discussion about whether a double socket can safely provide a total of 26A, I pointed out that I, for one, would probably struggle to find two 3kW loads to plug in. 3kW TDs may still be around (but not mine) but, as I said, WMs and DWs tend to be 1.5-2 kW, and even that only for pretty short periods during their cycles.

Kind Regards, John

 

[wahwahboy]

Many thanks for all of the replies, having read over this and the IET forums I see that the notifiable questions always spark debate (pun intended).

In response to some of the posted questions:

1. The external garage CU is fed from the house via 6mm SWA cable, so that's from a 40A in the house CU to a garage CU with 4 circuits: 32A ring in a small conservatory (2.5mm), 2x 6A lights (garage and conservatory) and the 20A 2.5mm garage radial that I'm thinking of modifying.

2. I'm in Wales for the record. I see Part P applies to both but the building regs for Wales are more restrictive: http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/guides-and-advice/building-regulations/

However, none of those apply in my case, so it's just the semantics around a 'new circuit'.

3. I understand I'll just be able to check basic continuity, resistance of each conductor (r1, rn, r2) and R1+R2 with a multimeter by cross connecting Line and Earth to make a large loop, I've got a previous test cert for the house with the current value for the radial = 0.23 ohms for comparison. This is all done with no live connection.
Everything else (loop impedance etc needs a Megger) so would be an electrician's job.

The other option is to just leave it and put the washer in the garage and seeing how it goes but where's the fun in that.

Agree with all advice given tho', safety first and if in doubt get it checked out.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm in Wales for the record. .... However, none of those apply in my case, so it's just the semantics around a 'new circuit'.

Indeed, and that semantic 'uncertainty' (leading to varying opinions) has exactly the same implications in both England and Wales - even in Wales, 'extending an existing sockets circuit' is not notifiable (but, since it's not one of the things 'exempt from notification' in Wales, installing a 'new circuit' would be notifiable, as it is still in England)

Kind Regards, John

 

[deadshort]

Take a spur off the 32a breaker feeding the conservatory RF, and add a socket for the WM.

DS

 

[JohnW2]

Take a spur off the 32a breaker feeding the conservatory RF, and add a socket for the WM.

That would certainly eliminate any uncertainties about notifiability.

However, I suppose it depends upon how much power is, or may be, required in the conservatory - since everything in the garage and conservatory would still have to be accommodated by the 40A MCB feeding the 'garage (and conservatory) CU'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[wahwahboy]

Mmm I never considered that, I assumed (wrongly) that you can't spur directly off a mcb on a ring circuit.
I assume I just connect to the same CU neutral and earth terminal as the ring to make it obvious for any future inspection.

The conservatory sockets are not power hungry.. small appliances (radio/TV).

I'll sleep on it.
Sounds like a winner on all counts.

Ta very much.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you think that that will work?

Yep. In one or two sentences you could have reminded eric about his misuse of the term "Part P" and also ensured that Wahwahboy understood that the standards required by (real) Part P apply to both notifiable and non-notifiable work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It hasn't stopped him so far.

Indeed not, and I doubt that any amount of 'reminding' will change his ways.

However, as you said, the important thing is that an OP should be made aware of the truth - and, as I said that could be done (as well as 'reminding' eric, for what that's worth) in one or two simple straightforward sentences.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

We all know that eric talks of "Part P" when he is referring to notification requirements under the Building Regulations.

New posters might not know that.

 

[JohnW2]

New posters might not know that.

Indeed - and, as I said, BAS (or someone else) could clarify the situation for an OP in just one or two sentences.

A semi-sarcastic and lengthy post in which BAS pretends that he doesn't know what eric meant (but didn't write correctly) could easily fail to convey the important information to an OP.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What I wrote was not sarcasm - it was showing what the reality is about Part P, and how what Eric says about it is idiotically wrong.

I don't really know what to call what you wrote, but I do know that you were writing/implying things that you knew were not true. You know as well as I do that, although he persists in using incorrect terminology, he is in no way of the view that one has an option as to whether to undertake electrical work 'safely', as required by (the one sentence of) Part P - and no sane person would believe that such was what he was suggesting..

He is only slightly wrong. As we know, he persists in referring to 'Part P' when he actually means 'notification'. However, notification (dealt with in other parts of the legislation) only extends to electrical work because of the appearance of Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I think you'll find that everything I said about Part P was correct.

Indeed it was. However you knew that what you said about what eric had done was not true ...

You should not tell people that it is up to them whether or not they make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering them from fire or injury.

No - there is no causal relationship. Notification and Part P were introduced into the Building Regulations at the same time.

I can't see how a requirement to notify electric work could have been introduced before Part P existed. That sounds like a causal relationship to me.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Find me a version of the regulations from the past where Part P is there but no notification requirements are, and I'll accept that the former caused the latter. Until then I will continue, on the basis of all the evidence, to believe that the two were introduced together.

No one is denying that they came about simultaneously. Indeed, that was inevitable because of the 'causal relationship' between them ....

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the legislation does not contain separate explicit requirements for notification for each type of building work. Instead, the requirement for notification automatically exists for any type of building work specified in Schedule 1 (unless explicitly exempted).

Hence, the requirement for notification of electrical work arose because of (and at the same time as the addition of) the addition of Part P to Schedule 1. I therefore don't understand why you do not accept that the introduction of Part P "caused" ('automatically') the introduction of a requirement for notification of electrical work.

Kind Regards, John