Part P question

[shedbang]

One for those who enjoy interpreting officialdom.

I want to install a socket into an existing ring main. Very easy job. The ring runs right past where I want to put it and there are two accessible sockets relatively close either side. I will need to extend the ring very slightly to reach the position of the new socket.

To avoid using JB's my plan was to remove the T&E linking the two existing sockets, trim it to reach the new socket on one side and then run a new length from the new socket to rejoin the second existing socket, hence partially extending the ring (by about a foot!). All neat and tidy. Cables in safe zones etc.

Under Part P it seems that I can add 'socket-outlets or fused spurs to an existing ring' or I can replace cable, but only if it is damaged (!). Any work involving 'provision of new fixed cabling' seems to be notifiable, although this is then made ambiguous by additional note H to tables 1 & 2 which says 'fixed wiring AND the installation of a new circuit'.

So, is my new T&E run to the old socket outside of compliance? If so, could I technically comply, by moving the socket slightly and stressing the existing cable (which I obviously won't do)? Also, how the hell would anyone install a spur without fixed cable?

If this is the case, I could presumably 'accidentally' drive a nail through the existing cable (I am going to be very lucky and anticipate that my ham-fisted hammering will take place when the power is off) and replace it quite legally, and install a socket at the same time...

Am I missing something here?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Assuming the new socket(s) are not in a kitchen, bathroom or outside then the work you are describing is not notifiable.

There's detail on extending a ring circuit on the WIKI, but it sounds like you know what to do, already.

 

[riveralt]

One for those who enjoy interpreting officialdom.
................................. etc
Am I missing something here?

Yes it is unlikely that you will comply with BS7671 with respect to the installation of additional protection where the cable lies less than 50mm from the surface and is not protected by mechanical means etc.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

As are ready mentioned the room in which this alteration is being made is a key factor to notification. Bathrooms and Kitchens will be notifiable.
You can extend, alter or add on to your ring final circuit in most other rooms, dinning rooms, lounge/front room, bedrooms, hall ways, landings, studies etc...
Any work you do do must still comply to part p as this is a building regulation whether the work is notifiable or non-notifiable.
The alteration you are making sounds fine providing not within locations deemed notifiable.
The one consideration that should be made is if you have RCD protection already on the circuit you are working on, if you check this link out it will offer a little explanation to safe zones.
If additional RCD protection is needed then the work will become notifiable regardless of the location it is being made, as the circuit protection measures are being altered.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Under Part P it seems that I can add 'socket-outlets or fused spurs to an existing ring' or I can replace cable, but only if it is damaged (!). Any work involving 'provision of new fixed cabling' seems to be notifiable, although this is then made ambiguous by additional note H to tables 1 & 2 which says 'fixed wiring AND the installation of a new circuit'.

Firstly, compliance with Part P is required whether or not the work is notifiable.




Secondly, you should read Schedule 4 to find out what is non-notifiable.

 

[streetlighter]

I would agree that this work is not notifiable. One bit of advice though would be to use a continuity tester before starting work to confirm the ends of the ring are complete, you never know whos done what in the past to break the circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes it is unlikely that you will comply with BS7671 with respect to the installation of additional protection where the cable lies less than 50mm from the surface and is not protected by mechanical means etc.

...if there is no RCD protection, you are obviously technically right.

However, do you not feel that this is one of those situations in which requiring strict BS7671 compliance is plain silly? We are talking about a ring final which could be tens of metres in length, with all of the existing cables quite probably <50mm deep, and that is going to remain the case after addition of the new socket. Can you really put your hand on heart and say that you believe that there would be any meaningful reduction in safety if a further foot or two of cable <50mm deep were added?

I personally think this is one of those cases in which Part P's requirements for 'reasonable provisions for safety' would be satisfied (without adding RCD protection), even if BS7671 were not.

In any event, the OP hasn't told us otherwise, so maybe the circuit is already RCD protected.

shedbang ... what you were 'missing' is that the fact that additions/extensions to circuits is generally allowed without notification over-rides the requirement to notify work involving new fixed wiring.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

Yes it is unlikely that you will comply with BS7671 with respect to the installation of additional protection where the cable lies less than 50mm from the surface and is not protected by mechanical means etc.

...if there is no RCD protection, you are obviously technically right.
However, do you not feel that this is one of those situations in which requiring strict BS7671 compliance is plain silly? We are talking about a ring final which could be tens of metres in length, with all of the existing cables quite probably <50mm deep, and that is going to remain the case after addition of the new socket. Can you really put your hand on heart and say that you believe that there would be any meaningful reduction in safety if a further foot or two of cable <50mm deep were added?
Kind Regards, John.

Maybe plain silly in your mind - you do seem to have been banging the Part P drum this Christmas John - but for those of us who are working in this field, pay to be registered and get inspected on what we produce then complying with BS7671 is an absolute requirement - end of story.
So stop playing the fool (sorry devils advocat) and looking for excuses to bypass the regulations. Afterall, even if the OP does not have RCD protection providing it for the extension to his circuit is relatively cheap and easy to do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

devils advocat

Alcoholic custard is not mankind's finest drink invention, 'tis true, but I think that's a bit harsh...

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe plain silly in your mind - you do seem to have been banging the Part P drum this Christmas John - but for those of us who are working in this field, pay to be registered and get inspected on what we produce then complying with BS7671 is an absolute requirement - end of story.

You don't seem to understand the spirit and nature of such discussions. No-one is denying that scheme-registered electricians have no option but to comply with the letter of BS7671 - as you say, 'end of story'.

However, that does not mean that one cannot, or should not, discuss aspects of the regs (to which you are obliged to work) that get a little bit 'silly'. Let's face it, there are plenty of laws, rules and regulations in this world which seem 'silly', but which we are obliged to comply with if we want to stay on the right side of the law/regs - but that doesn't (and, IMO, should not) stop us expressing our views about such silliness.

In context, and more to the point, this is a DIY forum, not a forum for scheme-registered electricians - and, as I've said, DIYers are required to comply with Part P but (unlike you) are not obliged to comply fully with BS7671. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be very happy to stand up in any 'court of law' and argue that to add 0.5m of cable to, say, a 30m ring final circuit, installed in exactly the same way as the existing 30m (but without adding RCD protection), did not constitute a failure to comply with Part P's requirements for 'reasonable provisions' - and therefore was compliant with Part P (even if not with BS7671).

So stop playing the fool (sorry devils advocat) and looking for excuses to bypass the regulations. Afterall, even if the OP does not have RCD protection providing it for the extension to his circuit is relatively cheap and easy to do.

You again seem to be forgetting that this is a DIY forum. 'Cheap' if you did it, perhaps, but, in many/most people's eyes, the addition of RCD protection to an existing ring final circuit would turn the job into a notifiable one, with the well-known financial implications for a DIYer.

Happy New Year!

Kind Regards, John

 

[STI]

Or could you not just use an RCD socket outlet for the newly installed socket.

Not the prettiest of accessories but does the job.

 

[JohnW2]

Or could you not just use an RCD socket outlet for the newly installed socket. Not the prettiest of accessories but does the job.

No, you couldn't - and no, it would not do the job. In addition to the requirementv for socket circuits to be RCD-protected, we are also talking about the requirement to protect cables which are buried less than 50mm deep (unless they are armoured or protected) - an RCD socket would not achieve that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Afterall, even if the OP does not have RCD protection providing it for the extension to his circuit is relatively cheap and easy to do.

A further thought/question has occurred to me ... if one replaces a, say, damaged socket on a circuit which does not have RCD protection, would you feel that this 'work' on the circuit requires an RCD to be installed to protect the replaced socket?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[STI]

Ah yes sorry brains still in re boot mode.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

A further thought/question has occurred to me ... if one replaces a, say, damaged socket on a circuit which does not have RCD protection, would you feel that this 'work' on the circuit requires an RCD to be installed to protect the replaced socket?

Kind Regards, John.

As you are not altering the circuit in anyway, I go no!