Definition of 'new circuit' (new notifiability - England)

[ericmark]

I raised the question with my son and his answer was if it needs an installation certificate then it's a new circuit and if it only requires a minor works then it's not a new circuit.

How does that sound?

 

[EFLImpudence]

How do you determine which certificate is required?



Without a clear definition it is up to the person doing it.

If there were any doubt I would err on the side of caution and notify as it costs £1.80.

If there were any doubt and it was going to cost £400 I would be less in doubt.

 

[SimonH2]

I raised the question with my son and his answer was if it needs an installation certificate then it's a new circuit and if it only requires a minor works then it's not a new circuit.

And is it clearly defined what work comes under which category ?

 

[JohnW2]

I raised the question with my son and his answer was if it needs an installation certificate then it's a new circuit and if it only requires a minor works then it's not a new circuit. How does that sound?

It sounds (to me) as if he's essentially just reworded the question, rather than answering it

The next thing you have to ask him is which works would need an EIC and which would only need a MWC - and then maybe try him with some of the 'grey area' examples we've been discussing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

If there were any doubt I would err on the side of caution and notify as it costs £1.80.

If there were any doubt and it was going to cost £400 I would be less in doubt.

And there's the nub.
As a scheme member you can notify pretty much anything for peanuts. As a member of the public, it would cost me a minimum of £150 (or £225 depending on whether my LABC would accept my test results) - it seems my LABC is less expensive than others.

So there's a big disincentive for a DIYer (or pro not in a scheme) to notify anything. Hence a financial disincentive for someone to get the oversight that notification is intended to achieve.

EDIT: Or alternatively, it's an opportunity for "Joe Public" to see that it appears to be intended to drive work to professionals - and so it's "clearly a money making scheme by the trade", and discredited (in the eyes of some) from what was clearly intended to be a safety measure. Under the old rules, certain sections of the trade didn't exactly act in a manner that would dispel that thought.

 

[ericmark]

So it would seem back to:-
New Circuit - A circuit for which there is no previous record.

However since you are not allowed to use a Minor Works for the replacing a distribution board and we have it would seem agreed that replacing sub boards in out building will not require notifying in the same was as a FCU does not require notifying then my sons idea does not hold true.

"120.3 Any intended departure from these Parts requires special consideration by the designer of the installation, and shall be noted on the Electrical Installation Certificate specified in Part 6. The resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations."

This means there will be times where an installation certificate will be issued even though it is not a new circuit.

When my son said it I thought "how easy" but on reflection I can see the flaws.

By reducing my definition removing any reference of the form of the record it should mean even when there are no formal records just a photograph before starting is a record of the circuit existing so showing it as not being a new circuit.

Maybe "A circuit for which there should have been no previous record."

If there were any doubt I would err on the side of caution and notify as it costs £1.80.

If there were any doubt and it was going to cost £400 I would be less in doubt.

Is the real point. The change in what needs to be notified was also it would seem going to reduce the price but until these fees and published people will try to avoid paying extortionate fees to the LABC.

I looked up Cheshire and it would seem charge is split into 4.
Plan Charge £50.83
Inspection Charge £123
Building notice Charge £153.33
Regularisation Charge £184
This is before vat and is other then "rewriting" sure spelling mistake and it should say rewiring! Date 2011-12 but nothing showing for new charges since the change. Clearly no good looking up my County charges as in Wales. Charging more than the work costs to do is really what killed the Part P notification and it is hoped a more reasonable charge is now levied?

With such ridiculous charges we can expect people to go to ridiculous lengths not to pay them.

 

[JohnW2]

When my son said it I thought "how easy" but on reflection I can see the flaws. By reducing my definition removing any reference of the form of the record it should mean even when there are no formal records just a photograph before starting is a record of the circuit existing so showing it as not being a new circuit.
Maybe "A circuit for which there should have been no previous record."

For a start, are we not back to what I recently wrote - that no definition like that can work unless/until you have first defined "A circuit" (i.e. 'a circuit in its own right' which is the 'grey area' issue in relation to many of the examples we have been discussing). What about the 'two outhouses' example that caused me to start this thread? If there was 'a record' of a supply to a mini CU in the first outhouse, but it was now proposed to take a feed from that to a second outhouse, is that new bit 'a circuit' (in its own right), in which case it would presumably be 'a new circuit', or is it merely an extension of a previously documented circuit.

Secondly, I think there will still be a very large number of cases in which there is 'no previous record' - whether certificates, photographs or whatever. What would you then do? Treat everything as a 'new circuit'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What happens if administratively you're in Wales but the shed at the end of your garden is in England? (I bet there's a garden somewhere with the border running through it. Or even a house, or was the Lion pub in Llanymynech the only such building where this happened?)

 

[JohnW2]

What happens if administratively you're in Wales but the shed at the end of your garden is in England?

If it were decided that it was notifiable work (in both England and Wales), that could be bad news - since it might be necessary to pay fees to two different LAs! However, that's not peculiar to the England/Wales border - it could equally well happen with any 'circuit' which straddled an LA boundary!

Of course, if it were the England/Wales border that was being straddled, and one were to decide that the work was notifiable in Wales, but not in England, then one could avoid one of the fees!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Charlie Kilo]

I know this is an old thread, but what if I move into a new build house which has 16mm SWA (off an appropriately rated protective device in the main CU in the house) running to a separate CU in the garage containing some other protective devices (let’s say a 20a and a 6a rcbo) with nothing yet connected to them?

If I wire up a radial for sockets for the 20a rcbo and one for lights for the 6a rcbo and get an electrician in to make the final connections, do I need building regs approval?

 

[JohnW2]

I know this is an old thread, but what if I move into a new build house which has 16mm SWA (off an appropriately rated protective device in the main CU in the house) running to a separate CU in the garage containing some other protective devices (let’s say a 20a and a 6a rcbo) with nothing yet connected to them? .... If I wire up a radial for sockets for the 20a rcbo and one for lights for the 6a rcbo and get an electrician in to make the final connections, do I need building regs approval?

[yes, a very old thread, which I started over 7 years ago ]

What you ask might turn out to be an 'interesting question'!

I'm assuming that you are in England, and that when you ask about "building regs approval" you are asking whether it is 'notifiable work'.

IF, instead of "... nothing yet connected to them" there was just one little thing (one socket, one light or maybe even just a junction box( connected to those RCBOs, then that teh would definitely mean that they were 'existing circuits, and you could extend them as much as you liked without the work being notifiable (in England).

However, some might argue that if there is nothing yet connected to the RCBOs, then there are not yet any 'circuits' to extend - in which case anything you did would create 'new circuits', which would be notifiable. I would personally find that argument rather silly, but will be interested to hear what others have to say!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I see your point, define new, so with a row of 14 RCBO's if the installer tests each RCBO with his RCD tester then they have been commissioned, and cease being new once that installation certificate has been raised, and with a populated CU once installed it would be impossible to say if any RCBO or MCB had been used in the past, so new circuit or not I think one would need to consider any existing MCB has at some time in the past been used, so not new circuits.

But what I am sure is more to point, is if you make an error and some one is injured or killed, what will the courts say! And courts tend to use common sense, and will likely avoid the question as to if new or not, what they would be interested with is the installation or minor works certificate or lack of them.

So the second consumer unit is no different to using a FCU to fuse down, they both form circuits and it seems the IET definition of circuit is not used for a FCU so it is questionable if a garage CU is considered any different to a FCU, and would be for the courts to decide.

So if we look at past court cases the Emma Shaw one it seems was all hinged around the skill of the person doing the inspection and testing, and the foreman using semi skilled labour, with errors being made not only with the inspection and testing but also the certificate. So we need to look at the minor works certificate, and the questions it asks, and to complete the certificate either you need to measure or inquire as to the impedance readings, RCD tripping times etc. If the person doing the work has ensured a minor works certificate is completed the there is a chance the courts will say reasonable care was taken, and blame will not be levelled at the installer, if there is no paperwork, then it would be assumed it was not tested and inspected, so the next questions are who did the work, who turned it on, and did the owner realise the work had not been tested? So in real terms Part P makes it easier to prosecute. But unless some thing goes wrong, no one is likely to know or care, when the certificates could not be found for last house, and I tried to get replacements, the council said it would take 6 months, and it became very apparent it was no more than a tax.

What would be more interesting would be where the LABC were informed and an accident still happened, would the LABC be taken to court? I did one job where the LABC were in charge, and they did not even visit and cast a casual eye over the work, the certificate simply arrived in the post, so what was the point in it all?

 

[JohnW2]

I see your point, define new, so with a row of 14 RCBO's if the installer tests each RCBO with his RCD tester then they have been commissioned, and cease being new once that installation certificate has been raised, and with a populated CU once installed it would be impossible to say if any RCBO or MCB had been used in the past, so new circuit or not I think one would need to consider any existing MCB has at some time in the past been used, so not new circuits.

As I said, it's just silly. If the RCBO or MCB had been connected by a few inches of cable to a socket that was never used (and had never been used) (or, as I said, maybe even just a JB), then I don't think anyone could argue that it wasn't 'a circuit', so that connecting new things would be 'extension of an existing circuit' (rather than 'creating a new circuit'), and hence would not be notifiable work.

I am afraid that I can't get excited or concerned about the situation that could be changed by a few inches of cable and a never-used socket!

But what I am sure is more to point, is if you make an error and some one is injured or killed, what will the courts say!

I think you worry far too much about such things. No-one is going to die, and no-one is going to find themselves in court, because they decided not to notify something which would not have been notifiable if that "few inches of cable and a never-used socket" had been present.

... So if we look at past court cases the Emma Shaw one it seems was all hinged around the skill of the person doing the inspection and testing, and the foreman using semi skilled labour ....

Again, I think you probably worry too much. Such court cases are incredibly rare, even when someone has died and, as we recently discussed, even in that case (stemming from about 14 years ago, I think) which you so often quote, the result of the conviction was an almost trivial sentence.

Today, I think you could get much the same fine for 'socialising' with people outside of your household, or for not self-isolating when told to!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Are you talking about using a pre-existing feed to a shed and connecting a new 'shed CU' to it? If so, then, yes, I would personally suggest that would not now be notifiable in England - the feed is not a new circuit, and (as just explained) nor would I consider circuits connected to that 'sub-CU' in the shed to be new circuits, either - and 'provision of' a new CU (rather than 'replacing a CU') is not something which is now said to be notifiable.

IF, instead of "... nothing yet connected to them" there was just one little thing (one socket, one light or maybe even just a junction box( connected to those RCBOs, then that teh would definitely mean that they were 'existing circuits, and you could extend them as much as you liked without the work being notifiable (in England).

However, some might argue that if there is nothing yet connected to the RCBOs, then there are not yet any 'circuits' to extend - in which case anything you did would create 'new circuits', which would be notifiable. I would personally find that argument rather silly, but will be interested to hear what others have to say!

Are you disagreeing with yourself in these two posts?

 

[ericmark]

Sorry I think maybe did not make my thoughts plain, I feel as @JohnW2 that the chances of a court case arising from not registered DIY work is very slim, there would I think need to be a death for it to go to court, and for there to be a death some one must have done some thing wrong.

But people do make errors, when working for GEC some temperature compensating cable went missing, looked like twin core flex, but it was not, and clearly some one thought it was standard flex, likely a fire would result if any current used, one would hope any inspector doing an EICR would realise blue and white cores means a special cable, but my point is it is the errors installing which is the problem, not if you have a completion or compliance certificate, and the problem is people are unwilling to have an EICR in case they are reported for DIY work. So it can do the reverse to what it was intended to do.

I think if a minor works or installation certificate is completed then likely the work is OK, some one when completing the certificate has been prompted to do the required tests, so likely OK, and as a tradesman not completing the certificate is the same as saying it's not done correctly. And if a certificate has been completed it says I thought everything was ship shape and Bristol fashion, even if it wasn't. So if a neighbour was doing an extension and asked me to do the electrics I would assume using LABC so would issue a certificate for the work to be forwarded to the LABC, if I don't issue one, then I am admitting I know it is not being done correctly.