Part P and building control

[ban-all-sheds]

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).

Yes - the lights and the socket outlets would be.

But the fused spur itself would not be.

Don't try to imagine all sorts of complicated "I wonder what they meant by that?" interpretations - just read the words as written.

And again, a fused spur which feeds only lights or socket outlets would be non-notifiable anyway.

No it wouldn't.

A fused spur is not a light.

A fused spur is not a socket.

Exemptions from notification which apply to lights and sockets do not apply to fused spurs.

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?

It's so that you can add the fused spur itself without it being notifiable.

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.

No you wouldn't, because you would be installing something which was neither a light nor a switch nor a socket outlet.

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.

If I put a light switch for a bathroom light outside the room, is that switch notifiable because of what is downstream of it?

And just like adding an FCU to feed lights or sockets would be included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

No it wouldn't - an FCU is neither a light nor a socket.

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.

Without it you could never add an FCU without notifying.

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.

No it wouldn't, because an FCU is neither a light nor a socket.

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.

It's not "my definition" - it is simply what Schedule 4 clearly and unambiguously says.

And the point of it is to allow you to add an FCU to an existing circuit etc without it being notifiable.

If you then use the FCU to supply a light not in a kitchen etc, then the entire job is non-notifiable.

If you then use the FCU to supply a socket not in a kitchen etc, then the entire job is non-notifiable.

But without the ability to add the FCU in the first place....

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

No.

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).

Indeed it is.

The fused spur is.

Not also any electrical equipment known to man which you might then decide to connect to it.

And why should that not be what the regulations say?

Whether they should or should not is one thing.

Another thing, entirely separate, is that they do not. And more than one opportunity for the legislators to change what they say has arisen, and gone by without them changing them.

If you're keen on the concept of "I wonder what they really mean me to do - how should I interpret what they wrote in a way other than what they simply wrote in order to arrive at what they really meant" maybe you should reflect that every such opportunity not taken indicates that what they really meant was what they actually wrote.

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?

Whether it should or should not is one thing.....

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

That's the exemption for lights.

You have yet to find an exemption for the fused spur.

Keep reading.

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

That's the exemption for sockets.

You have yet to find an exemption for the fused spur.

Keep reading.

Q: Do you find an exemption for the fused spur before you hit the end of Schedule 4?

a) YES

b) NO

If you answered (a) please show me where it is.

If you answered (b) do you now see why "and fused spurs" is 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.

But without "and fused spurs" is in 2(c)(ii) you could not add a fused spur to supply non-notifiable sockets or non-notifiable lights.

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).

No it wouldn't, because the <whatever> is the <whatever>, it's not a fused spur.

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.

Inconsistencies?

I think not.

Please show me one.

Note - something which you think makes no or little sense, such as adding sockets in a utility room being non-notifiable whereas adding them in a kitchen is not is not an inconsistency between different provisions.

My interpretation of what constitutes a fused spur throws up such inconsistencies. So does yours.

No - yours creates ones which were not there.

Mine creates none.

But who expects these sort of government regulations to be logical in every respect?

Nobody, but generally speaking "it just seemed daft and illogical to me, m'lud" isn't a good defence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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)

Is that part of actual legislation?

 

[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)

Is that part of actual legislation?

No - neither are many other notes in the guidance in Approved Doc. P.
So should the notes the disregarded in their entirety?
Why are they there?
Are they meaningless?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - neither is any other note in the guidance in Approved Doc. P.
So should the notes the disregarded in their entirety?

No, but they should be read bearing in mind the unbelievably simple fact that legislation passed by Parliament does not get changed by documents such as those.

Why are they there?
Are they meaningless?

They are there to provide guidance on ways to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations.

They are not there to counter what the Building Regulations say.

They are not there to change what the Building Regulations say.

If they conflict with what the Building Regulations say then in that respect they are wrong - they cannot possibly be right because our legislative system simply does not work like that.

As I observed above, the legislators have had several bites at this cherry, and they have not once taken the opportunity to change what Schedule 4 says about electrical work, not even when making changes to it in other areas.

If, for example, they really did mean to exempt the addition of new fixed appliances, then why have they not taken any of the opportunities they have to change

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment....

to

1. Work consisting of—

(a) installing any fixed electrical equipment

?

I'm not trying here to engage in my own exercise of trying to divine intentions different from what's written - I am perfectly happy that the way to proceed is to

simply

read

the

words

actually

written.

But to all of you who do think that the law you should obey is the one you think they actually meant you to obey after you've finished analysing what you think they meant by what they wrote, what do you think they meant by repeatedly not making adding new fixed electrical equipment non-notifiable?

 

[Paul_C]

One thing I think anyone would agree with is that the legislation is poorly drafted.

Definitely. Although sometimes I think it's written in vague terms which are open to varying interpretations deliberately.

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?

Indeed, as I posted that extract above. As BAS quite correctly says, the Approved Document is not law, however it's officially issued guidance on what is supposedly the official interpretation of the regulations. As far as I can see, the interpretation in that extract coincides with mine.

 

[echoes]

I don't disagree that the approved documents are not the law.

It is therefore shambolic that a document whose sole purpose is to provide guidance to the law will explicitly direct the diligent reader to break that same law.
I would be hard pressed to offer a more officially blessed example of guidance.

I would hope that would be a mitigating circumstance in a court of law, notwithstanding that such a case per se would be a total waste of time and resources providing the actual work was safe.

When all the country's other problems are sorted out, maybe somebody will get round to reconciling the information. Oh well...

[Apologies for duplicating your earlier post Paul_C - I missed it among the other 'evidence'...]

 

[bernardgreen]

I don't disagree that the approved documents are not the law.

It might be that "approved documents" are sets of rules, data and best practise advice for carrying out work that will create a safe construction.

Be they "approved documents" about use of timber in building or "approved documents" about how to intall drains they are documents that building control officers will accept as pre-approved for that trade. Where there is no pre-approved document, say for a new style of timber framing, then the architect must create a document for approval and support with evidence from "approved" sources ( in the case of timber TRADA used to provide rules about loading , stress and deflection of timber

I am sure that Part P while 99% led by BS standards in the minds of most building control officers it could accept other "approved" documents as the way to install electrics if there was proof that the methods would create a safe electrical installation.

 

[echoes]

But to all of you who do think that the law you should obey is the one you think they actually meant you to obey after you've finished analysing what you think they meant by what they wrote, what do you think they meant by repeatedly not making adding new fixed electrical equipment non-notifiable?

I think they got embroiled in a discussion like this, decided there was no way to enumerate everything, got fed-up and went to the pub.

 

[Paul_C]

Don't try to imagine all sorts of complicated "I wonder what they meant by that?" interpretations - just read the words as written.

Right, we'll take the words literally as written then. Work which consists of installing additional sockets and lights on an existing circuit is exempt from notification, subject to not being in a kitchen etc.

Where is the explicit exemption from notification for the new cables which are needed to bring power to those sockets and lights?

And again, a fused spur which feeds only lights or socket outlets would be non-notifiable anyway.

No it wouldn't.

A fused spur is not a light.

A fused spur is not a socket.

But either may be connected on, and thus be a part of, a fused spur. Except by your definition where a fused spur ends at an FCU.

Exemptions from notification which apply to lights and sockets do not apply to fused spurs.

Then why does 2(c)(ii) provide an exemption for fused spurs? And how do you explain the discrepancies around the use of the conjunction "and" which I outlined above?

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?

It's so that you can add the fused spur itself without it being notifiable.

And why would somebody install a fused spur which goes nowhere? Unless, as I mentioned earlier, it's part of a longer-term project which will involve a load being connected later.

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.

No you wouldn't, because you would be installing something which was neither a light nor a switch nor a socket outlet.

You would be carrying out work which consists of adding those things. And what if you use a junction box to tap into the existing circuit? I don't see an explicit exemption for installing a junction box, so does that mean that if you use a junction box an otherwise non-notifiable job suddenly becomes notifiable?

And again, the cable you will need to install to connect to those devices is neither a light, nor a switch, nor a socket outlet. So does that make all of those exemptions unusable unless the cable already happens to be there?

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.

If I put a light switch for a bathroom light outside the room, is that switch notifiable because of what is downstream of it?

Not by itself, because it meets the exemption requirements of 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). But what does that have to do with what constitutes a fused spur?

And just like adding an FCU to feed lights or sockets would be included in the scope of the non-notifiable work.

No it wouldn't - an FCU is neither a light nor a socket.

And as noted above, neither is a cable or a junction box. But you've already acknowledged that the installation of cable without notification is implied as being a necessary part of extending a circuit to add lights or sockets. So why isn't an FCU also a necessary part of extending a circuit, if the design and arrangements make the use of a fused spur necessary?

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.

Without it you could never add an FCU without notifying.

Unless it's taken implicitly as being a necessary part of adding sockets and lights in some cases. Just as installing cable, and possibly a junction box, is likely to be a necessary part of the work.

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.

No it wouldn't, because an FCU is neither a light nor a socket.

Neither is cable or a junction box.

It's not "my definition" - it is simply what Schedule 4 clearly and unambiguously says.

I think "clear and unambiguous" is certainly not a term which can be applied to the wording in 2(c), as demonstrated above.

And the point of it is to allow you to add an FCU to an existing circuit etc without it being notifiable.

If you then use the FCU to supply a light not in a kitchen etc, then the entire job is non-notifiable.

If you then use the FCU to supply a socket not in a kitchen etc, then the entire job is non-notifiable.

But without the ability to add the FCU in the first place....

Again, if lights or sockets are to be added in such a way that a fused spur is necessary to feed them, then the FCU becomes as much a necessary part of the "work consisting of adding" as does installing the cable.

If you don't consider that an FCU could be installed without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii), then why do you think that the cable can be installed without notification where there is no explicit reference to it?

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

No.

So what is it then? Do you dispute that it's a spur? Do you dispute that it's fused?

If you're keen on the concept of "I wonder what they really mean me to do - how should I interpret what they wrote in a way other than what they simply wrote in order to arrive at what they really meant" maybe you should reflect that every such opportunity not taken indicates that what they really meant was what they actually wrote.

Or as Ross said, that those writing these regulations really don't have as much idea about it as some people would believe.

And as mentioned several times already, what is written - literally, precisely and pedantically - is clearly not what is meant without adding some implicit interpretation, since nobody is suggesting that adding a socket is not notifiable, but you'll have to notify anyway if you actually want to run a cable to it.

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

That's the exemption for lights.

That's the exemption for "work which consists of adding light fittings and switches."

You have yet to find an exemption for the fused spur.

"Work which consists of adding light fittings and switches." If it is implied that such work includes the cable, there's no reason that an implication of adding other necessary accessories such as an FCU or junction box cannot also be assumed.

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

That's the exemption for sockets.

That's the exemption for "work which consists of adding socket outlets."

You have yet to find an exemption for the fused spur.

As above.

Q: Do you find an exemption for the fused spur before you hit the end of Schedule 4?

a) YES

b) NO

If you answered (a) please show me where it is.

If you answered (b) do you now see why "and fused spurs" is in 2(c)(ii)?

As you often reply to a question with a question, I'll do the same. If you were going to add a light and associated switch to an existing lighting circuit, would it be notifiable or not, assuming not in a kitchen or bathroom?

When you get to 2(c)(i) you find the exemption for adding the light fitting and the switch. Keep reading.

Do you see any exemption for installing the cable? Or a junction box from which you're going to run your extension?

If yes, then where is that exemption?

If no, then why do think that it's reasonable to assume that such an exemption is implied, but that it's not also reasonable to assume that providing an FCU to create a fused spur can be implied as being a necessary part of the work which consists of adding the light and switch?

No it wouldn't, because the <whatever> is the <whatever>, it's not a fused spur.

In itself, no. But again, we come back to the question of it being completely illogical to say you can install a fused spur but not actually connect a load to it.

Inconsistencies?

I think not.

Please show me one.

Note - something which you think makes no or little sense, such as adding sockets in a utility room being non-notifiable whereas adding them in a kitchen is not is not an inconsistency between different provisions.

Inconsistencies, illogicalities, call them what you will. They still make absolutely no sense, as your choice of example demonstrates. For another one, according to the rules somebody can be trusted to fit a socket, select the correct cable, run it back to the distribution board, and connect it as a spur to an existing MCB. But the same person supposedly can't be trusted to do almost the same job but connect the cable to a newly provided MCB.

My interpretation of what constitutes a fused spur throws up such inconsistencies. So does yours.

No - yours creates ones which were not there.

Mine creates none.

But it does. For a start, your interpretation creates an inconsistency with the officially stated guidance in the Approved Document. Yes, we know that it's not the law, but as far as the issue at hand is concerned, it's the official interpretation of what the law means, absent some court ruling to the contrary.

 

[RossR]

We're getting some mammoth posts, so here's a short one.

If an electrician was going to install some mains powered interlinked smoke alarms from a fused spur, how do you think they would describe the work on a quote/EIC/etc?

"Installing mains powered interlinked smoke alarms"

or

"Installing a fused spur"

?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One thing I think anyone would agree with is that the legislation is poorly drafted.

Definitely. Although sometimes I think it's written in vague terms which are open to varying interpretations deliberately.

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.

Indeed, as I posted that extract above. As BAS quite correctly says, the Approved Document is not law, however it's officially issued guidance on what is supposedly the official interpretation of the regulations. As far as I can see, the interpretation in that extract coincides with mine.

And as far as I can see it is a complete fabrication with no basis in any "interpretation" of what is in the law (e.g. a clarification of what is meant by one of the terms) - i.e. it is 100% embellishment - a de facto addition of a complete paragraph to Schedule 4.

And that's not the way that legislation gets changed in this country.

That the AD clearly contradicts [the law] 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.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But to all of you who do think that the law you should obey is the one you think they actually meant you to obey after you've finished analysing what you think they meant by what they wrote, what do you think they meant by repeatedly not making adding new fixed electrical equipment non-notifiable?

I think they got embroiled in a discussion like this, decided there was no way to enumerate everything, got fed-up and went to the pub.

I think that to take

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—

(i) any new fixed cabling, or
(ii) a consumer unit;

and change "replacing" to "installing" would not have taken much effort or discussion if their intention really was what the AD says.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Right, we'll take the words literally as written then. Work which consists of installing additional sockets and lights on an existing circuit is exempt from notification, subject to not being in a kitchen etc.

Where is the explicit exemption from notification for the new cables which are needed to bring power to those sockets and lights?

There isn't one, nor is there an explicit exemption for socket back boxes or capping or conduit.

So you can either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly.

If you are going to pursue the latter course then there is no point trying to engage you in rational debate any more.

Exemptions from notification which apply to lights and sockets do not apply to fused spurs.

Then why does 2(c)(ii) provide an exemption for fused spurs?

You keep asking that, and I keep telling you it's so that the adding of fused spurs outside of kitchens etc becomes non-notifiable.

And how do you explain the discrepancies around the use of the conjunction "and" which I outlined above?

So on the basis of that you decide the whole thing is a crock of s*** that cannot possibly mean what you don't want it to mean and you're going to start casting around for interpretations which make it mean what you want, even of doing so creates far more, and far more egregious, discrepancies than that?

And why would somebody install a fused spur which goes nowhere?

The fused spur stops at the FCU. That does not mean that it has to be unused, or go nowhere - it gets used to supply other things, and the installation of those things is notifiable or not purely on the basis of those things. They are not affected by, nor do they affect, the notifiability of the FCU.

Look at it from the other direction - say you did have an FCU already installed in a kitchen, and you later used it to supply a light in the conservatory - would you expect the addition of that light to be notifiable?

You asked earlier, I believe, if I thought that the intention was that fused spurs were only to be used for sockets or lights. Even if that were the case, the definition of fused spur meaning up to and including the FCU would still be 100% consistent with what's in Schedule 4 and would make the explicit mentions of neither fused spurs, lights or sockets superfluous.

You would be carrying out work which consists of adding those things.

And other things - e.g. an FCU.

And what if you use a junction box to tap into the existing circuit? I don't see an explicit exemption for installing a junction box, so does that mean that if you use a junction box an otherwise non-notifiable job suddenly becomes notifiable?

Given the regulatory issues surrounding the inappropriate use of junction boxes then maybe that is the case, and maybe that's a good idea.

And again, the cable you will need to install to connect to those devices is neither a light, nor a switch, nor a socket outlet. So does that make all of those exemptions unusable unless the cable already happens to be there?

See above re stupidity.

Not by itself, because it meets the exemption requirements of 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). But what does that have to do with what constitutes a fused spur?

What it has to do with it is that it's an example of something "downstream" of the switch which you consider not part of the switch. If you considered it part of it you'd consider the switch notifiable.

So why isn't an FCU also a necessary part of extending a circuit, if the design and arrangements make the use of a fused spur necessary?

What you seem to want is for FCUs to be unrecognised, just like JBs. That approach leads to the installation of them in kitchens becoming uncontrolled.

Unless it's taken implicitly as being a necessary part of adding sockets and lights in some cases. Just as installing cable, and possibly a junction box, is likely to be a necessary part of the work.

More and more "unless"es from you.

Every time I put forward the straightforward reading which is wholly consistent with the rest of Schedule 4 you come up with "unless"es which actually create discrepancies and inconsistencies and superfluities in Schedule 4 which were not there before.

I think "clear and unambiguous" is certainly not a term which can be applied to the wording in 2(c), as demonstrated above.

Ignoring stupidity and egregiously invented discrepancies you've demonstrated nothing of the sort.

If you don't consider that an FCU could be installed without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii), then why do you think that the cable can be installed without notification where there is no explicit reference to it?

You can either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly.

So what is it then? Do you dispute that it's a spur? Do you dispute that it's fused?

Go into a wholesaler and ask for a fused spur.

Examine what he places on the counter.

Report back.

Or as Ross said, that those writing these regulations really don't have as much idea about it as some people would believe.

It seems more that you don't want them to have known what they were doing, because you don't like what they did, don't want to accept it and want therefore to discredit it.

And as mentioned several times already, what is written - literally, precisely and pedantically - is clearly not what is meant without adding some implicit interpretation, since nobody is suggesting that adding a socket is not notifiable, but you'll have to notify anyway if you actually want to run a cable to it.

You can either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly.

Schedule 4 clearly does not regard FCUs as ancillary items in the way it does cables for connecting them.

You want it to, but the FACT is that IT DOES NOT, and the simple and straightforward, discrepancy-free reading of it works just fine as long as you accept what it includes and what it excludes.

In itself, no. But again, we come back to the question of it being completely illogical to say you can install a fused spur but not actually connect a load to it.

Who says you cannot connect a load to it?

Of course you can, and the work of connecting it may or may not be notifiable in its own right, neither affected by nor affecting the work of installing the fused spur.

Discrete, compartmentalised and completely consistent.

Inconsistencies, illogicalities, call them what you will. They still make absolutely no sense, as your choice of example demonstrates. For another one, according to the rules somebody can be trusted to fit a socket, select the correct cable, run it back to the distribution board, and connect it as a spur to an existing MCB. But the same person supposedly can't be trusted to do almost the same job but connect the cable to a newly provided MCB.

Indeed, but given that intended premise the rules in Schedule 4 are completely consistent within themselves.

But it does. For a start, your interpretation creates an inconsistency with the officially stated guidance in the Approved Document. Yes, we know that it's not the law, but as far as the issue at hand is concerned, it's the official interpretation of what the law means, absent some court ruling to the contrary.

I have no interest in that - the AD is clearly wrong and it was the authors of the AD who created discrepancies with the law. Their incompetence does not mean that discrepancies suddenly got created within the actual legislation.

 

[Paul_C]

If an electrician was going to install some mains powered interlinked smoke alarms from a fused spur, how do you think they would describe the work on a quote/EIC/etc?

"Installing mains powered interlinked smoke alarms"

or

"Installing a fused spur"

?

The former. But the alarms would still be connected on a fused spur. The fused spur certainly extends as far as the point of utilization, the only issue is whether the alarms themselves are considered to be a part of the overall fused spur. The building regulations don't specifically define the term as used in schedule 4, but the guidance notes in the Approved Document certainly imply that the official interpretation is that they are (additional note h).

That the AD clearly contradicts [the law] 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.

It only clearly contradicts your interpretation of the law. That particular part (additional note h) doesn't contradict the way that others of us are reading the exemption in 2(c)(ii).

I think that to take

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—

(i) any new fixed cabling, or
(ii) a consumer unit;

and change "replacing" to "installing" would not have taken much effort or discussion if their intention really was what the AD says.

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).

Right, we'll take the words literally as written then. Work which consists of installing additional sockets and lights on an existing circuit is exempt from notification, subject to not being in a kitchen etc.

Where is the explicit exemption from notification for the new cables which are needed to bring power to those sockets and lights?

There isn't one, nor is there an explicit exemption for socket back boxes or capping or conduit.

So you can either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly.

That's rather my point. If the reference to "fused spurs" were not present in 2(c)(ii) then there would be no explicit exemption for them, just as there is no explicit exemption for the cables, mounting boxes, conduit, or other items necessary to do the job.

So to apply your argument, in the absence of a "fused spur" reference in 2(c)(ii), you could either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly - and illogically - by claiming that one of those necessary ancillary items is exempt by implication but not another.

Then why does 2(c)(ii) provide an exemption for fused spurs?

You keep asking that, and I keep telling you it's so that the adding of fused spurs outside of kitchens etc becomes non-notifiable.

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)?

And how do you explain the discrepancies around the use of the conjunction "and" which I outlined above?

So on the basis of that you decide the whole thing is a crock of s*** that cannot possibly mean what you don't want it to mean and you're going to start casting around for interpretations which make it mean what you want, even of doing so creates far more, and far more egregious, discrepancies than that?

I'm saying that the poor wording in 2(c) emphasizes the point that it's not as simple as "just read what is written" as you claim.

And why would somebody install a fused spur which goes nowhere?

The fused spur stops at the FCU. That does not mean that it has to be unused, or go nowhere - it gets used to supply other things, and the installation of those things is notifiable or not purely on the basis of those things. They are not affected by, nor do they affect, the notifiability of the FCU.

Who says that a fused spur stops at the FCU? 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?

Look at it from the other direction - say you did have an FCU already installed in a kitchen, and you later used it to supply a light in the conservatory - would you expect the addition of that light to be notifiable?

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).

You would be carrying out work which consists of adding those things.

And other things - e.g. an FCU.

And other things such as cable, which you've already acknowledged as being a necessary part of the job. If a socket is to be connected on a fused spur, then the provision of the FCU is as much a necessary ancillary item as the cable.

And what if you use a junction box to tap into the existing circuit? I don't see an explicit exemption for installing a junction box, so does that mean that if you use a junction box an otherwise non-notifiable job suddenly becomes notifiable?

Given the regulatory issues surrounding the inappropriate use of junction boxes then maybe that is the case, and maybe that's a good idea.

So do you actually believe that the legal interpretation of schedule 4 means that to run a spur to a new socket from an existing socket is exempt from notification, but that to cut into an existing cable to add a junction box from which to run the spur would make the work notifiable?

And again, the cable you will need to install to connect to those devices is neither a light, nor a switch, nor a socket outlet. So does that make all of those exemptions unusable unless the cable already happens to be there?

See above re stupidity.

See above re reply to such stupidity.

What it has to do with it is that it's an example of something "downstream" of the switch which you consider not part of the switch. If you considered it part of it you'd consider the switch notifiable.

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.

What you seem to want is for FCUs to be unrecognised, just like JBs. That approach leads to the installation of them in kitchens becoming uncontrolled.

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

If you don't consider that an FCU could be installed without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii), then why do you think that the cable can be installed without notification where there is no explicit reference to it?

You can either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly.

As above.

Go into a wholesaler and ask for a fused spur.

Examine what he places on the counter.

Report back.

No doubt he will present you with an FCU. But you know that the definition of a fused spur encompasses more than the just an FCU. The fact that a term might be used loosely in this way for convenience doesn't mean that such loose, colloquial use is what is meant by the term in the regulations.

Schedule 4 clearly does not regard FCUs as ancillary items in the way it does cables for connecting them.

Schedule 4 doesn't make any explicit reference to an FCU at all, just as it doesn't make any explicit reference to junction boxes, etc. It refers to fused spurs, and installing an FCU is a necessary part of providing a fused spur, just as installing cable is a necessary part of providing any sort of spur, fused or non-fused.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It only clearly contradicts your interpretation of the law. That particular part (additional note h) doesn't contradict the way that others of us are reading the exemption in 2(c)(ii).

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.

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.

That's rather my point. If the reference to "fused spurs" were not present in 2(c)(ii) then there would be no explicit exemption for them, just as there is no explicit exemption for the cables, mounting boxes, conduit, or other items necessary to do the job.

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

So to apply your argument, in the absence of a "fused spur" reference in 2(c)(ii), you could either accept that, where not mentioned, the ancillary components associated with the installation of the items which are mentioned are included, or you can decide to start behaving stupidly - and illogically - by claiming that one of those necessary ancillary items is exempt by implication but not another.

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

Equally clearly you don't like that, but you have a choice.

1) You can see that the regulations talk about the installation of sockets, the installation of switches, the installation of lights and the installation of fused spurs on an equivalent basis, see that therefore the regulations do not regard fused spurs as being any more ancillary than sockets and lights etc, and see that if you then go with the notion that a fused spur is an item in its own right and is only a fused spur, everything hangs together.

or

2) You can decide that as you don't like what the regulations actually say you'll assume they must be wrong, and that they should be read differently because that generates inconsistencies and superfluities thus proving that they must be wrong.

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.

I'm saying that the poor wording in 2(c) emphasizes the point that it's not as simple as "just read what is written" as you claim.

The justification for my reading is that with it there are no discrepancies or inconsistencies within the regulations themselves, and everything works.

The apparent justification you are claiming for yours is that when you start with the assumption that what they wrote is wrong and look for a different reading things become inconsistent which goes to show that they must have been wrong.

Who says that a fused spur stops at the FCU?

The fused spur is the FCU.

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?

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?

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?

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?

And other things such as cable, which you've already acknowledged as being a necessary part of the job. If a socket is to be connected on a fused spur, then the provision of the FCU is as much a necessary ancillary item as the cable.

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.

So do you actually believe that the legal interpretation of schedule 4 means that to run a spur to a new socket from an existing socket is exempt from notification, but that to cut into an existing cable to add a junction box from which to run the spur would make the work notifiable?

No.

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.

What you seem to want is for FCUs to be unrecognised, just like JBs. That approach leads to the installation of them in kitchens becoming uncontrolled.

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.

A bit like adding a socket in the hall to a circuit which also serves the kitchen. 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?

No doubt he will present you with an FCU. But you know that the definition of a fused spur encompasses more than the just an FCU. The fact that a term might be used loosely in this way for convenience doesn't mean that such loose, colloquial use is what is meant by the term in the regulations.

The thing is that when you proceed on the basis that that is exactly what it means then al the inconsistencies etc vanish. Yes, we're left with the contradictions in the Approved Document, but we would be anyway, and yes we are left with the fact that you are desperate for the regulations to not mean what they say, but 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.

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.

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?

Schedule 4 clearly does not regard FCUs as ancillary items in the way it does cables for connecting them.

Schedule 4 doesn't make any explicit reference to an FCU at all, just as it doesn't make any explicit reference to junction boxes, etc. It refers to fused spurs, and installing an FCU is a necessary part of providing a fused spur, just as installing cable is a necessary part of providing any sort of spur, fused or non-fused.

My reading: no inconsistencies or new puzzles arise.

Your reading: inconsistencies and new puzzles do arise.


I put it to you that if you have a choice of two ways to read something, one works fine and the other doesn't, that it is the one which does not that is wrong.