So the current Approved Document says otherwise because.....?
Rewiring my own house
- Thread starter donlogan
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I've just noticed something for the first time. The new rules don't actually say "Provision of a consumer unit" but, rather, "replacement of a consumer unit". This seems to imply that, say, installing an additional CU (without any definite indication of how much had to remain connected to the existing one
) would not be notifiable. I also imagine that some 'wrigglers' might try to argue that what was there before they installed a new CU was 'not a CU', so they were not 'replacing a CU'!Kind Regards, John
Stoday hasn't been here for over 18 months.
Sponsored Links
Would - the third party inspection system for certifying DIY work as proposed in the 2013 changes to notifiable work has not yet been implemented by the registration schemes - be correct?
Its in the Approved Document but none of the schemes has yet set up a structure, qualification requirement or fees for "third party inspections".
Every one of them continues to be a waste of space.
Every one of them continues to be a waste of space.
So does that mean a qualified electrician can not be able to sign off the work? It means that the electrician will have to take another course to sign off a DIY-er's work?
I'm confused?
Certification by a registered third party
3.5 Before work begins, an installer who is not a registered competent person may appoint a registered third-party certifier to inspect and test the work as necessary.
3.6 Within 5 days of completing the work, the installer must notify the registered third-party certifier who, subject to the results of the inspection and testing being satisfactory, should then complete an electrical installation condition report and give it to the person ordering the work.
NOTE: The electrical installation condition report should be the model BS 7671 form or one developed specifically for Part P purposes.
3.7 The registration body of the third-party certifier must within 30 days of a satisfactory condition report being issued do both of the following.
a. Give a copy of the Building Regulations compliance certificate to the occupier.
b. Give the certificate, or a copy of the information on the certificate, to the building control
body.
I just found this.... So what do you make of it?
Registered third-party certifier:
A competent person registered with a Part P competent person third-party certification scheme
It presumably means what it says. When (if) any approved organisation sets up a "competent persons third-party certification scheme", then there will be some "third-party certifiers" around. Until that happens, there won't be any. As far as I am aware, no organisation has yet indicated any intention to set up such a scheme, so no-one knows what (qualifications, experience etc.) would be required (other, probably, than money!) to become registered, if any such schemes ever appear, or if anyone would be inclined to become registered.
Kind Regards, John
Possibly.
As would, AFAICT, "the actual legislation makes no mention of such third party inspectors or registration schemes so there would seem to be no reason why an Approved Inspector could not be used just as they can for any other controlled work".
So there is not course to go on/schemes? Why would there be a need, except to make money. That's how I was reading it. What do they determin as an approved inspector?
City & Guilds (2392-10)?
Waiting with bated breath to know, but they dont know.
I would hope City & Guilds (2392-10) as a bare minimum plus 5 years experience, but everything is being watered down now so it will probably be a 10 answer multiple guess on line thingy.
That is, if it happens at all - and I would put no money on that.
I'd be interested to know whether, a coupleof months into this 'new system', any electricians have been approached about 'third party certification'.
Kind Regards, John.
But the new CU wouldn't be a lot of use without any circuits attached to it. I challenge you to make something work off the new CU without at least one new circuit (the tails feeding it). If you take the tails out of the old unit then it would be even harder to claim that this was an addition and not a replacement.This seems to imply that, say, installing an additional CU (without any definite indication of how much had to remain connected to the existing one
I agree that it would often take a bit of 'wriggling'. However, in relation to the specific point you make, I think it would be reasonable to interpret 'new circuit' as 'new final circuit', which hence would exclude the feed to the CU. Provided one doesn't consider that feed as being 'a new circuit', one can, for example, envisage situations in which someone might want to install an additional CU if the existing one was single-RCD or no-RCD (and 'full') in order to achieve split RCD functionality - merely trasferring some of the existing final circuits from the existing CU to the new one (and creating no new final circuits).But the new CU wouldn't be a lot of use without any circuits attached to it. I challenge you to make something work off the new CU without at least one new circuit (the tails feeding it). If you take the tails out of the old unit then it would be even harder to claim that this was an addition and not a replacement.This seems to imply that, say, installing an additional CU (without any definite indication of how much had to remain connected to the existing one
Kind Regards, John
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