Revised Part P 6th April
- Thread starter AdamCH
- Start date
Sponsored Links
S
SaladFingers
For what?
Sort-of, but extremely belatedly - Schedule 4 (and, before it Schedual 2 or whatever it was called) has always had 'provision of a CU' as one of the exceptions to exemptions from notification - so I could probably actually have asked a similar question at any point in the past several years!You've been thinking again, haven't you?As we know, come April 6th, one of the few things still notifiable will be 'provision of a new consumer unit'. Given that BS7671 clearly defines a 'Consumer Unit' as being a type-tested DB, does this mean that provision (and installation) of a new non-type-tested DB would be non-notifiable?
Kind Regards
Sponsored Links
What exactly does 'type' mean in this respect?
The BS7671 definition of CU seems to indicate that it means that the entire unit, factory-populated with recommened components, has been tested. If that's the case, one way to make sure it wasn't 'type-tested' would presumably be to use a 'bare' (empty) CU enclosure and populate it with contents which were not 'recomemnded' (i,e. a different make.
Kind Regards, John
Yes, I was reading THIS so was wondering if all CUs are 'type tested' to the same standard (60943-1) or does every manufacturer have a different 'type' and sub-number?
It says -
‘A low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly conforming to an established type or
system without deviations likely to significantly influence the performance, from the typical
ASSEMBLY verified to be in accordance with this standard.’
So if two manufactures have used the same standard to design their products does that mean the parts may be interchangeable?
(Obviously they would have to fit)
It probably wouldn't be worth the bother of finding out if all properties were the same but if 'type' merely refers to 'consumer units' rather than Hager are one 'type' and MK are another 'type'.
I know it looks rough and unsightly so don't/won't do it but just wondered.
It says -
‘A low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly conforming to an established type or
system without deviations likely to significantly influence the performance, from the typical
ASSEMBLY verified to be in accordance with this standard.’
So if two manufactures have used the same standard to design their products does that mean the parts may be interchangeable?
(Obviously they would have to fit)
It probably wouldn't be worth the bother of finding out if all properties were the same but if 'type' merely refers to 'consumer units' rather than Hager are one 'type' and MK are another 'type'.
I know it looks rough and unsightly so don't/won't do it but just wondered.
I'm afraid that your guess is as good as mine. We all understand the intended spirit of the Building Regs - but it just occurred to me that there could be a theoretical loophole (for those interested in such things) in the actual words of one of the few notifiable jobs that will remain after April 5th.
I guess it remains only to think a bit about "new circuit", since I doubt that there's any way around showers!
Kind Regards, John
If thinking about 'new circuits' came up trumps, then self-certifying electricians would perhaps have to be renamed "Shower fitters"
Seriously, though, if the list of notifiable works gets any shorter (and maybe even with the April 6th situation), the amount of work requiring self-certification or third-party certification could get so small that many electricians might have to consider whether the ongoing cost of their Scheme(s) membership could be justified, mightn't they?
Kind Regards, John
Wouldn't fancy anyone's chances trying to argue that one with building control ..... or the judge
What is the accepted definition of a new circuit?
I'm sure a lot will.
I did think yesterday that PBoD saying he had been told that to be a 'third party certifier' would be automatic and at no further charge might show that the schemes are worried that a lot will not renew.
Having said that, renewing consumer units and fitting showers could be quite a loss (so design a non type tested cu - oxymoron?) and while no one likes paying it is only a tenner a week.
I did think yesterday that PBoD saying he had been told that to be a 'third party certifier' would be automatic and at no further charge might show that the schemes are worried that a lot will not renew.
Having said that, renewing consumer units and fitting showers could be quite a loss (so design a non type tested cu - oxymoron?) and while no one likes paying it is only a tenner a week.
If the amount of Part P work is reduced you may well find that they include third party certification free of charge - or else they may lose money with people not joining the scheme. Maybe even the base Part P will get cheaper if it's not so essential.
One would obviously first have to research what is regarded as an 'accepted definition' of"Consumer Unit" (hence also "type-tested") - but if those definitions were favourable to one's argument, BC and the Judge might find their hands tied!Wouldn't fancy anyone's chances trying to argue that one with building control ..... or the judge
I can't tell you who accepts it, but per BS7671 (i.e. 'the regs') a circuit is "An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected by the same protective device(s)". At face value, that corresponds with what we would all say - i.e. one MCB/RCBO in a CU (or occasionally other origins) equals one circuit. A 'new circuit' would therefore be one run from a new protective device (MCB/RCBO/Whatever) - again, corresponding to 'common sense'. Whether that leaves any loopholes requires a little thought
I guess that anyone 'forward thinking' would, when having a new CU fitted, make sure that all currently 'spare' spaces in the CU were occupied by an MCB of some sort which was connected to some 'electrical equipment' (a junction box, FCU, socket or whatever, adjacent to the CU?) - so that 'way' in the CU could be used for any purpose in the future (changing the MCB if necessary) without the 'any purpose' qualifying as a 'new circuit'!
Kind Regards, John
Wouldn't fancy anyone's chances trying to argue that one with building control ..... or the judge
Perhaps, John, you should become best buddies with Stoday who once put forward a similar argument about CUs vs DBs. Mind you, he also tried to argue that as Schedule 2B (as was) failed to exempt provision of a consumer unit, if you installed more than one the work had to be non-notifiable, so you might want to think a bit about that.
No - in all seriousness, the only time it would matter whether something was notifiable and you did not notify it would be if you were facing some kind of legal proceedings, either prosecution for Building Regulations contravention or a claim for losses from a house buyer to whom you had lied.
No matter how unlikely, those are the only times, and if they were to arise then IMO you would find out pretty smartly when trying to argue that a "consumer unit" was not what you installed because you built it yourself, that judges can, and do, interpret legislation on the basis of what they thought Parliament intended,
And you'd not have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing with your argument that as you bought an enclosure, a DIN rail, a bus-bar, some tri-rated cable, a few neutral and earth bars and a bunch of switches/RCDs/MCBs/RCBOs you had not provided a CU.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
