Schedule4-How to rewire most of your house without notifying

[mbga9pgf]

The answer is simple. How do the LABC know what you have done and when?

If I want to get some where quick I break the speed limit. Although now too old to want to get anywhere quick.

But same with re-wire. Simple answer if you don't want to notify you simply break the law.

We all know people flout the rules all the time. Be it not checking the earth loop impedance or not going through LABC personally not following BS7671:2008 is far more dangerous than not paying the LABC their fee.

So nitty gritty why pay the fee? Answer is simple you want to show a buyer or insurer that it was done correct. On a whole house re-wire it will cost around £200 to get the paper trail required to sell the house. So to show the prospective buyer that the £3000 spent on the re-wire was done A1 it's going to cost £200. Not worth worrying about just pay the fee.

I would agree for the old extra socket then £200 is OTT but for whole re-wire then quite reasonable.

So I agree with holmslaw it's a Stupid thread.

I had a full periodic on every circuit in the house done after my DIY rewire. Wouldnt have done it any other way. Only problems were on circuits i HADNT modified.

 

[JohnW2]

I had a full periodic on every circuit in the house done after my DIY rewire. Wouldnt have done it any other way. Only problems were on circuits i HADNT modified.

That makes very good sense, but it's obviously not a total answer. Although probably fairly irrelevant, it doesn't undo a failure to notify (if the work was notifiable) nor would it theoretically be accepted by LABC as being equivalent to certification of the work by the person who undertook it (if self-certifying) or an LABC 'inspector'. The reason for the latter is probably related to the other deficiency of an 'after the event' PIR/EICR - namely that a PIR/EICR can only cover what is testable or accessible. It therefore cannot ever prove that the work has been done totally in a compliant (and safe enough to satisfy Part P) fashion - since the person undertaking the PIR cannot guarantee that there are no 'horrors' buried in walls, hidden under floorboards or whatever.

However, all that said, to have a PIR/EICR undertaken after any significat, certainly any major, DIY electriocal work makes total sense for most DIYers, even if it is not 'the total answer'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

... leaving your electrician only having to do the CU change and testing?

Why stop at that. If you already have a CU with MCBs in it, then you can even replace that. You are allowed to replace a damaged casing - so you remove the old CU, fit the new one with undamaged casing, and fit the old MCBs back in. You then replace the MCBs one at a time - also not notifiable. And there was a thread not so long ago where (IIRC) the majority verdict seemed to be that replacing an MCB with an RCBO would be allowed since it "doesn't affect the circuit protection".

But there's a way to do the work in the kitchen anyway: You just remove the sink and stash it away in the shed or garage. The room then ceases to be a kitchen as defined by schedule 4, so you could do whatever you like in there in the same way as if it were a living room or bedroom. When you're done, refit the sink. (Of course, you could remove the "food preparation facilities" instead of the sink, if you could actually figure out what that means.)

The same principle could be applied to the "special location" of the bathroom if you felt like going to the trouble of completely removing the bath and/or shower before doing the wiring.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this the other day. I've been getting a colleague at work into some DIY - for some strange reason he found hacking chases into the walls with a power chisel (we had to go into the hard blocks to get the size of trunking in to take the AV cables) "therapeutic" Anyway, at the moment there is no bath or shower, so logically it's not a bathroom.
And there's another thought, is "bathroom" defined in law ? It it "a room with a bath" - literal interpretation of "bath" "room" ? Is a room containing a shower a "bath" room ?


But I agree with the previous comments, it does make the law seem rather stupid.

 

[Paul_C]

And there was a thread not so long ago where (IIRC) the majority verdict seemed to be that replacing an MCB with an RCBO would be allowed since it "doesn't affect the circuit protection".

I don't believe it matters if it does affect it (so long as the end result is satisfactory, of course). As debated in that other thread, 1(c) stipulates that replacing enclosures is subject to the condition that circuit protective measures are unaffected, but the general replacement clause in 1(a) which would be used for replacing an MCB (whether with another MCB or an RCBO) has no such condition attached.

And there's another thought, is "bathroom" defined in law ? It it "a room with a bath" - literal interpretation of "bath" "room" ? Is a room containing a shower a "bath" room ?

Schedule 4 references the definitions of the applicable zones in BS7671:

“special location” means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, seventeenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2008

 

[JohnW2]

... leaving your electrician only having to do the CU change and testing?

Why stop at that. If you already have a CU with MCBs in it, then you can even replace that. You are allowed to replace a damaged casing - so you remove the old CU, fit the new one with undamaged casing, and fit the old MCBs back in. You then replace the MCBs one at a time - also not notifiable. And there was a thread not so long ago where (IIRC) the majority verdict seemed to be that replacing an MCB with an RCBO would be allowed since it "doesn't affect the circuit protection".

Yes, one could do that, but I think you've probably missed the point of what Electifying was suggesting. As I understand it, the decision to get a self-certifying electrician to replace the CU was deliberate, since this was a way in which a DIYer without the kit and/or knowledge needed for testing could get every one of the 're-wired circuits' tested (and the test results documented in a Schedule) before any of the new circuits were energised.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

Yes, one could do that, but I think you've probably missed the point of what Electifying was suggesting. As I understand it, the decision to get a self-certifying electrician to replace the CU was deliberate, since this was a way in which a DIYer without the kit and/or knowledge needed for testing could get every one of the 're-wired circuits' tested (and the test results documented in a Schedule) before any of the new circuits were energised.

But you could (taking the basic point of avoiding cost) get said electrician in to do the tests themselves. Another £100 saving based on what I've paid in the past for tests and what a colleague is paying for a CU change.

Or, taking another tack altogether, my LABC charges £150/£225 for stand alone electrical works depending on whether you can provide test results or not. Do all the stuff you can under part P without notifying, and notify for the bits that are notifiable, and you can actually rewire the whole house including special areas.

 

[JohnW2]

But you could (taking the basic point of avoiding cost) get said electrician in to do the tests themselves. Another £100 saving based on what I've paid in the past for tests and what a colleague is paying for a CU change.

Yes, that is true. I don't know to what extent some electricians might be reticent to do 'just tests' in this fashion (but I suppose paid work is paid work!).

Or, taking another tack altogether, my LABC charges £150/£225 for stand alone electrical works depending on whether you can provide test results or not. Do all the stuff you can under part P without notifying, and notify for the bits that are notifiable, and you can actually rewire the whole house including special areas.

Again true, but if one exploited the word of Schedule 4 in the way that has been discussed, there might not be anything to notify - as discussed, even the CU change and work in special areas (if only 'replacements'without any additions) could be argued to be non-notifiable - so one could be notifying/paying 'unnecessarily', effectively making the tests cost £225.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

Or, taking another tack altogether, my LABC charges £150/£225 for stand alone electrical works depending on whether you can provide test results or not. Do all the stuff you can under part P without notifying, and notify for the bits that are notifiable, and you can actually rewire the whole house including special areas.

Again true, but if one exploited the word of Schedule 4 in the way that has been discussed, there might not be anything to notify - as discussed, even the CU change and work in special areas (if only 'replacements'without any additions) could be argued to be non-notifiable - so one could be notifying/paying 'unnecessarily', effectively making the tests cost £225.

I was assuming there'd be additions - lets face it, how many people would want to rewire a house but not improve the kitchen ? Every "developer built" kitchen (and indeed whole property) I've seen has generally been woefully inadequate in terms of number/placement of sockets, lights, and just about everything else.

But then, I do have (or rather dad has) an old IR tester at home so I can do some basic tests in advance and so have some confidence that the official tests won't come up with any surprises.

 

[Paul_C]

I was assuming there'd be additions - lets face it, how many people would want to rewire a house but not improve the kitchen ?

As described above though, there are ways to make those additions without them being notifiable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The whole idea is pointless.

The only time you'd need your story to work would be if you were genuinely facing a legal challenge over your failure to notify, and there is precedent for a court deciding that doing something apparently technically legal but based on an artificial situation purely in order to sidestep a law which would prevent you doing what you were really doing is not allowed.

If you don't want to notify then just don't notify.

Simples.

 

[JohnW2]

I was assuming there'd be additions - lets face it, how many people would want to rewire a house but not improve the kitchen ? Every "developer built" kitchen (and indeed whole property) I've seen has generally been woefully inadequate in terms of number/placement of sockets, lights, and just about everything else.

That's all true. However, in terms of practicalities, I think that most people (particularly DIYers) would probably 'put off' the rewiring of a kitchen if they possibly could (i.e. do 'everything else' as part of their 're-wire') - since the nature of kitchens is such that this is much easier/more practical when the kitchen itself is being refurbished/refitted.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

The whole idea is pointless. The only time you'd need your story to work would be if you were genuinely facing a legal challenge over your failure to notify, and there is precedent for a court deciding that doing something apparently technically legal but based on an artificial situation purely in order to sidestep a law which would prevent you doing what you were really doing is not allowed. If you don't want to notify then just don't notify. Simples.

In essence, I agree. However, if one does decide not to notify and feels that there is a argument that notification was not necessary, then it does no harm to think about, and document at the time, that argument. It's not necessarily only 'legal challenges' (which aren't going to happen) - there's also the issue of explaining to a propsective buyer of the property why one believes that no notifiable work had been undertaken without notification.

Rehearsing and documenting one's argument cannot do any harm.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think if I was the prospective buyer of a house owned by someone who documented the fact that over a week he did so much accidental damage to his existing cables that he needed to replace them all I'd walk away...

 

[scousespark]

The whole idea is pointless. The only time you'd need your story to work would be if you were genuinely facing a legal challenge over your failure to notify, and there is precedent for a court deciding that doing something apparently technically legal but based on an artificial situation purely in order to sidestep a law which would prevent you doing what you were really doing is not allowed. If you don't want to notify then just don't notify. Simples.

In essence, I agree. However, if one does decide not to notify and feels that there is a argument that notification was not necessary, then it does no harm to think about, and document at the time, that argument. It's not necessarily only 'legal challenges' (which aren't going to happen) - there's also the issue of explaining to a propsective buyer of the property why one believes that no notifiable work had been undertaken without notification.

Rehearsing and documenting one's argument cannot do any harm.

Kind Regards, John.

That's crap. Notification of notifiable works is a legal requirement. Nobody has the right to ignore this and use 'I think it is a stupid requirement and I am ignoring it' as their defence. As BAS said, your average DIYER will choose to notify or not. A professional should follow the rules.

 

[JohnW2]

That's crap. Notification of notifiable works is a legal requirement. Nobody has the right to ignore this and use 'I think it is a stupid requirement and I am ignoring it' as their defence.

Have you read all of this (very tongue-in-cheek) thread? It's nothing to do with what you, I or anyone else may think is a stupid requirement - it's about what can theoretically be done without notification without breaking the law - facilitated by the very incompetent drafting of the legislation. Schedule 4 exempts various works from the legal requirement for notification and, as has been illuistrated, it's written so badly that it can be taken to indicate that virtually all works are exempt.

I would dare to suggest that you are guilty of the very same thing that you suggest above, just the other way around - you are assuming that things which you feel should be notifiable are notifiable, even if the words of the law say something different.

Kind Regards, John.