LABC being uncooperative

[JohnW2]

Multimeters in resistance mode normally act as current sources. I just checked a couple of meters that were to hand and they both used currents of around 1.5mA in their most sensitive resistance mode. I don't think expensive meters are substantially different in this regard but i don't have one to hand right now to check. That means 1 ohm is 1.5 millivolt, 0.1 ohm is 150 microvolts and 0.01 ohms is 15 microvolts.

Yes, all true.

It's clear that battery voltage is not the limiting factor here. I strongly suspect the reason is that people expect to use multimeters on sensitive electronics and going any higher would risk damaging said electronics. Battery life may also be a concern.

Again true, and I agree that those may well be at least some of the explanations - although 'battery life' is presumably not an issue for many bench meters?

Your fluke meter by contrast gives a choice of 10ma or 250mA.

Mu 1562 give no 'choice' of test currents.

In fact, I'm a little confused about what it does do (per extract from manual below). The meter has no manual range selection. The first table below seems to imply that it auto-ranges between 20, 200 and 2000 ranges. However, the second table gives test currents for 7.5, 35, 240 and 200 'ranges' - so I don't know whether they are also 'auto-ranged ranges, or what!

However, some quick measurements indicate that when measuring 0.33Ω, 1Ω, 10Ω, 47Ω and 150Ω resistors with the 1562, the voltage across the resistors were (consistently) about 60 mV, 200 mV, 1.0 V, 0.9 V and 3.0 V respectively, implying test currents of about 200 mA, , 200 mA, 100 mA, 20 mA and 20 mA respectively, which is certainly consistent with that second table below.

In contrast, and heading in the direction you suggested above, when measuring a 1Ω resistor, a cheap DVM put only about 0.6 mV across the resistor, hence a current of about 0.6 mA Edit: I should have added that, despite the low current, the meter gave a roughly correct reading.

My bitter experience is that contacts don't behave like resistors.

Maybe not, but in the final analysis it's the resistance of the 'contact'/connection which matters, and (at least in my experience) one can certainly get ()with any meter) very appreciably changes in low resistance readings by just 'playing around' with the contact with the meter's probes.

You are probablly right it will err on the safe side, it's just likely to err sufficiently far on the "safe" side that you will have difficulting distinguishing a pass from a fail.

That may be true, but I have to say that, in my (limited) experience, even cheap DVMs usually give broadly similar answers to an MFT, give or take the variability (with both meters) due to 'quality of probe contact' discussed above.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Exactly. So what happens when their first inspection discovers the work is all crap.

That's their job - to inspect and determine whether or not the work is 'up to standard'. I presume that when that happens they indicate the problems and ask for them to be remedied (followed by a 're-inspection') and only issue a Completion Cert when they are satisfied with the work. As said, I don't know what is meant to happen if they are 'never satisfied'.

Yet again, my point is that, in the absence of crystal balls, they cannot possibly determine that the work is (will be) "all crap" without 'accepting the application', waiting until the work has at least started and then undertaking an inspection.

...or... It is all finished and the hidden parts cannot be inspected.

That's surely "their problem2 to avoid? Once they have been informed when the work is going to commence, they obviously must arrange for any required inspections to take place 'before it ios too late'. If 'covering up of work' is a possible issue, then I imagine what they (should) do (as they do for things like foundation trenches and underground drainage0 ask to be told when the work is 'ready for inspection, and not yet covered up' and indicate that the 'covering up' should not happen until they had inspected. If the person doing thw eork ignored that requyest, it would presumably be down to him/her to 'uncover it', for inspection (or else they wouldn't get their Completion Cert10.

Does the householder not have to wait for communication from BC before starting?

Well, as I said, I think that all the guidances I've seen (all of them that have addressed this point) seem to say that as soon as one has informed the LABC of when the work is to start, one can then get going with the work. As above, LABC might indicate that they must be informed (and work paused) when certain stages are completed, to facilitate inspections.

kind Regards, john

 

[EFLImpudence]

Right. So the conclusion is that no one knows and there is no way to find out.

 

[JohnW2]

Right. So the conclusion is that no one knows and there is no way to find out.

I suppose that depends upon what you mean.

We all know what the legislation says, (and doesn't say).

I have told you what all the 'guidance documents' (from individual LAs, various organisations and other third parties) say (and don't say).

On the basis of all that 'saying and not saying', the situation appears to be as I have been describing.

You seem to feel that there are other rules. regulations or practices (e.g. creating an ability for an LABC to 'not accept' or 'reject' a Building Notice before the work is done) that do not appear to exist in, or derive from, those source - so I suppose it is true to say that "no one knows" what leads you to those beliefs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

That was the problem. If the LABC allow you to inspect and test, then you can just get on with the job, if not then they stipulate where you must stop and wait for inspection, seem to remember they have 14 days, if not done in time you can continue.

But it means a 7 day job becomes a 3 week or more job. That was a problem with me. Also the waiting for power up.

As said in theroy anyone can DIY in practice only those where the LABC deem them as competent to do whole job including inspection and testing.

 

[JohnW2]

That was the problem. If the LABC allow you to inspect and test, then you can just get on with the job, if not then they stipulate where you must stop and wait for inspection, seem to remember they have 14 days, if not done in time you can continue.

As I implied, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask you to 'stop' before you render 'un-inspectable' (i.e.'cover up') something they would like to inspect - as they would do in the case of things like foundation trenches, underground drainage and RSJs etc.

But it means a 7 day job becomes a 3 week or more job. That was a problem with me. Also the waiting for power up.

As above, all they can reasonably do is to ask you to 'stop' before some aspects of the work become un-inspectable, which may involve delaying making good of walls, leaving floorboards loose etc. However, I can't see that they have the authority to prevent you 'powering up' and, even if they did, it would be essentially impossible for them to 'police that'.

Furthermore, on the basis of cases of which I'm aware, it seems that many/most BCOs are not particularly fussed about 'concealed cables', even if they have been 'covered up', either accepting what they are told or, at most, accepting photographic evidence. All they usually seem to want of the "I&T" is what would be done for an EICR - i.e. all th testing, together with inspection of that which is 'normally visible or accessible'

As said in theroy anyone can DIY in practice only those where the LABC deem them as competent to do whole job including inspection and testing.

You seem to be suggesting and implying that no 'unqualified' people never use the LABC route for notification of electrical work - but I personally know, or know of, a good few people who have done that successfully, and without significant hassle.

There are, of course, some 'problem LABCs' and 'problem BCOs' working for them, but it does seem that the process is usually far more straightforward and 'painless' than many seem to suggest.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is this what people are reading to form their views on the subject?

Approved Document P, 2013 England.
I don't like using such documents but there is nothing else apart from Regulation 12 which just tells the householder that he is "required to give a building notice or deposit full plans".

So, can 3.9 be achieved with merely a written notification from the householder - or is it just sumfin wot sumwun rote and the whole thing (especially since 2013) is totally meaningless?

 

[senfre_]

Is this what people are reading to form their views on the subject?

Approved Document P, 2013 England.
I don't like using such documents but there is nothing else apart from Regulation 12 which just tells the householder that he is "required to give a building notice or deposit full plans".

View attachment 310145

So, can 3.9 be achieved with merely a written notification from the householder - or is it just sumfin wot sumwun rote and the whole thing (especially since 2013) is totally meaningless?

Yes 3.8 and 3.9 are the sections that informed me when I initially started this thread. In plain English it states A) you have to notify the LABC before work begins B) the LABC (or their contractor) will do I&T during & after the works.

I'm inferring from your other replies that you don't think approved doc. P counts for much... my view is that it's much like the Highway Code which is de facto law, and a court would refer to it as such

 

[JohnW2]

Is this what people are reading to form their views on the subject? ... Approved Document P, 2013 England. ...
So, can 3.9 be achieved with merely a written notification from the householder - or is it just sumfin wot sumwun rote and the whole thing (especially since 2013) is totally meaningless?

Why not? How else could it 'be achieved' other than 'with merely a written notification'?

In terms of our discussion, App Doc P says nothing about the building control body being able to reject/refuse the notification/application, and what it says about what the building control body will (or may) do when they receive the notification sounds perfectly reasonable, and consistent with everything I've been saying.

What is not clear?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm inferring from your other replies that you don't think approved doc. P counts for much... my view is that it's much like the Highway Code which is de facto law, and a court would refer to it as such

But it is not; the only law is/are the bits in shaded green - actual Part P and Building Regulation 12.

It clearly states on the first pages that it is merely "guidance".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why not? How else could it 'be achieved' other than 'with merely a written notification'?

In terms of our discussion, App Doc P says nothing about the building control body being able to reject/refuse the notification/application, and what it says about what the building control body will (or may) do when they receive the notification sounds perfectly reasonable, and consistent with everything I've been saying.

What is not clear?

How does the BC do that by just reading that someone has stated they are going to replace their consumer unit?

 

[JohnW2]

I'm inferring from your other replies that you don't think approved doc. P counts for much... my view is that it's much like the Highway Code which is de facto law, and a court would refer to it as such

Whilst they would undoubtedly "take into account" what is written in Approved Doc P (and other guidances and opinions), I'm pretty sure that a Court would assert that it is the Court, and only the Court, that can rule on interpretation of the law.

I don't really understand what the confusion or argument is about. As EFLI has said, the law is clear enough on what has to be done - namely that notifiable electrical work has to be notified - and the bit of Approved Doc that EFLI posted is merely explaining what the building control body will (or may) do once that notification is given. As far as I can see, App Doc P says nothing more of relevance to what has to be done, or what will happen when it is done.

There have been suggestions of things that could happen (particularly 'rejection of' or 'failure to accept' a notification) which don't seem to exist in writing anywhere. Other than for 'qualified' electricians who happen not to be CPS members, I presume that essentially all of those who notify electrical work will be those 'without electrical qualifications' -so if, as has been suggested, a building control body could 'reject/refuse' a notification simply on that basis, the whole system would become nonsense.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

the whole system would become nonsense.

Too late.

 

[JohnW2]

How does the BC do that by just reading that someone has stated they are going to replace their consumer unit?

You appear to have forgotten to underline the crucial bits which indicate what the bits you have underlined relate to, so I've added (in blue) it for you below. Hence, on the basis of the information in the notification, the building control body has to decide what/how much I&T is required "on the basis of the nature of the electrical work and the competence of the installer".

The 'nature of the electrical work' is straightforward enough. As for "the competence of the installer", as I said I could not remember whether notification forms ask about qualifications, but it sounds as if they probably do (or, at least, would be 'asked about' as soon as one had submitted a Building Notice. On the basis of those two bits of information, they then decide upon "the extent of I&T required".

Per what I have recently written, I have never seen, anywhere (or heard of happening) a building control body 'rejecting' a Building Notice because of the lack of qualifications of the applicant - if they regard the qualifications (if any) as 'inadequate', they simnply arrnage for I&T do be undertaken by someone 'competent'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

If a diy installation fails an LABC third party inspection could the diyer be prosecuted for contravening the Building Regs?