Notifiable or not?

[ekmdgrf]

Rewire the circuit in the morning, then extend it after lunch.

It seems a rather silly rule anyway. It's hard to see how one can screw up a new circuit in such a way that one couldn't if one were to extend one.

 

[JohnW2]

Rewire the circuit in the morning, then extend it after lunch. It seems a rather silly rule anyway. It's hard to see how one can screw up a new circuit in such a way that one couldn't if one were to extend one.

As I said, we're talking about the law, not common sense!

Given that they seemingly wanted to keep just a few things notifiable, I suppose they were attempting to single out what they saw as 'major jobs' - 'replacement of a CU' was a fairly obvious one (although they forgot to include installation of a new CU!), and I suppose they thought that 'a new circuit' was also a potentially 'major job'. However, as you suggest, I think there are multiple flaws in that - which does, indeed, make it seem rather 'silly' to us mere mortals!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ekmdgrf]

As I said, we're talking about the law, not common sense!

Ahh yes, you've reiterated this several times For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with you!

(although they forgot to include installation of a new CU!)

Fail! I guess they also neglected to include "decommission existing CU", so one could "decommission" it in the morning and install a new one after lunch.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said, we're talking about the law, not common sense!

Ahh yes, you've reiterated this several times For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with you!

I fear it needs constantly re-iterating!

(although they forgot to include installation of a new CU!)

Fail! I guess they also neglected to include "decommission existing CU", so one could "decommission" it in the morning and install a new one after lunch.

That could certainly be argued. Neither 'removing a CU' nor 'installing a new CU' appear in the explicit list of works which are notifiable.

People who write legislation are usually a bit more clever than this at eliminating at least the more obvious potential loopholes. One can but presume that lack of adequate technical knowledge (or technical advice) has resulted in these sillinesses.

There are (or, at least, used to be) people around here who felt that a Court (not that it would ever get to court) would attempt to interpret the law in terms of the court's view of the 'intent' (despite the words!) of the legislation, hence making it less 'silly' - but I am far from convinced that they could get away with that when the actual words (the list of works which are notifiable) are so clear and explicit! To my mind, whilst Courts can interpret ambiguous or unclear legislation, they cannot over-ride ('re-write') clear legislation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

There are (or, at least, used to be) people around here who felt that a Court (not that it would ever get to court) would attempt to interpret the law in terms of the court's view of the 'intent' (despite the words!) of the legislation, hence making it less 'silly' - but I am far from convinced that they could get away with that when the actual words (the list of works which are notifiable) are so clear and explicit! To my mind, whilst Courts can interpret ambiguous or unclear legislation, they cannot over-ride ('re-write') clear legislation!

They may try to argue that any CU installation that supplies existing circuits is a "replacement".

 

[JohnW2]

There are (or, at least, used to be) people around here who felt that a Court (not that it would ever get to court) would attempt to interpret the law in terms of the court's view of the 'intent' (despite the words!) of the legislation, hence making it less 'silly' - but I am far from convinced that they could get away with that when the actual words (the list of works which are notifiable) are so clear and explicit! To my mind, whilst Courts can interpret ambiguous or unclear legislation, they cannot over-ride ('re-write') clear legislation!

They may try to argue that any CU installation that supplies existing circuits is a "replacement".

They may, indeed, try to argue that - and, in common sense terms, it would be hard to disagree with them for that. Whether 'a court' would (could) buy that, given such explicit wording of the legislation, is a more difficult question. It would have been so easy for the legislators to have written 'installing a CU', which would have covered everything, and would make sense, but they chose to write only of 'replacing a CU' - so a Court could well conclude that, for whatever reason, they must have meant exactly what they wrote!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Common Sense?
The guy is considering removing all the existing cable and installing completely new, but not just the original set up new, but the circuit is going to be under a greater demand and possible longer in length.

Like I said sounds like a complete new circuit to me, the old one has gone!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

In reality if you are removing the old circuits and installing new cabling, then that would sound to me like a new circuit rather than an old one. I doubt very much that the new cable replacing the old circuit would be a true representation of what was originally existing, therefore I would conclude in saying this was not a new circuit would be a little cheeky !

The CU in the garage exists.
It has two circuits which exist.

The cable of these circuits can be replaced - not a new circuit.
The circuit itself can be extended - not a new circuit.

Whichever is done first is irrelevant.

After the work there will still be two circuits.
They will be longer and consist of new cable but neither of them is new.

Abiding by the law is admirable.
Thinking of ways to be constrained by it when it is reasonable not to be is silly.

So it would be silly then to think that if a fuse board/CU that was existing, that you could swap it for another without notification!

By the way I am not disagreeing with you or anyone else on the legal aspect of this, and providing that the correct provisions are made regarding safety by design, construction and commissioning perfectly legal.

Just stinks a bit!

 

[JohnW2]

Common Sense?

Not Common Sense, but seemingly the word of the law.

The guy is considering removing all the existing cable and installing completely new, but not just the original set up new, but the circuit is going to be under a greater demand and possible longer in length.

Sure, but, even without removing+replacing the existing cable, he could extend the length of the circuit, and increase the demand on the circuit, as much as he wanted without anyone even dreaming that it would be notifiable work.

Indeed, what if he first effected all those extensive changes, as modifications/extensions to the existing circuit (not notifiable) - and then, at some point in the future, just replaced the bits that had been part of the original circuit (which by then may have become only a small part of the circuit as a whole) - would that second piece of work then be notifiable?

Like I said sounds like a complete new circuit to me, the old one has gone!

See above - what would be your view if it was done in two stages, as above, maybe a year or two apart?

We are clearly dealing with very poorly drafted legislation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

what would be your view if it was done in two stages, as above, maybe a year or two apart?

My views have not altered over the years. In my opinion all electrical work that involves the hardwiring of the installation should be notifiable, regardless of location, addition, alteration. replacing existing or completely new!
At the end of the day part p does say reasonable provisions should be made to prevent injury and fire.
How many of these people that do these alteration/addition, make those reasonable provisions and confirm the circuit or their work is safe?
Normally a case of it comes on!

We are clearly dealing with very poorly drafted legislation!

Because they who do this drafting are knobs!

 

[EFLImpudence]

We may agree with you but that's not how it is.

 

[JohnW2]

My views have not altered over the years. In my opinion all electrical work that involves the hardwiring of the installation should be notifiable, regardless of location, addition, alteration. replacing existing or completely new!

That's a perfectly valid view to have, which I respect, and would involve a lot fewer debates about interpretation, but is clearly nowhere near the apparent intent of the current legislators. There would, of course, even then probably be some who would trying playing with interpretations of the word 'hardwiring' - with lots of flex and plugs/sockets
,

At the end of the day part p does say reasonable provisions should be made to prevent injury and fire.

Almost, but they didn't even get that right! Part P does not say that reasonable provisions should be made "to prevent fire or injury". It says that reasonable provisions should be made "to protect persons operating, maintaining and altering the installation from fire or injury". That is rather different and, ironically, does not include any obligation to protect property or 'innocent third parties" (e.g. small children) from fire or injury!!

We are clearly dealing with very poorly drafted legislation!

Because they who do this drafting are knobs!

As I recently wrote, I don't think one can blame the writers too much - it's probably the poor quality (or absence) of technical advice/support they have which is the main problem.

As a matter of passing interest, what are your views about members of the general public being allowed to undertake work involving ladders, power tools and even hand tools without strict regulation and supervision? I need not tell you that such activities result in far more injuries and deaths than does any work related to electrical installations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

As a matter of passing interest, what are your views about members of the general public being allowed to undertake work involving ladders, power tools and even hand tools without strict regulation and supervision? I need not tell you that such activities result in far more injuries and deaths than does any work related to electrical installations.

But them in stocks and urinate on them!

 

[Astra99]

I recall bewigged judges having stated "The Law may be an ass, but the Law is the Law". Well, how about this. If the Law is an ass, then those who blindly enforce it must be ass-holes!

Unfortunately, the lack of application of common sense in all sectors of life has caused a great deal of legislation to be enacted, much of which is poorly written, subjective, open to interpretation and quite frankly, superfluous.

In my day, if you did something stupid and hurt yourself, you got a clip round the ear and were told to get on with it! You did not make that mistake again!

Nowadays if someone does something stupid and gets hurt, someone else HAS to be to blame. Get onto the No-Win-No-Fee brigade.

 

[JohnW2]

I recall bewigged judges having stated "The Law may be an ass, but the Law is the Law". Well, how about this. If the Law is an ass, then those who blindly enforce it must be ass-holes!

Quite so. As I said, my understanding is that if 'the word of the law' is unambiguous, even if totally stupid and ass-ridden, courts (i,e judges), no matter how wise and sensible, are powerless to do anything other than go along with it.

Unfortunately, the lack of application of common sense in all sectors of life has caused a great deal of legislation to be enacted, much of which is poorly written, subjective, open to interpretation and quite frankly, superfluous. ... In my day, if you did something stupid and hurt yourself, you got a clip round the ear and were told to get on with it! You did not make that mistake again! ... Nowadays if someone does something stupid and gets hurt, someone else HAS to be to blame. Get onto the No-Win-No-Fee brigade.

Indeed so. What confuses me is that virtually everyone I know or hear says/feels exactly the same about all that (i.e. as you write). If there is such a consensus amongst the general public, how/why has this situation been able to arise? Is it perhaps that politicians all believe that they know better than the general public as to what the general public 'wants'?!!

Kind Regards, John