Part P and building control

[ban-all-sheds]

No this cant be right. So people are saying that notification is required for adding a device onto a fused spur in whatever room you happen to do it

No - what I'm saying is that the presence of an FCU makes no difference to the status of what is downstream of it. If it's notifiable without an FCU it is notifiable with one.

If it's not notifiable without an FCU it is not notifiable with one.

I take Paul_C's point about the flex outlet, but if you had a radial circuit such that a flex outlet could be connected directly to it then that would indeed be notifiable.

Daft? Possibly.

But not inconsistent like claiming that an FCU would not remove the need to notify the installation of lights in a kitchen but would remove the need to notify the installation of smoke alarms.

so a panel heater needs to be notified, an extractor fan in any room needs to be notified a fan heater.

All those items need to be notified anyway (unless replacements) as they are fixed appliances, and not exempted in Schedule 4.

 

[Paul_C]

If the intention had been to include a fused spur feeding any electrical equipment, it would be phrased differently.

No - what I'm saying is that the presence of an FCU makes no difference to the status of what is downstream of it. If it's notifiable without an FCU it is notifiable with one.

If it's not notifiable without an FCU it is not notifiable with one.

If the intent was that the presence or absence of an FCU should have no effect on whether something downstream of it is notifiable or not, then what is the purpose of the reference in 2(c)(ii) to fused spurs?

But not inconsistent like claiming that an FCU would not remove the need to notify the installation of lights in a kitchen but would remove the need to notify the installation of smoke alarms.

The difference between those two cases is the requirement in 2(a). If the smoke alarm fed from an FCU were in a kitchen, then it too would be notifiable - regardless of how one interprets 2(c)(ii) - because of 2(a).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the intent was that the presence or absence of an FCU should have no effect on whether something downstream of it is notifiable or not, then what is the purpose of the reference in 2(c)(ii) to fused spurs?

It's to make the addition of fused spurs, outside of kitchens and special locations, to existing circuits non-notifiable.

That's what the purpose of everything listed in Schedule 4 is - to make it non-notifiable.

If the smoke alarm fed from an FCU were in a kitchen, then it too would be notifiable - regardless of how one interprets 2(c)(ii) - because of 2(a).

A smoke alarm anywhere is notifiable, because it's not in the list of non-notifiable work in Schedule 4.

You do realise how (2) is to be 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 and switches to an existing circuit, or
(ii)adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit.

"Work which is not in a kitchen or a special location and does not involve work on a special installation and consists of adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit or adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit."

So if (as you rightly say) the presence of an FCU does not alter the notifiability of lights in a kitchen, because Schedule 4 does not make lights in a kitchen non-notifiable, how can you simultaneously say that the presence of an FCU does alter the notifiability of smoke alarms even though Schedule 4 does not make smoke alarms non-notifiable?

Schedule 4 does not say that lights in kitchens are non-notifiable, and you do not think that putting them downstream of an FCU changes that.

Schedule 4 does not say that smoke alarms are non-notifiable, but you do think that putting them downstream of an FCU changes that.

Do you really not see the inconsistency?

Or that the inconsistency goes away as soon as you go with the idea that an FCU makes no difference to the notifiability of whatever is downstream of it?

 

[Stoday]

The government had published the Approved Documents to give some guidance to issues like the connection of appliances. This guidance could help resolve the differences expressed in this thread.

It seems to me that a smoke alarm is an appliance and not "fixed equipment" for the purposes of part P. Appliances are not listed because they can be connected without notification. The distinction between "appliances" and "electrical equipment" is that the latter form part of the networks distributing electricity throughout the house; the former merely consume the electricity distributed.

Approved Document P says the following are not notifiable even though they are not listed as being non notifiable in the SI:
Work to connect to an existing circuit:
An electric gate or garage door to an existing isolator.
The fitting and replacement of cookers (even in kitchens).
air conditioning
Radon fans

From reading the Approved Document, it's clear to me that (outside a kitchen or special location) an FCU can be added and the cable from the FCU (which forms part of the fused spur) can be run to an appliance such as a smoke alarm, without notification.

.

 

[Paul_C]

If the intent was that the presence or absence of an FCU should have no effect on whether something downstream of it is notifiable or not, then what is the purpose of the reference in 2(c)(ii) to fused spurs?

It's to make the addition of fused spurs, outside of kitchens and special locations, to existing circuits non-notifiable.

Exactly. So any interpretation which makes the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) superfluous makes no sense.

If the intent was for only fused spurs feeding socket outlets and lights to be non-notifiable, then the words "and fused spurs" could be deleted from 2(c)(ii) without changing anything, since extensions of existing circuits for additional lights are already exempted under 2(c)(i) and the simplified version of 2(c)(ii) would still exempt additions of sockets to existing circuits (whether on a fused or an unfused spur).

So why does the reference to fused spurs appear in 2(c)(ii) if it doesn't exempt something which would not already be exempt by virtue of the other provisions in 2(c)?

A smoke alarm anywhere is notifiable, because it's not in the list of non-notifiable work in Schedule 4.

Well, that's what the whole argument over the definition of a fused spur is about. What do you consider to form a part of a fused spur? What is the point at which the fused spur becomes something else?

Schedule 4 does not say that lights in kitchens are non-notifiable, and you do not think that putting them downstream of an FCU changes that.

Because of 2(a). As you say, to be exempt from notification the work has to meet the requirements of 2(a), and 2(b), and 2(c). The kitchen lights meet the requirement of 2(c)(i), but don't meet the requirement of 2(a), and thus are notifiable.

Schedule 4 does not say that smoke alarms are non-notifiable, but you do think that putting them downstream of an FCU changes that.

Do you really not see the inconsistency?

I've already acknowledged that if the smoke alarm were in a kitchen then it would notifiable anyway, because of 2(a), just like the lights.

But if we're talking about a smoke alarm other than in a kitchen or bathroom, then it satisfies the requirement of 2(a). The only issue then is whether it also satisfies the requirements of 2(c). Schedule 4 does not refer explicitly to smoke alarms, but 2(c)(ii) does refer to the addition of a fused spur. So again, we're back to what exactly is included in the definition of a fused spur.

Or that the inconsistency goes away as soon as you go with the idea that an FCU makes no difference to the notifiability of whatever is downstream of it?

Again, if you go with that idea then what is the point of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii)? If the presence of an FCU makes no difference to whether something downstream of it is notifiable or not, then the inclusion of the reference to a fused spur doesn't exempt anything which is not already exempt by the other provisions. Unless you just want to run a cable from an existing circuit to the FCU and then not connect the load side of the FCU to anything, which seems a pretty pointless exercise. (Yes, I suppose you could be making provision to connect something at some future time, but does it really make any sense to exempt the provision of an FCU but not the wiring which will connect that FCU to something which will carry out a useful task?)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It seems to me that a smoke alarm is an appliance and not "fixed equipment"

Do you really install them dangling from the ceiling?

Or do you FIX them in place?

The distinction between "appliances" and "electrical equipment" is that the latter form part of the networks distributing electricity throughout the house; the former merely consume the electricity distributed.

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter

From reading the Approved Document, it's clear to me that (outside a kitchen or special location) an FCU can be added and the cable from the FCU (which forms part of the fused spur) can be run to an appliance such as a smoke alarm, without notification.

So on the basis that the AD is clearly wrong, you decide that it is meant to be even more wrong, and that items not listed as non-notifiable in the actual law, and not listed as non-notifiable in the AD should actually have been in the incorrect list in the AD and are therefore not notifiable?

Talk about twisting, and imagining, and inventing just so that you can end up with the situation how you wish it to be, rather than how it clearly and unambiguously is in the definition of the law.

But then, of course, that's one of your specialities, isn't it...

 

[Paul_C]

From reading the Approved Document, it's clear to me that (outside a kitchen or special location) an FCU can be added and the cable from the FCU (which forms part of the fused spur) can be run to an appliance such as a smoke alarm, without notification.

I'd say that the additional notes under general guidance on page 9 say as much:

h. The installation of fixed equipment is within the scope of Part P, even where the final connection is by a 13A plug and socket. However, work is notifiable only if it involves fixed wiring and the installation of a new circuit or the extension of a circuit in a kitchen or special location or associated with a special installation.

So yes, a smoke alarm is fixed equipment, but that guidance note suggests that its installation is not notifiable if it's being added by running a fused spur from an existing circuit.

So on the basis that the AD is clearly wrong

Why is it "clearly wrong" in your opinion?

I'd say that additional note "h" that I quoted above clearly confirms that the presence of the words "and fused spurs" in 2(c)(ii) of Schedule 4 is intended to allow the connection of fixed equipment to an existing circuit by way of an FCU. If not, then what is the point of the inclusion of those words? The installation of sockets and lights on a fused spur would be exempt anyway.

 

[Stoday]

In the AD part P:
An electric gate is not a notifiable connection, although the gate is FIXED
A garage door is not a notifiable connection, although the door is FIXED
A shower is not a notifiable connection, although the shower is FIXED
A cooker is not a notifiable connection, although the cooker is often FIXED

The above is consistent with the BRs if the definition of “electrical equipment” in the BRs excludes fixed electrical appliances.

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter

That’s the definition in part P of the Building Regulations. If you interpret it to include fixed appliances, as BAS does, then there are inconsistencies with the Approved Document part P.

So which is more likely to be right? The Approved Documents published by the government with the object of explaining the BRs or an obscure and over-pedantic poster on a DIY forum?

In my view, the BR definition was never intended to include appliances because they are not part of an electrical installation to distribute electricity throughout a building. If the definition “electrical installation” in the BRs excludes fixed appliances, then it is consistent with the AD.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Exactly. So any interpretation which makes the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) superfluous makes no sense.

I'm not making it superfluous.

If the intent was for only fused spurs feeding socket outlets and lights to be non-notifiable, then the words "and fused spurs" could be deleted from 2(c)(ii) without changing anything, since extensions of existing circuits for additional lights are already exempted under 2(c)(i) and the simplified version of 2(c)(ii) would still exempt additions of sockets to existing circuits (whether on a fused or an unfused spur).

If you delete the words "and fused spurs" then you would never be able to add them anywhere, as they would remain notifiable.

So why does the reference to fused spurs appear in 2(c)(ii) if it doesn't exempt something which would not already be exempt by virtue of the other provisions in 2(c)?

It's there to make the addition of fused spurs, outside of kitchens and special locations, to existing circuits, non-notifiable.

The way that Schedule 4 works is very very simple.


Absolutely everything is notifiable unless explicitly exempted in Schedule 4.


So for whatever the work is you plan to do you start at the top of Schedule 4 and start reading, looking for a match.

If you find a match you stop reading - the work is non-notifiable.

If you get to the end without finding a match the work remains notifiable.

So if Schedule 4 was "simplified" as you suggest then if what you wanted to do was to add one of these:

to an existing circuit in a bedroom you'd get to the end of Schedule 4 without finding a match for it, and you would therefore not be able to do it without notification.

Well, that's what the whole argument over the definition of a fused spur is about. What do you consider to form a part of a fused spur?

An FCU and the cable supplying it.

Just like "adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit" means that the cables to the light fittings and switches themselves are included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

Just like "adding socket outlets ... to an existing ring or radial circuit" means that the cables to the sockets themselves are included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

What is the point at which the fused spur becomes something else?

It never becomes "something else". It is what it is. It is the fused spur and the cable supplying it.

Because of 2(a). As you say, to be exempt from notification the work has to meet the requirements of 2(a), and 2(b), and 2(c). The kitchen lights meet the requirement of 2(c)(i), but don't meet the requirement of 2(a), and thus are notifiable.

OK - that's good.

"To be exempt from notification the work has to meet the requirements of 2(a), and 2(b), and 2(c). "

I couldn't agree more.

I've already acknowledged that if the smoke alarm were in a kitchen then it would notifiable anyway, because of 2(a), just like the lights.

You have to remember that 2(a) does not automatically make lights in a kitchen non-notifiable. The fact that they are excluded from that particular exemption means nothing until you get to the end of Schedule 4 and find no other match for them which would create an exemption.

But if we're talking about a smoke alarm other than in a kitchen or bathroom, then it satisfies the requirement of 2(a). The only issue then is whether it also satisfies the requirements of 2(c). Schedule 4 does not refer explicitly to smoke alarms,

Then they are notifiable, it really is that simple. Not explicitly in the list in Schedule 4? Not exempted from notification.

but 2(c)(ii) does refer to the addition of a fused spur. So again, we're back to what exactly is included in the definition of a fused spur.

The fused spur.

Anything else would mean a virtual blanket exemption for anything you could put downstream of something with a fuse in it spurred from an existing circuit.

Again, if you go with that idea then what is the point of the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii)?

It's to allow you to add one of these in most locations without having to notify:

If the presence of an FCU makes no difference to whether something downstream of it is notifiable or not, then the inclusion of the reference to a fused spur doesn't exempt anything which is not already exempt by the other provisions.

You think so?

Try the example above.

You want to add an FCU to a circuit in a bedroom.

With Para 2 of Schedule 4 modified to read

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

please show us where you will exit from Schedule 4 with a determination that the work is non-notifiable.

Unless you just want to run a cable from an existing circuit to the FCU and then not connect the load side of the FCU to anything, which seems a pretty pointless exercise.

Yes, it would be, but I'm not suggesting it has to be.

You add the FCU (not in a kitchen etc). Non-notifiable.

You add whatever is controlled by the FCU. Notifiable or not depending on what Schedule 4 says about the <whatever>.

but does it really make any sense to exempt the provision of an FCU but not the wiring which will connect that FCU to something which will carry out a useful task?

I'll turn that round.

Does it really make sense to exempt the provision of <whatever> just because the <whatever> is downstream of an FCU, and that if the FCU was not present the <whatever> would be notifiable?

 

[RossR]

Just to throw a few of my thoughts in:

I think the only thing that is expected to be connected to a fused spur without notifying is some socket outlets. That's why the two are mentioned so closely together.

Also, remember that Schedule 4 starts with the phrase "work consisting of". It doesn't start with the phrase "work involving". Therefore the entirety of the work must be covered by schedule 4 to be non-notifiable, not just a part of it.

Finally, don't forget that the smoke alarms in question are linked. They therefore involve more fixed wiring than simply a cable from an FCU to an "appliance".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the AD part P:
An electric gate is not a notifiable connection, although the gate is FIXED

That is clearly wrong, because it contradicts the actual law.

Approved Documents are neither primary nor secondary legislation - they are not passed by nor laid before Parliament and therefore they cannot they really, simply just cannot change legislation which has been.

A garage door is not a notifiable connection, although the door is FIXED
A shower is not a notifiable connection, although the shower is FIXED
A cooker is not a notifiable connection, although the cooker is often FIXED

Ditto ditto and ditto.

The above is consistent with the BRs if the definition of “electrical equipment” in the BRs excludes fixed electrical appliances.

The Weird And Wacky World Of Stoday Definitions knows no bounds, does it.

An electrical appliance is not an item of electrical equipment?

You're going to base an argument on nonsense like that?

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter

That’s the definition in part P of the Building Regulations. If you interpret it to include fixed appliances, as BAS does, then there are inconsistencies with the Approved Document part P.

Interpret it as I do?

Not only I - all the people who wrote BS 7671 also interpret it that way - take a look at the definition of "Electrical equipment" near the foot of p23.

I honestly don't think you'll find many people to agree with your assertion that an electric shower or an electric cooker are not items of electrical equipment.

So which is more likely to be right? The Approved Documents published by the government with the object of explaining the BRs or an obscure and over-pedantic poster on a DIY forum?

What's more likely to be right, Stoday, is the actual law.

That the AD clearly contradicts it means that in practice nobody would ever get done for following the AD, but it does not mean that the AD is right and what it says in the law is wrong.

In my view, the BR definition was never intended to include appliances because they are not part of an electrical installation to distribute electricity throughout a building. If the definition “electrical installation” in the BRs excludes fixed appliances, then it is consistent with the AD.

What about lights?

They play no part in the distribution of electricity throughout a building, they are items of electrical equipment which use the electricity.

If you're casting around for "definitions" which remove the discrepancies between what the law says and what AD P says, then what about the ones which arise if, right at the start, you decide that lights don't come within the scope of Part P?

What about bathroom fans? Is installing those notifiable?

 

[Paul_C]

If you delete the words "and fused spurs" then you would never be able to add them anywhere, as they would remain notifiable.

But according to your interpretation, the only things which can be connected on a fused spur without notification are lights and socket outlets. And these would still be exempt from notification without the reference to fused spurs in 2(c)(ii).

So why does the reference to fused spurs appear in 2(c)(ii) if it doesn't exempt something which would not already be exempt by virtue of the other provisions in 2(c)?

It's there to make the addition of fused spurs, outside of kitchens and special locations, to existing circuits, non-notifiable.

And again, a fused spur which feeds only lights or socket outlets would be non-notifiable anyway. So what is the point of exempting any other fused spur itself from notification if, as you claim, it's then notifiable to actually connect any other load directly to it?

So if Schedule 4 was "simplified" as you suggest then if what you wanted to do was to add one of these:

to an existing circuit in a bedroom you'd get to the end of Schedule 4 without finding a match for it, and you would therefore not be able to do it without notification.

If you were adding one of those to feed lights or socket outlets, then you would find a match in 2(c)(i) or 2(c)(ii) of Schedule 4 without the explicit reference to fused spurs being there. And if you were planning on feeding something other than lights or sockets from it, then according to your interpretation the work becomes notifiable anyway.

Well, that's what the whole argument over the definition of a fused spur is about. What do you consider to form a part of a fused spur?

An FCU and the cable supplying it.

So you don't think that anything connected to the load side of an FCU is an integral part of the fused spur? I wonder if anyone else reading this thread agrees with that definition.

Just like "adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit" means that the cables to the light fittings and switches themselves are included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

Just like "adding socket outlets ... to an existing ring or radial circuit" means that the cables to the sockets themselves are included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

And just like adding an FCU to feed lights or sockets would be included in the scope of the non-notifiable work. So if, as you claim, connecting anything else to the load side of the FCU other than lights and sockets makes the work notifiable, then the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) would be almost completely redundant.

Adding an FCU to feed lights or sockets would already be exempt by the other provisions in 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) respectively. If connecting any other load to the FCU were notifiable, then according to your definition of a fused spur being just the supply cable and the FCU itself, the only thing exempted by the explicit reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) would be if you wanted to spur off an existing circuit, fit the FCU, but then not connect anything to it.

What is the point at which the fused spur becomes something else?

It never becomes "something else". It is what it is. It is the fused spur and the cable supplying it.

So again, you don't consider that the cable on the load side of an FCU forms a part of the fused spur?

But if we're talking about a smoke alarm other than in a kitchen or bathroom, then it satisfies the requirement of 2(a). The only issue then is whether it also satisfies the requirements of 2(c). Schedule 4 does not refer explicitly to smoke alarms,

Then they are notifiable, it really is that simple. Not explicitly in the list in Schedule 4? Not exempted from notification.

I'm not disputing that. The dispute is the fact that subject to meeting the requirements of 2(a) and 2(b) as well, a fused spur is exempted by 2(c)(ii). It's only the definition of what constitutes a fused spur which is the point of contention.

Anything else would mean a virtual blanket exemption for anything you could put downstream of something with a fuse in it spurred from an existing circuit.

And why should that not be what the regulations say? There is already a "blanket exemption" for adding lights or sockets to an existing circuit. Why should the same principle not apply to a load hardwired to an FCU, or via an FCU and a switched flex outlet or similar?

Try the example above.

You want to add an FCU to a circuit in a bedroom.

With Para 2 of Schedule 4 modified to read

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

please show us where you will exit from Schedule 4 with a determination that the work is non-notifiable.

If you were running lights from it, you would exit on the exemption in 2(c)(i). If you were running socket outlets from it, you would exit on the exemption in 2(c)(ii).

If you were connecting anything else to it, then the work would be notifiable. Which is what you are claiming it would be anyway with the reference to fused spurs included.

You add the FCU (not in a kitchen etc). Non-notifiable.

You add whatever is controlled by the FCU. Notifiable or not depending on what Schedule 4 says about the <whatever>.

And if the "whatever" is not notifiable by virtue of being "work which consists of adding" it, then the provision of the FCU would not be notifiable anyway, without the explicit reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii).

but does it really make any sense to exempt the provision of an FCU but not the wiring which will connect that FCU to something which will carry out a useful task?

I'll turn that round.

Does it really make sense to exempt the provision of <whatever> just because the <whatever> is downstream of an FCU, and that if the FCU was not present the <whatever> would be notifiable?

No. But then as I've maintained ever since seeing the first version of the Part P regulations in 2004, the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs is full of such inconsistencies anyway. The tinkering with the lists since then hasn't changed that.

My interpretation of what constitutes a fused spur throws up such inconsistencies. So does yours. But who expects these sort of government regulations to be logical in every respect?

 

[Paul_C]

I think the only thing that is expected to be connected to a fused spur without notifying is some socket outlets. That's why the two are mentioned so closely together.

How about a fused spur to feed lights? The link between the fused spur and the lights isn't quite so close then, because they're separated by the "or" conjunction between 2(c)(i) and (ii).

Also, remember that Schedule 4 starts with the phrase "work consisting of". It doesn't start with the phrase "work involving". Therefore the entirety of the work must be covered by schedule 4 to be non-notifiable, not just a part of it.

Getting into the realms of pedantic legal interpretation perhaps, but one could argue over what "work consisting of" is then supposed to include.

If, for example, you are just running an unfused spur from an existing ring to a socket, I think we'd all agree that the job is not notifiable (assuming not in a kitchen, bathroom etc.).

The exemption in 2(c)(ii) would apply for work consisting of adding socket outlets, wouldn't it?

But where does Schedule 4 explicitly state that adding the cable to feed that socket is exempt? It doesn't. As BAS mentioned above, we take it that installing a new fixed cable is a necessary part of "work which consists of adding socket outlets" and that provision of that cable is implicitly exempt.

So if the intended arrangement for adding those socket outlets involves putting them on a fused spur, isn't it reasonable to take it that fitting the FCU itself is just as much a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding socket outlets" as is installing the cable?

If the only thing which could be connected to an FCU without notification were sockets, then why is there a need to refer to fused spurs explicitly in 2(c)(ii) when it's reasonable to assume that "work which consists of adding sockets" implicitly includes the installation of the FCU if the sockets are being wired on a fused spur?

Or, conversely, if there needs to be an explicit mention of a fused spur solely to make it non-notifiable in conjunction with sockets, then why isn't there also an explicit reference to the installation of the cable being exempt, as that is a necessary part of the work?

It strikes me that the whole wording of 2(c) is very poor. We take it that the conjunction "and" means that both or all conditions so linked must be satisfied. That's certainly the case - on which we are all agreed - in its use to link the clauses 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). For work to be non-notifiable, it must meet the requirements of 2(a), and of 2(b), and of 2(c). If the work fails on any one of those three sections, then it's notifiable.

Yet when we look at the use of the word "and" within 2(c)(ii), it seems to suggest something different:

(c) consists of—

(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit, or

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

If we applied the same literal interpretation of "and" to (c)(i) as we've just applied to the linking of 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), then for work to be non-notifiable under this clause it must consist of adding light fittings and switches. So extending a lighting circuit into a new room and providing a new light fitting with its own switch would be exempt from notification, but simply adding another light in parallel with an existing light would be notifiable, because it doesn't also involve the provision of a new switch. Clearly that's not how anyone interprets this part of the regulations.

The same applies to 2(c)(ii). The work must consist of adding socket outlets and fused spurs. So does that mean that adding a socket outlet on an unfused spur is notifiable? I don't think anyone will try to argue that's the case, yet taken literally that's what 2(c)(ii) says if we apply the same meaning of "and" to it as is clearly intended in its use of linking 2(a), (b), and (c).

So if "and" in 2(c)(ii) doesn't really mean that both conditions must be satisfied for the exemption to apply, what exactly does it mean? And, as I asked at the beginning of this post, if the reference to a fused spur within 2(c)(ii) is somehow supposed to apply only within the scope of 2(c)(ii), does that mean that a light fed from a fused spur is notifiable because 2(c)(i) makes no explicit reference to a fused spur?

Does anyone actually believe that running a fused spur from, say, a ring to feed a light is notifiable work?

If not, then it can be taken implicitly that the "work which consists of adding light fittings and switches" as referred to in 2(c)(i) can include the provision of an FCU as a necessary part of that work.

In which case, why does 2(c)(ii) then need an explicit reference to a fused spur if it's intended only to be used in conjunction with sockets? If we can imply that adding lights as per 2(c)(i) can include the provision of an FCU, surely we can also imply that adding sockets can also include the provision of an FCU if the reference to fused spurs were not present in 2(c)(ii)?

 

[RossR]

You make some interesting points Paul_C. I'm sorry I don't have time to address them all in detail.

It's also been bugging me why it's "lighting points or sockets and fused spurs". I think the intention was to limit fused spurs to being used in conjunction with socket outlets. However, it is flawed if that is the intention. You could split the work into two parts (a fused spur, and a lighting point) each of which is exempt from notification. That's very similar to the flaw with the "replace a single damaged cable" exemption.

One thing I think anyone would agree with is that the legislation is poorly drafted. Politicians have great difficulty in drafting technical legislation as they don't understand the content. How many MP's who voted on part P do you think have any idea what a fused spur is?

 

[echoes]

Are you not getting a bit bogged down with the interpration of these rules?

They the general rules and are qualified by the notes, included in which is:

h) w.r.t fixed equipment:

"Work is notifiable only if it involves fixed wiring and the installation of a new circuit or the extension of a circuit in a kitchen or special location or associated with a special location." (my bold)

Which implies (to me!) that adding sockets/lights/FCUs outside of kitchens are not notifiable, and nor is fixed equipment so long as a new circuit is not installed (I read that as a new circuit originating at a DB) and the work does not involve a special location.

Does that not remove the ambiguities?