Part P and building control

[Stoday]

BAS contends that the initial connection of fixed appliances such as a mains fire alarm (to return to the original post) are notifiable. The provision of an adjacent FCU is not (subject to etc).

This means that the notification is only concerned with the initial connection, since replacements are non-notifiable. That's trivial. The BC fee of, perhaps, £300 is not.

The law caters for this situation by the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex often translated as "the law is not concerned with trifles". Here the law uses Latin to ensure a specific meaning that cannot be posessed by the translation (some pedantic idiot saying that the issue has nothing to do with a dessert, for example). In practice, that means that the law cannot be used to determine trivial issues. Interestingly, the same maxim is used in the USA with the same meaning.

It seems to me that the AD has taken this maxim on board when it makes guidance that otherwise appear to frustrate the law.

In this context, the OP may install his fire alarms with little prospect of a problem since no court is likely to consider such a trivial issue as this initial connection when a replacement connection is explicitly non notifiable.

 

[Paul_C]

But as you keep pointing out, when your reading is applied then inconsistencies and superfluities appear which were not there before, which should be taken as a sign that the reading is flawed.

But your reading just raises different inconsistencies and superfluities. And just because an interpretation of official regulations raises such issues does not mean that the interpretation is incorrect. The law is full of inconsistencies.

Changing "replacing" to "installing" in that section would exempt more than just those things under discussion here though (i.e. more than the things mentioned in additional note h of the Approved Document).

True - they'd have to work in the stuff about location. Still not a hard thing to do, and still something they have chosen, more than once, not to do.

And equally, no opportunity has been taken to change the wording of the two clauses in 2(c). If the intent is that a fused spur may be installed only to feed additional sockets or lights, then why not say that? In fact why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses with the reference to fused spurs appearing only in the one which also refers to sockets?

But the reference IS there, and therefore the regulations DO NOT regard fused spurs as ancillary.

Yes, the reference is there, but the whole point is that if that reference were not there, then a fused spur would be ancillary to adding sockets or lights. So if, by your reckoning, despite the reference to fused spurs being there a fused spur may still not feed anything except a socket or a light without notification, then what is the point of including that reference?

But you can't apply my argument, because the regulations clearly do explicitly mention fused spurs and therefore they are clearly not ancillary.

And applying your argument, what work is exempted by the inclusion of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) which would not be exempt anyway if they were not so referenced explicitly and would therefore be just as ancillary as any other cable, junction boxes, and so on?

As above. Why do you consider, apparently, that installing a non-fused spur to feed an additional socket is implicitly exempt, but that installing a fused spur to feed the same socket would not be but for the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii)?

Adding sockets is not implicitly exempt, it's explicitly exempt.

Yes, exemption for the sockets themselves is explicit, but the addition of the cabling for the spur is implied.

And if the reference to fused spurs were not present in 2(c)(ii), adding sockets would still be explicitly exempt, whether on a fused spur or a non-fused spur. So again, what exemption has that reference to fused spurs added if, as you claim, a fused spur is non-notifiable only if feeding lights or sockets?

Who says that a fused spur stops at the FCU?

The fused spur is the FCU.

No it isn't. If you think that the term fused spur means only a fused connection unit, then you'd better check the definition.

If you spur off a ring to an FCU, then continue with fixed cabling to a socket outlet, do you think that the cable between the FCU and the socket is not part of the fused spur?

I thought you were happy with the idea that cables, backboxes, conduit etc were all ancillary?

Yes. I'm trying to establish why you mistakenly believe that a fused spur either ends at an FCU, or comprises nothing more than the FCU itself.

As connecting to the FCU in the kitchen would involve work which is in a kitchen, then by strict interpretation of schedule 4 it would be notifiable because of 2(a).

What if what you did was to lift the floorboards in the room above the kitchen and extend the lighting loop to somewhere outside the kitchen and added a light and a switch there? Would that be notifiable?

No. It meets the requirement of 2(a) as being work not in a kitchen.

What if you ran a cable from a room below the kitchen, up through a safe zone in a kitchen wall and into a room above the kitchen and added a socket there? Would that be notifiable?

No, because there is still no work being done within the kitchen itself, so 2(a) is satisfied.

If any inconsistencies start to creep in, how about considering just the location where you are adding the light or the switch or the socket, regard the cables necessary to support the installation of the light or the switch or the socket as "ancillary" and see if the inconsistencies go away?

But with these kitchen examples you're bringing 2(a) into play. The rest of this argument is about the interpretation of 2(c). If the condition set out in 2(a) is not satisfied, then 2(c) becomes irrelevant because to be exempt from notification the work has to satisfy the requirements of both 2(a) and 2(c) - And 2(b) of course.

If you're trying to argue about the precise meaning of 2(c), you shouldn't be trying to find inconsistencies between two situations in which 2(a) is satisfied in one but not the other. You need to compare situations in which 2(a) is satisfied in both cases.

The regulations clearly do not regard FCUs as "ancillary", and it's only when you try to say that they actually meant them to be despite what they wrote that all of your inconsistencies emerge.

The regulations in schedule 4 don't actually mention FCU's at all, they refer to fused spurs, of which an FCU will form a part.

Again, a fused spur is not just an FCU.

But a switch is just a switch. The cable running to the switch, and anything which happens to be connected to that cable is clearly not part of the switch. A fused spur involves more than one individual item.

No it doesn't.

So this is the basis of your argument, that "fused spur" in 2(c)(ii) actually means "fused connection unit" and not fused spur at all?

What was that you were saying about just reading what's written? It says "fused spur." It doesn't say "fused connection unit."

How so? The condition in 2(a) would still apply.

No it wouldn't, because the FCU would become a non-item - it would become "ancillary" to the installation of something else and therefore just a necessary part of the something else and therefore the notifiability would be determined entirely by the nature and location of the something else.

So if I run a cable from, say, a hallway to a utility room, and that cable is surface run in trunking on the wall of the kitchen, do you think that it would satisfy the requirement of 2(a) as being work not in a kitchen?

What if you had a crawl space, you installed the hall socket, brought the cable up to a kitchen socket location and then went into the kitchen to remove the socket and connect the new cable? Do you actually believe that the legal interpretation of Schedule 4 means that would be notifiable?

Yes. 2(a) says that the work must not be in a kitchen. What is making a connection into the back of a socket located in a kitchen if it isn't work in a kitchen?

reading "fused spur" as equivalent to "BS 1363 fused connection unit" creates no problems of conflicts or inconsistencies within the regulations whatsoever - everything hangs together and everything just works.

Other than the glaring inconsistency that "fused spur" is not equivalent in meaning to "BS1363 fused connection unit," that it has not been so through decades of fused spurs being installed, and that throughout those decades the IEE Wiring Regs. have clearly not supported such equivalency of precise meaning.

And for those who are fans of the "we must divine what their intentions really were" consider that the list of what is/is not notifiable where/where not was provided by the electrical contracting industry, and in that the term "fused spur" is synonymous with "FCU" - we see it all the time.

It is not synonymous, other perhaps than in the sort of colloquial use when asking for an FCU. Go and see how the IEE has used the term in any of the applicable books since at least the 13th edition.

If you're keen on trying to cut through to "what was really intended", when the industry bodies were asked "what do you think people should be allowed to add outside of kitchens and special locations without notification" and they replied "lights, switches sockets and fused spurs", what do you really think they meant by the latter?

As the industry in general in this country revolves around the IEE Wiring Regs./BS7671, I think it's reasonable to assume that they meant it in the same way as the term has been used by the IEE for decades. And that means that a fused spur is not just the FCU.

By the way, if you think that a fused spur comprises nothing more than an FCU, then what do you think a non-fused spur is?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But your reading just raises different inconsistencies and superfluities.

Within, and only within, the context of Schedule 4, what are those inconsistencies and superfluities?

And equally, no opportunity has been taken to change the wording of the two clauses in 2(c).

Maybe because they're happy that it's correct.

If the intent is that a fused spur may be installed only to feed additional sockets or lights, then why not say that?

If that was the intention then saying that would be superfluous, as sockets and lights are already mentioned, as they would have to be for scenarios not involving a fused spur.

In fact why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses with the reference to fused spurs appearing only in the one which also refers to sockets?

No idea.

I don't think it needs to be, it just is. Maybe they structure legislation like that to make it easier to insert amendments later on.

Doesn't change the meaning.

Yes, the reference is there, but the whole point is that if that reference were not there, then a fused spur would be ancillary to adding sockets or lights.

FGS - yes, that is the whole point.

It is there and with it there nothing is coming off the rails - you can't complain that if you took it away things would come off the rails.

So if, by your reckoning, despite the reference to fused spurs being there a fused spur may still not feed anything except a socket or a light without notification, then what is the point of including that reference?

Because that is what they wanted.

Start with that as a given and proceed from there and nothing stops working, no inconsistencies arise.

And applying your argument, what work is exempted by the inclusion of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) which would not be exempt anyway if they were not so referenced explicitly and would therefore be just as ancillary as any other cable, junction boxes, and so on?

The addition of a fused spur to a socket circuit in a kitchen to supply an existing socket currently on a different circuit.

I could come up with all sorts of examples, but there would be no point.

The FACT is that fused spurs are NOT classed as "ancillary". No matter how much you think they could, or should be that FACT will not change.

So it is utterly pointless to say "Ah, but what if..." when trying to read the regulations AS THEY ARE in a way which is internally self-consistent.


I am not trying to establish whether there was or was not any logic or consistency in the principles they applied when devising the regulations - there's no point, because no matter how flaky, the regulations are what the regulations are, so we can do nothing but proceed with how they ARE and read them in a way which is internally consistent with what they ARE.

Not consistent with what you, or anyone else, thinks should have been a different set of original guiding principles.

Not consistent with what a document which is not the law and which cannot change the law says.

Just what is consistent within the scope of Schedule 4 and no further.

And if the reference to fused spurs were not present in 2(c)(ii), adding sockets would still be explicitly exempt, whether on a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

If if if....

If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle.

Why, whenever you are trying to argue against my reading of the regulations as they are written do you keep on trying to say "Ah, but what if they weren't written that way?

Why do you keep on trying to say "Ah, but what if they didn't mean that and what if we then make changes to resolve the problems that changed reading creates"?

Schedule 4 says what it says, and there is no way to arrive at what it means as written by speculating on what it might mean if it were written differently.

So again, what exemption has that reference to fused spurs added if, as you claim, a fused spur is non-notifiable only if feeding lights or sockets?

Where have I claimed that?

I've said all along that a fused spur is a discrete item. It may or may not be notifiable, but whether it is or not is not affected by what connects to it and the notifiability of what connects to it is not affected by it.

No it isn't. If you think that the term fused spur means only a fused connection unit, then you'd better check the definition.

The definition where?

In the document under discussion, e.g. the Building Regulations? There isn't one.

Yes. I'm trying to establish why you mistakenly believe that a fused spur either ends at an FCU, or comprises nothing more than the FCU itself.

Because I believe that a fused spur is an FCU. Which I guess could be something other than the BS 1363 type accessory we all know and love, but I've never seen anything else. I wonder if a fused 3-gang socket counts as one?

Doesn't matter, whatever it is, it is, and it is a discrete item. It is one thing which you add to a circuit, and as we are both agreed the cable(s) supplying it are what we have come to call "ancillary".

Whatever you connect to it is also a discrete item. It is one thing which you add to a circuit, and as we are both agreed the cable(s) supplying it are what we have come to call "ancillary".

And all along, all of that is completely self-consistent and creates no inconsistencies or superfluities within the context of Schedule 4

What if what you did was to lift the floorboards in the room above the kitchen and extend the lighting loop to somewhere outside the kitchen and added a light and a switch there? Would that be notifiable?

No. It meets the requirement of 2(a) as being work not in a kitchen.

So you can connect a new cable to the JB in the kitchen ceiling which the kitchen lights are on, and that is not work in a kitchen because it's going off somewhere else, but you could not connect a new cable, going off somewhere else, to an FCU in the kitchen wall because that is work within a kitchen?

I thought you said that cables were ancillary, and they gain their exemption from notification by virtue of the item you're installing - in this case a light in a conservatory?

What if you ran a cable from a room below the kitchen, up through a safe zone in a kitchen wall and into a room above the kitchen and added a socket there? Would that be notifiable?

No, because there is still no work being done within the kitchen itself, so 2(a) is satisfied.

So chasing a wall in a kitchen and burying a cable in it is not work within a kitchen?

What about the situation with the hall socket? If you choose to kneel in the kitchen and work under that floor to ad a JB does that make it notifiable whereas if you kneeled a few feet away in the hall it would not be?

What if you had a crawl space, you installed the hall socket, brought the cable up to a kitchen socket location and then went into the kitchen to remove the socket and connect the new cable? Do you actually believe that the legal interpretation of Schedule 4 means that would be notifiable?

Yes. 2(a) says that the work must not be in a kitchen. What is making a connection into the back of a socket located in a kitchen if it isn't work in a kitchen?

The socket you are adding is in the hall, and therefore not notifiable, and I thought you were happy that the cable supplying it was "ancillary", and got its notifiable status from the socket you were installing? You said above that connecting a conservatory light to a kitchen light would be non-notifiable.

But then you also said that connecting a conservatory light to a kitchen FCU would be notifiable.

But with these kitchen examples you're bringing 2(a) into play. The rest of this argument is about the interpretation of 2(c). If the condition set out in 2(a) is not satisfied, then 2(c) becomes irrelevant because to be exempt from notification the work has to satisfy the requirements of both 2(a) and 2(c) - And 2(b) of course.

If you're trying to argue about the precise meaning of 2(c), you shouldn't be trying to find inconsistencies between two situations in which 2(a) is satisfied in one but not the other. You need to compare situations in which 2(a) is satisfied in both cases.

I'm not.

I'm trying to show, with considerable success, that you're not very good when it comes to looking at things consistently.

The regulations in schedule 4 don't actually mention FCU's at all, they refer to fused spurs, of which an FCU will form a part.

Again, a fused spur is not just an FCU.

What is it then?

The cable supplying it is "ancillary", so it can't be that as well.

If we stick with my reading, there are no inconsistencies or superfluities.

If we go with yours there are.

So this is the basis of your argument, that "fused spur" in 2(c)(ii) actually means "fused connection unit" and not fused spur at all?

What was that you were saying about just reading what's written? It says "fused spur." It doesn't say "fused connection unit."

Go into a wholesaler, ask for a fused spur, see what they give you.

Give an electrician a box full of cables, FCUs, sockets, light switches, luminaires, smoke alarms, fans, panel heaters, flex outlets, junction boxes, ceiling roses etc. Ask him to pass you a fused spur - see what he digs out for you.

Think about who the civil servants would have consulted when drafting the regulations, and when they told them "fused spurs", what they meant by that. (Note - a meaning consistent with what's actually written in Schedule 4 would be handy...)

So if I run a cable from, say, a hallway to a utility room, and that cable is surface run in trunking on the wall of the kitchen, do you think that it would satisfy the requirement of 2(a) as being work not in a kitchen?

I do.

Don't you?

Other than the glaring inconsistency that "fused spur" is not equivalent in meaning to "BS1363 fused connection unit," that it has not been so through decades of fused spurs being installed, and that throughout those decades the IEE Wiring Regs. have clearly not supported such equivalency of precise meaning.

True - I shouldn't have been that specific. It encompasses BS 1363 fused connection units, but could be any accessory with a fuse in it which is designed to allow the connection of equipment or other accessories their supply cables being protected by the fuse.

As the industry in general in this country revolves around the IEE Wiring Regs./BS7671, I think it's reasonable to assume that they meant it in the same way as the term has been used by the IEE for decades. And that means that a fused spur is not just the FCU.

So faced with a choice between a definition which is in very common use, particularly among the people who would have been asked what should go into Schedule 4 (or 2B as was), and which makes absolutely everything in Schedule 4 100% consistent, and a definition which makes Schedule 4 ambiguous and inconsistent and gives it clauses which are superfluous, and then requires you to start changing how it's written to have it make more sense, you're going to choose the latter?

Not much point ever trying to get you to look at this logically, is there? You and logic are total strangers.

By the way, if you think that a fused spur comprises nothing more than an FCU, then what do you think a non-fused spur is?

There's no mention of non-fused spurs in Schedule 4, so they are not relevant to a discussion of what Schedule 4 means, but within the context of Schedule 4, and without involving items previously agreed to be ancillary, and without creating any new inconsistencies or superfluities with respect to what's already there, can you tell me what you think a non-fused spur might be?

 

[Paul_C]

In this context, the OP may install his fire alarms with little prospect of a problem since no court is likely to consider such a trivial issue as this initial connection when a replacement connection is explicitly non notifiable.

And he could install them - or almost anything else which none of us would try to argue is not notifiable under the rules - with little prospect of a problem anyway because the chances of anyone finding out it before the statute of limitations on enforcement runs out are extremely slim. And so long as the work is safe (i.e. meets the basic requirement of Part P), even then there's little chance of much happening.

 

[Paul_C]

Within, and only within, the context of Schedule 4, what are those inconsistencies and superfluities?

The fact that by your interpretation the presence of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) doesn't exempt anything which would not be exempt without that reference, other than, perhaps, the fitting of a fused spur which doesn't actually have any load connected to it.

But by your version of what "fused spur" means, even that isn't exempt if the fused spur extends beyond the FCU, e.g. to a flex outlet plate which is being fitted in anticipation of a future addition of some appliance.

And equally, no opportunity has been taken to change the wording of the two clauses in 2(c).

Maybe because they're happy that it's correct.

Maybe. If they think that unclear wording in which words obviously aren't being used to mean the same as they mean elsewhere within the same document is "correct" and doesn't need improvement.

If the intent is that a fused spur may be installed only to feed additional sockets or lights, then why not say that?

If that was the intention then saying that would be superfluous, as sockets and lights are already mentioned, as they would have to be for scenarios not involving a fused spur.

Yes, sockets and lights are mentioned explicitly, because they need to be so mentioned to be exempt when connected on a non-fused spur. So if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to exempt something other than sockets and lights on a fused spur, why does there need to be a reference to fused spurs at all?

It makes no sense to say that the reference to fused spurs is there to allow for the connection of sockets and lights on a fused spur, because additional sockets and lights are already exempt explicitly, for any type of spur.

I don't think it needs to be, it just is. Maybe they structure legislation like that to make it easier to insert amendments later on.

Doesn't change the meaning.

It makes the various and inconsistent use of conjunctions add to the confusion though. "And" as used within 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) is clearly not meant to convey the same precise meaning as "and" used to join 2(a), (b), and (c), otherwise adding a light without also adding a switch would be notifiable, and adding a socket without adding a fused spur would too. I would suggest that "lights and switches" in 2(c)(i) should really say "lights or switches" and that "socket outlets and fused spurs" in 2(c)(ii) should be "socket outlets or fused spurs." They used "or" between 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii), because clearly the intent was not that lights could be added only if sockets were being added too, or vice versa. So why the confusing, and conflicting use of "and" within 2(c)(i) and (ii)?

And applying your argument, what work is exempted by the inclusion of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) which would not be exempt anyway if they were not so referenced explicitly and would therefore be just as ancillary as any other cable, junction boxes, and so on?

The addition of a fused spur to a socket circuit in a kitchen to supply an existing socket currently on a different circuit.

How does the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) exempt the addition of a fused spur within a kitchen when the condition in 2(a) would not be satisfied?

The FACT is that fused spurs are NOT classed as "ancillary". No matter how much you think they could, or should be that FACT will not change.

The fact is that the regulations don't talk about ancillary equipment and fittings at all. We're just taking it that installing cable, for example, is taken as being exempt in conjunction with the specific work which is listed a non-notifiable, otherwise it would make absolutely no sense at all because everything would end up being notifiable anyway, unless the cable just happened to already be in place.

I am not trying to establish whether there was or was not any logic or consistency in the principles they applied when devising the regulations - there's no point, because no matter how flaky, the regulations are what the regulations are, so we can do nothing but proceed with how they ARE and read them in a way which is internally consistent with what they ARE.

Well, perhaps we can agree that there was little logic or consistency in drawing up the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs at least, which is what I've said ever since seeing the first proposals of them in 2004. Yes, they are what they are, but it's the interpretation of what they are which is the problem.

And if the reference to fused spurs were not present in 2(c)(ii), adding sockets would still be explicitly exempt, whether on a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

If if if....

Yes, because posing a "What if" question might give a reason for something being included. If adding something to the rules did not change the final meaning of those rules, then there would be no point in adding it. If adding a reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) did not change anything about what would be notifiable compared to the version of 2(c)(ii) without such a reference, then adding that reference would serve no useful purpose.

Schedule 4 says what it says, and there is no way to arrive at what it means as written by speculating on what it might mean if it were written differently.

Unless you accept the reasonable assumption that things are added to it for a reason. If adding something changes nothing, why add it?

So again, what exemption has that reference to fused spurs added if, as you claim, a fused spur is non-notifiable only if feeding lights or sockets?

Where have I claimed that?

O.K., so you've accepted that one can add a fused spur which consists of the cable and an FCU. Without being able to connect something to that FCU without notification (sockets, lights, and switches excepted), what useful purpose would that serve?

As I said before, the only possible use to which that exemption could be put would be something like a case of a room being refurbished and the owner making provision for some appliance to be connected at a future, as yet unknown, time.

I've said all along that a fused spur is a discrete item.

But it isn't. A fused spur comprises multiple items, the precise number depending upon the nature of the fused spur.

The definition where?

The definition as used throughout the electrical industry in this country since the term first came into use.

In the document under discussion, e.g. the Building Regulations? There isn't one.

So what are we to assume that "fused spur" in those regulations means, if the regulations themselves don't make a specific definition which can override any other definition?

Because I believe that a fused spur is an FCU.

Then you believe incorrectly. An FCU might well be used to create a fused spur, but a fused spur is not just an FCU. Just try and find anything in BS7671, the former IEE Wiring Regs. etc. which defines it as such.

Which I guess could be something other than the BS 1363 type accessory we all know and love, but I've never seen anything else. I wonder if a fused 3-gang socket counts as one?

Well, that would be exempt anyway! But I would say that it would count. As would fitting a BS1363 (or indeed any type) of fuse module in a grid along with some other accessory. One could even use a small DIN-rail box with a BS1361 fuse carrier, however rare such a use might be. The result would still be the creation of a fused spur - And at the very least that includes all the cabling downstream of the fuse as far as the point of utilization.

Doesn't matter, whatever it is, it is, and it is a discrete item. It is one thing which you add to a circuit, and as we are both agreed the cable(s) supplying it are what we have come to call "ancillary".

Whatever you connect to it is also a discrete item. It is one thing which you add to a circuit, and as we are both agreed the cable(s) supplying it are what we have come to call "ancillary".

And what about the cable on the load side of the FCU or other means of providing fusing? What if I run a spur to an FCU, then continue with a cable to a box which is blanked off in anticipation of a future addition of a "whatever" at that point. You've said before both that the fused spur is the FCU, or that the fused spur stops at the FCU.

So do you consider that this job would be notifiable, because of the cable I've run from the FCU to a box? Or do you think it's still non-notifiable because of that load-side cable being an ancillary accessory which is a necessary part of the job of installing the fused spur?

So you can connect a new cable to the JB in the kitchen ceiling which the kitchen lights are on, and that is not work in a kitchen because it's going off somewhere else, but you could not connect a new cable, going off somewhere else, to an FCU in the kitchen wall because that is work within a kitchen?

A junction box in the ceiling void isn't within the kitchen. The FCU on the kitchen wall is.

I thought you said that cables were ancillary, and they gain their exemption from notification by virtue of the item you're installing - in this case a light in a conservatory?

I said that we're assuming that cable are ancillary, in terms of being a necessary part of installaing additional sockets, lights, or other non-notifiable items. But that is still all subject to the requirement of 2(a).

What if you ran a cable from a room below the kitchen, up through a safe zone in a kitchen wall and into a room above the kitchen and added a socket there? Would that be notifiable?

No, because there is still no work being done within the kitchen itself, so 2(a) is satisfied.

So chasing a wall in a kitchen and burying a cable in it is not work within a kitchen?

I was thinking in terms of fishing a cable up through the wall. But yes, I suppose if you are going to chase into a brick/plaster wall in the kitchen and then make good, it would be work in a kitchen. Depends where you define the limits of the kitchen to be, I guess. Is it the surface of the wall? A certain depth below the surface? A point midway between the finished surface and the surface on the other side?

What about the situation with the hall socket? If you choose to kneel in the kitchen and work under that floor to ad a JB does that make it notifiable whereas if you kneeled a few feet away in the hall it would not be?

Well, I think we'll agree that that would definitely be absurd! It has to be based on where the electrical materials are being installed, not on where one stands, sits, lies, crawls, etc. in order to install them.

The socket you are adding is in the hall, and therefore not notifiable, and I thought you were happy that the cable supplying it was "ancillary", and got its notifiable status from the socket you were installing? You said above that connecting a conservatory light to a kitchen light would be non-notifiable.

But in this case the kitchen socket is clearly within the kitchen, so surely connecting anything into that socket would constitute work in a kitchen, and thus fall foul of 2(a)?

But then you also said that connecting a conservatory light to a kitchen FCU would be notifiable.

Again, the FCU would be within the kitchen and subject to 2(a). Fitting a junction box into the lighting circuit in the void above the kitchen would not count as work within the kitchen. Unless you want to apply some "midway" definition of where the limits of the kitchen end, e.g. a point halfway between the top of the kitchen ceiling and the bottom of the floor below.

I'm trying to show, with considerable success, that you're not very good when it comes to looking at things consistently.

It's hard to apply consistency to an argument when there is no consistency and preciseness in the regulations to begin with.

The regulations in schedule 4 don't actually mention FCU's at all, they refer to fused spurs, of which an FCU will form a part.

Again, a fused spur is not just an FCU.

What is it then?

The cable supplying it is "ancillary", so it can't be that as well.

Yes, it is. If you run a cable from an existing ring to an FCU, then that cable forms part of the fused spur. As does the cable on the load side of the FCU. The fact that we're regarding the cable as being ancillary material implicitly included in certain exempt works doesn't alter that.

Go into a wholesaler, ask for a fused spur, see what they give you.

Go into many places these days and ask for an RJ-45 jack and see what they give you. It doesn't mean that what they are mistakenly calling an RJ-45 jack and what they give you is actually an RJ-45 jack.

Give an electrician a box full of cables, FCUs, sockets, light switches, luminaires, smoke alarms, fans, panel heaters, flex outlets, junction boxes, ceiling roses etc. Ask him to pass you a fused spur - see what he digs out for you.

Ditto. Colloquial mis-application of a term does not alter what that term really means.

Think about who the civil servants would have consulted when drafting the regulations, and when they told them "fused spurs", what they meant by that. (Note - a meaning consistent with what's actually written in Schedule 4 would be handy...)

You mean all those in the U.K. electrical industry, who know that the IEE/BS7671 definition of a fused spur has always included more than just an FCU?

So if I run a cable from, say, a hallway to a utility room, and that cable is surface run in trunking on the wall of the kitchen, do you think that it would satisfy the requirement of 2(a) as being work not in a kitchen?

I do.

Don't you?

Arguments over cables buried in walls aside, surely a cable run on the surface of a kitchen wall has to count as work within a kitchen? It is the fitting of electrical apparatus within the kitchen. We're talking about a cable which would, other than its location, be assumed to be non-notifiable as a necessary part of work carried out under an exemption in 2(c), but 2(a) specifically says that work in a kitchen is notifiable (unless it falls under some other exemption, such as replacement of accessories etc.).

So faced with a choice between a definition which is in very common use, particularly among the people who would have been asked what should go into Schedule 4 (or 2B as was),

As noted above, those within the industry who would have been consulted should be fully aware of what "fused spur" is taken to mean, given the way it's been used for at least half a century. Just because others use the term loosely and rather incorrectly to refer to a specific item which is used in creating a fused spur would hardly be a good reason for them to throw out the proper definition.

If they intended the exemption in 2(c)(ii) to refer to a fused connection unit alone, and not the complete fused spur, don't you think they would have written "fused connection unit" instead? Or do you really think that those in the industry, knowing that they were writing something for official legal purposes, just decided that it was better to misuse a term which has been clearly defined for decades, and avoid using another term - "fused connection unit" - which would make their intended meaning perfectly clear? I don't think so. If they wrote "fused spur," then it's because they meant "fused spur" - As has been the IEE's accepted definition of the term for at least half a century.

Not much point ever trying to get you to look at this logically, is there? You and logic are total strangers.

So logically, why do think that those who are rather intimately familiar with BS7671 would just take a term which has been in use in official (or at least semi-official) use for decades and decide to make it mean something else?

There's no mention of non-fused spurs in Schedule 4, so they are not relevant to a discussion of what Schedule 4 means, but within the context of Schedule 4, and without involving items previously agreed to be ancillary, and without creating any new inconsistencies or superfluities with respect to what's already there, can you tell me what you think a non-fused spur might be?

It's the same thing as a fused spur, but without the fuse. Simple, really.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact that by your interpretation the presence of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) doesn't exempt anything which would not be exempt without that reference, other than, perhaps, the fitting of a fused spur which doesn't actually have any load connected to it.

Or a fused spur which does have a load to it.

If you regard a fused spur as something you can fit, i.e. something which exists, and that it is classed in the same way as other accessories, such as light switches and sockets etc, then it has to be listed otherwise they could not be installed without notification.

Imagine how Schedule 4 would perform if 2(c)(i) was removed.

You'd not be able to add lights or switches without notification.

So just like every single time you've raised your deliberately obtuse objections before, and just like it will be if you carry on raising them for all of eternity, the position remains unchanged.

Fused spurs are listed in Schedule 4 because if they were not you could never add them without notifying.

But by your version of what "fused spur" means, even that isn't exempt if the fused spur extends beyond the FCU, e.g. to a flex outlet plate which is being fitted in anticipation of a future addition of some appliance.

But it doesn't extend beyond it - I've told you that several times.

I've also told you, several times, that the installation of a fused spur is completely separate from the installation of anything connected to it, and that its notifiability is self-contained, unaffected by and unaffecting the notifiability of anything connected to it, because the notifiability of that is also self-contained.

How many times do I have to tell you that before you stop deliberately ignoring it and repeating your same old deliberately obtuse objections to it which are based on notifiability of things not being independent?

Maybe. If they think that unclear wording in which words obviously aren't being used to mean the same as they mean elsewhere within the same document is "correct" and doesn't need improvement.

Please show me where else within the same document "fused spur" is being used in a way where it couldn't mean the same as it does in Schedule 4 2(c)(ii).

Yes, sockets and lights are mentioned explicitly, because they need to be so mentioned to be exempt when connected on a non-fused spur. So if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to exempt something other than sockets and lights on a fused spur, why does there need to be a reference to fused spurs at all?

It is intended to exempt something other than sockets and lights on a fused spur - it's intended to exempt the fused spur.

I've told you that several times.

You may not agree with my reading of "fused spur", but how many times do I have to tell you the same thing before you understand it even if you disagree with it?

Just how hard is it for you to see that what I'm saying is that fused spurs are listed in Schedule 4 so that the installation of fused spurs can be non-notifiable?

How many times do I have to tell you that the notifiability of a fused spur is not affected by, is nothing do do with, and does not affect, the notifiability of anything else before you stop asking things like "if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to exempt something other than sockets and lights on a fused spur, why does there need to be a reference to fused spurs at all?"?

It makes no sense to say that the reference to fused spurs is there to allow for the connection of sockets and lights on a fused spur, because additional sockets and lights are already exempt explicitly, for any type of spur.

But I've never said that, have I?

What I've said, repeatedly, is that the reference to fused spurs is there to allow the installation of fused spurs.

How many times do I have to say that before you stop making deliberately obtuse observations like "It makes no sense to say that the reference to fused spurs is there to allow for the connection of sockets and lights on a fused spur"?

What I've said, repeatedly, is that the notifiability of a fused spur is not affected by, nor affects, the notifiability of anything else.

How many times do I have to say that before you stop making deliberately obtuse observations like "because additional sockets and lights are already exempt explicitly, for any type of spur."?

It makes the various and inconsistent use of conjunctions add to the confusion though. "And" as used within 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) is clearly not meant to convey the same precise meaning as "and" used to join 2(a), (b), and (c), otherwise adding a light without also adding a switch would be notifiable, and adding a socket without adding a fused spur would too. I would suggest that "lights and switches" in 2(c)(i) should really say "lights or switches" and that "socket outlets and fused spurs" in 2(c)(ii) should be "socket outlets or fused spurs." They used "or" between 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii), because clearly the intent was not that lights could be added only if sockets were being added too, or vice versa. So why the confusing, and conflicting use of "and" within 2(c)(i) and (ii)?

Your objections here seem muddled and unfocused.

Is it the structure you don't like or the poor use of "and"?

Your original question was "In fact why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses with the reference to fused spurs appearing only in the one which also refers to sockets?"

which is nothing to do with the poor use of "and".

If it read

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 or switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii)adding socket outlets or fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit.

would you still be asking why why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses etc?

How does the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) exempt the addition of a fused spur within a kitchen when the condition in 2(a) would not be satisfied?

Yeah - sorry - I misread your question. Partly, I think, because It just seems so deliberately obtuse of you to keep asking the same one over and over again.

And applying your argument, what work is exempted by the inclusion of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) which would not be exempt anyway if they were not so referenced explicitly and would therefore be just as ancillary as any other cable, junction boxes, and so on?

The intention is that fused spurs are as non-ancillary as lights, switches, sockets etc.

To ask "Ah but what if they weren't" has no validity when discussing the meaning of the regulations as they are.

Well, perhaps we can agree that there was little logic or consistency in drawing up the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs at least, which is what I've said ever since seeing the first proposals of them in 2004.

Yup, but that's of no relevance to the meaning of Schedule 4.

Yes, they are what they are, but it's the interpretation of what they are which is the problem.

Not for me.

Yes, because posing a "What if" question might give a reason for something being included. If adding something to the rules did not change the final meaning of those rules, then there would be no point in adding it. If adding a reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii) did not change anything about what would be notifiable compared to the version of 2(c)(ii) without such a reference, then adding that reference would serve no useful purpose.

But adding the reference does change what's notifiable.

Without the reference to fused spurs they would always be notifiable.

Unless you accept the reasonable assumption that things are added to it for a reason. If adding something changes nothing, why add it?

Adding fused spurs does change something - it allows for them to be non-notifiable. Had they not been added they would always be notifiable.

O.K., so you've accepted that one can add a fused spur which consists of the cable and an FCU.

"Accepted it"?

All along I've been saying that's what a fused spur is...

Without being able to connect something to that FCU without notification (sockets, lights, and switches excepted), what useful purpose would that serve?

It would serve the useful purpose that any FCU serves.

Are you saying that the purpose of an FCU upstream of multiple sockets is not useful? Would you think it a good idea for the sockets to be non-notifiable but not the FCU, as it would be if it were not exempted from notification in 2(c)(ii)?

As I said before, the only possible use to which that exemption could be put would be something like a case of a room being refurbished and the owner making provision for some appliance to be connected at a future, as yet unknown, time.

No - the use is to be able to install an FCU without having to notify it.

But it isn't. A fused spur comprises multiple items, the precise number depending upon the nature of the fused spur.

No - it consists of a single accessory.

The definition as used throughout the electrical industry in this country since the term first came into use.

A very widespread and long-standing definition used throughout the electrical industry is that an FCU is also known as a fused spur.

So what are we to assume that "fused spur" in those regulations means, if the regulations themselves don't make a specific definition which can override any other definition?

We are to assume the one which doesn't create any inconsistencies etc.

We are to assume the one which is the most obvious.

We are not to assume the one which creates more problems than it solves, for that would be perverse.

And so on and so on and so on.

There is no point me trying to explain it to you yet again, because you refuse to accept the fundamental principle that if you have a choice of interpretations then the one which produces no, or fewest, inconsistencies etc is the right one. To decide on one which makes things vague and inconsistent is perverse.

As far as I am concerned, Schedule 4 means exactly the same as it would if it had been written

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 or switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii)adding socket outlets or fused connection units to an existing ring or radial circuit.

because that is the most logical way to read it, and it is the way that does not generate any inconsistencies within Schedule 4.

You can try asking the same deliberately obtuse questions or making the same deliberately obtuse observations, all of which ignore what I've told you over and over again, if you like, but it won't do you any good.

 

[Paul_C]

If you regard a fused spur as something you can fit, i.e. something which exists, and that it is classed in the same way as other accessories, such as light switches and sockets etc, then it has to be listed otherwise they could not be installed without notification.

Yes, a fused spur is something you can fit. But a fused spur comprises more than just an FCU.

Fused spurs are listed in Schedule 4 because if they were not you could never add them without notifying.

Yes you would, if they were feeding sockets or lights, because sockets and lights are exempt. If you needed to install a fused spur to feed a socket or light, then the fused spur would be exempt as being a necessary part of adding the socket or light (unless we go down the absurd route that anything not mentioned explicitly in the schedule is notifiable, meaning that just about everything would become notifiable because there's no mention of the cables being exempt).

There's no explicit reference to a non-fused spur being exempt. It's assumed that it is by virtue of being part of adding an additional socket. So why would a fused spur be any different?

The reference to a fused spur must, therefore, be meaning to exempt something else which would not otherwise be exempt.

But by your version of what "fused spur" means, even that isn't exempt if the fused spur extends beyond the FCU, e.g. to a flex outlet plate which is being fitted in anticipation of a future addition of some appliance.

But it doesn't extend beyond it - I've told you that several times.

And I've told you several times that you are wrong. A fused spur does not stop at the FCU, nor is a fused spur just an FCU. If the reference in 2(c)(ii) meant to exempt specifically just the fitting of a fused connection unit, then it would say "fused connection unit" and not "fused spur."

Please show me where else within the same document "fused spur" is being used in a way where it couldn't mean the same as it does in Schedule 4 2(c)(ii).

"Fused spur" isn't used elsewhere within schedule 4. But that's not the point. Schedule 4 doesn't make any sort of legal definition of "fused spur" which overrides its normal meaning. And despite your mistaken belief it means an FCU, it doesn't.

You may not agree with my reading of "fused spur", but how many times do I have to tell you the same thing before you understand it even if you disagree with it?

I understand now that because of your incorrect interpretation of the term you believe that it needs to be in 2(c)(ii) to make the fitting of an FCU exempt from notification. But you have still not explained satisfactorily why you think that without such a reference it would not be exempt anyway as part of the work involving adding sockets or lights, when you've said that you don't consider junction boxes to be notifiable.

If a reference is needed in 2(c)(ii) to make the fitting of an FCU non-notifiable, then why isn't a reference also needed to junction boxes?

It makes no sense to say that the reference to fused spurs is there to allow for the connection of sockets and lights on a fused spur, because additional sockets and lights are already exempt explicitly, for any type of spur.

But I've never said that, have I?

Indirectly, yes. You've said that in your opinion fitting a fused spur with an FCU and running from that FCU to a socket or light is exempt. No argument there. But you've also said that running a cable from that FCU to some other load is notifiable, because in your opinion the fused spur stops at, or consists only of, the FCU.

Your objections here seem muddled and unfocused.

Is it the structure you don't like or the poor use of "and"?

Your original question was "In fact why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses with the reference to fused spurs appearing only in the one which also refers to sockets?"

which is nothing to do with the poor use of "and".

If it read

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 or switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii)adding socket outlets or fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit.

would you still be asking why why does 2(c) need to be divided into two sub-clauses etc?

Granted, I'm questioning two different aspects there. The point I was trying to make is that 2(c) is very badly structured and worded overall.

But adding the reference does change what's notifiable.

Without the reference to fused spurs they would always be notifiable.

So do you think that a non-fused spur is always notifiable because it's not mentioned explicitly in schedule 4?

Are you saying that the purpose of an FCU upstream of multiple sockets is not useful? Would you think it a good idea for the sockets to be non-notifiable but not the FCU, as it would be if it were not exempted from notification in 2(c)(ii)?

That brings us back to the same argument again. No, it would make no sense to exempt the sockets but not the FCU. But what makes you think that an FCU would not be implicitly exempt anyway just as you assume that a junction box is implicitly exempt? The FCU would be a necessary part of installing a fused spur to a socket, just as the junction box could be a necessary part of tapping into an existing ring to run the spur.

But it isn't. A fused spur comprises multiple items, the precise number depending upon the nature of the fused spur.

No - it consists of a single accessory.

No it doesn't. An FCU could actually be used on a circuit which doesn't involve any sort of spur.

A very widespread and long-standing definition used throughout the electrical industry is that an FCU is also known as a fused spur.

Informally, perhaps, but that doesn't alter the proper meaning of the term. Since when do legal documents use informal colloquialisms?

So what are we to assume that "fused spur" in those regulations means, if the regulations themselves don't make a specific definition which can override any other definition?

We are to assume the one which doesn't create any inconsistencies etc.

We are to assume the one which is the most obvious.

We are not to assume the one which creates more problems than it solves, for that would be perverse.

The one which is the most obvious. That would be the way that the term has been used in the Wiring Regs./BS7671 for decades then.

There is no point me trying to explain it to you yet again, because you refuse to accept the fundamental principle that if you have a choice of interpretations then the one which produces no, or fewest, inconsistencies etc is the right one. To decide on one which makes things vague and inconsistent is perverse.

The law is often perverse and inconsistent. Just because one interpretation of the regulations introduces more inconsistencies than another does not mean that it was not the intended meaning.

As far as I am concerned, Schedule 4 means exactly the same as it would if it had been written

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 or switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii)adding socket outlets or fused connection units to an existing ring or radial circuit.

because that is the most logical way to read it, and it is the way that does not generate any inconsistencies within Schedule 4.

If that is what was intended, then why is that not what was written?

 

[RossR]

You only consider it poorly drafted if the prospect of it actually meaning what it actually says is so unpalatable to you that you refuse to accept that it actually means what it actually says and start casting around for "interpretations" which align it more closely with your desires.

Are cables ancillary?

If so, why are they explicitly mentioned in 1 (b) and 3 (a)?

If not, why are they absent from 2 (c)?

Any interpretation is inconsistent or illogical and that's why I think it's poorly drafted. Nothing to do with my desires.

 

[Paul_C]

Any interpretation is inconsistent or illogical and that's why I think it's poorly drafted. Nothing to do with my desires.

And that about sums it up. The whole mess of schedule 4 is full of of things which are unclear, inconsistent, and illogical, whatever one tries to take as being implied by what is written.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They're not, but you reject the clear, consistent and logical.

 

[Stoday]

A fused spur comprises multiple items, the precise number depending upon the nature of the fused spur.

No - it consists of a single accessory.

The definition as used throughout the electrical industry in this country since the term first came into use.

A very widespread and long-standing definition used throughout the electrical industry is that an FCU is also known as a fused spur.

I am now pretty certain that BAS has never worked in electrical contracting, not that he has ever claimed to AFAIK. I have known of an FCU being called a "Fused spur box" but never, in over 50 years working in the electricity industry, have I heard of a fused spur and an FCU as being synonymous.

There is good reason for that. An unfused spur is a length of cable. It rarely requires a dedicated connector to it. And when it does, the unfused spur connector is known as a "joint box".

So similarly, a fused spur comprises a cable but also requires a connector to hold the fuse at the point where if joins the main circuit.

So what are we to assume that "fused spur" in those regulations means, if the regulations themselves don't make a specific definition which can override any other definition?

We are to assume the one which is the most obvious.

Well, I agree with that, but the most obvious is different from what BAS considers to be the most obvious.

the fundamental principle that if you have a choice of interpretations then the one which produces no, or fewest, inconsistencies etc is the right one. To decide on one which makes things vague and inconsistent is perverse.

It's inconsistent and perverse to choose an interpretation that creates inconsistencies with Government approved guidelines as to how the legislation should be implimented in practice.

.

 

[RossR]

They're not, but you reject the clear, consistent and logical.

Would you be so kind as to give a clear, consistent and logical answer to my question then?

Are cables ancillary?

If so, why are they explicitly mentioned in 1 (b) and 3 (a)?

If not, why are they absent from 2 (c)?

Just to be clear, by ancillary I mean that they are implicitly included as items which need not be notified.

 

[Paul_C]

I have known of an FCU being called a "Fused spur box"

That's the term which appeared in older editions of the Wiring Regs. Here's the relevant regulation from the 14th edition applying to fused spurs from domestic rings:

A.39 For ring-final sub-circuits complying with Regulations A.30-33, fused spurs shall be connected through fused spur boxes. The rating of the fuse shall not exceed that of the cable forming the spur and in any event shall not exceed 13 amperes. The total current demand of points served by a fused spur shall not exceed 13 amperes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are cables ancillary?

By your definition of that term they are when it comes to adding sockets, lights, switches and fused spurs.

No non-loony would try and claim that 2(c) allows you to add sockets etc without notification but not the cables needed to make them work because cables aren't listed as being exempt.

If so, why are they explicitly mentioned in 1 (b)

So that damaged ones can be replaced in any location, as a piece of work in its own right.

Were 1(b) not present then a damaged cable could not be replaced without notification.

and 3 (a)?

So that you can install telephone & network etc cabling without it being notifiable.

Were 3(a) not present you couldn't run phone cables anywhere.


I really don't see why people have to try and make it, or imagine it to be, complicated.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am now pretty certain that BAS has never worked in electrical contracting, not that he has ever claimed to AFAIK. I have known of an FCU being called a "Fused spur box" but never, in over 50 years working in the electricity industry, have I heard of a fused spur and an FCU as being synonymous.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?s...UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_en__426GB426&q="fused+spur"

//search.diynot.com/forum_sear...tbytime=0&author=&search=Search+Forum&stype=0

It's inconsistent and perverse to choose an interpretation that creates inconsistencies with Government approved guidelines as to how the legislation should be implimented in practice.

The guidelines are clearly wrong.