shed wiring and electrics

[winston1]

You don't need a consumer unit at all in your shed. Run the feed off a 20 amp MCB in the house direct to the sockets with the lights via a switched fuse connection unit. If you need more than 20amps use a 32 amp MCB and wire the shed in a ring as a lollipop circuit. If the house has no RCD protection use a RCBO instead of a MCB.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've said, although we're probably never going to know, my suspicion (and hope) is that a court would take a more sensible and pragmatic view rather than one obsessed with the semantics of the declaration that had been signed.

And I hope that should it ever come to a court case one of these charlatan electricians who (despite your rosy-tinted view based on your involvement with documents where you are the "author") has quite clearly not exercised any supervision and direction of his customer, but has just turned up and taken a bribe to lie to LABC, gets sent down. In fact, I hope that both he and the householder get charged with conspiracy, and both sent down.

Obsessed with the semantics of the declaration?

I think not - if anybody here is obsessed, it is yourself with the view that this sort of situation is analogous with properly conducted electrical contracting businesses, where multiple people are properly involved doing parts of the whole. I do not believe, and frankly I am gobsmacked that you actually believe, that the intention of the provisions for self-certification in the Building Regulations was that non-registered people could carry out notifiable work without notifying in advance just so long as they then got a registered electrician to come along afterwards, do a bit of after-the-event checking, and then tell Building Control that he had carried out the work.

OOI, can you find support for that belief in either the legislation or the Approved Document?

 

[davelx]

Well, if we are arguing semantics ...

Fred Bloggs the person/individual cannot be a member of a scheme (only enterprises can be members of the schemes). Fred Bloggs the Sole Trader can - the Sole Trader is the legal entity, and as such it can employ whomever it likes to actually do the work and Fred Bloggs the individual can sign it off as Qualified Supervisor and notify it via the scheme.

Competent person self-certification schemes (commonly referred to as competent person schemes) were introduced by the Government in 2002 to allow individuals and enterprises to self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations...

Yes, but read the membership requirements for the schemes themselves, they refer to "enterprises" not "individuals", e.g. from NICEIC:

"The Domestic Installer Scheme of NICEIC provides
registration for enterprises that undertake domestic
electrical installation work in accordance with Building
Regulations, the UK national standard BS 7671, and related
codes of practice. The scope of the Domestic Installer
Scheme is solely registration for those enterprises that are,
and continue to be, assessed as competent to self-certify
that their domestic electrical installation work is compliant
with the requirements of Building Regulations."

and their definition:

"Enterprise = a sole trader, partnership, private limited
company, public limited company, public body or other legal
entity carrying out domestic electrical installation work."

Individual ain't there.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You don't need a consumer unit at all in your shed. Run the feed off a 20 amp MCB in the house direct to the sockets with the lights via a switched fuse connection unit.

And lose some or all of the house circuits if a fault out in the shed trips the RCD.

Way to go.

If you need more than 20amps use a 32 amp MCB and wire the shed in a ring as a lollipop circuit.

Or, of course, the more usual arrangement of a 32A radial.


Deadbeat - take no notice of Winston - his ideas are rubbish.

Mind you - I guess we don't know if you were already planning the rubbish design of a shed CU supplied from a breaker in your house CU....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but read the membership requirements for the schemes themselves, they refer to "enterprises" not "individuals", e.g. from NICEIC:

Oh well - if NICEIC say so then it must be true.

I mean, they never, ever get things wrong, do they?

Not once have they ever said anything misleading, have they?

Nor have they ever given even the slightest impression that they like to make up their own regulations, have they?

 

[DeadBeat]

I don't know my Sparkys plans in that regard although i think i remember he said to use a separate CU so as not to trip out the house in the event of problems, however he may also at the time have been talking about RCBO's or MCBs etc etc basically stuff i wouldnt pretend to know the answer to. but I will make sure to ask him next time we discuss it.

 

[JohnW2]

... if anybody here is obsessed, it is yourself with the view that this sort of situation is analogous with properly conducted electrical contracting businesses, where multiple people are properly involved doing parts of the whole.

A sole trader could sign the declaration even if much, maybe all, of the work had been undertaken, under his/her supervision, by an 'apprentice' with a just a few days' experience.

I do not believe, and frankly I am gobsmacked that you actually believe, that the intention of the provisions for self-certification in the Building Regulations was that non-registered people could carry out notifiable work without notifying in advance just so long as they then got a registered electrician to come along afterwards, do a bit of after-the-event checking, and then tell Building Control that he had carried out the work.

If it's any consolation to you, I don't believe that, either, and I've never said that I do. What I have said is that "...it comes down to the degree of supervision which the certifying person feels necessary in order to be happy to certify the work as if they had done all of it themselves - a decision which will presumably be strongly influenced by the 'nature' of the person actually 'doing' most/all of the work.". 'After-the-event checking' of work undertaken by a non-electrician stranger does not qualify as any degree of 'supervision' in my book, so I would not expect (m)any 'registered electricians' to be prepared to certify work as 'their own' on such a basis.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

'After-the-event checking' of work undertaken by a non-electrician stranger does not qualify as any degree of 'supervision' in my book, so I would not expect (m)any 'registered electricians' to be prepared to certify work as 'their own' on such a basis.

Well they are the ones we hear about here - you know, the ones who are happy for the customer to buy materials, who have told the customer what to do but now they can't quite remember so could we help them because the electrician is on holiday/in hospital/uncontactable for a while/they don't like to bother him/etc/etc/etc.

And who, apparently, have agreed to turn up after the event, after the work has been done without notification and then after as much checking as they feel necessary in order to be happy to certify the work as if they had done all of it themselves, do tell Building Control that they have done it themselves.

Tell you what - why don't you contact North Bucks BC, run the idea past them, and see if they think it would be OK for you to do some notifiable work that way.

 

[JohnW2]

'After-the-event checking' of work undertaken by a non-electrician stranger does not qualify as any degree of 'supervision' in my book, so I would not expect (m)any 'registered electricians' to be prepared to certify work as 'their own' on such a basis.

Well they are the ones we hear about here - you know, the ones who are happy for the customer to buy materials, who have told the customer what to do but now they can't quite remember so could we help them because the electrician is on holiday/in hospital/uncontactable for a while/they don't like to bother him/etc/etc/etc. ... And who, apparently, have agreed to turn up after the event, after the work has been done without notification and then after as much checking as they feel necessary in order to be happy to certify the work as if they had done all of it themselves, do tell Building Control that they have done it themselves.

Well, if such people actually do exist (I suppose there must be some, but probably far fewer than we 'hear about here'), then they would clearly (theoretically) be stepping on thin ice by self-certifying work as their own if they hadn't 'supervised' at all, and particularly if they hadn't even been involved until 'after the event'. I say 'theoretically' because, if they did decide to do that, despite the ('theoretical') thin ice, the chances of anyone ever discovering the truth is pretty remote.

Th main point, however, which I really don't need to tell you, is that you really should not believe everything "you hear about here".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you saying I should not believe the OP

Im currently purchasing parts to wire up my shed as a workshop. im in contact with an electrician who has instructed me on a number of parts to buy. however i dont like to keep bothering him with constant questions

 

[bernardgreen]

Maybe it suits the "electrician" for the client to buy the parts. Might be the "electrician" cannot get credit at the trade counter and doesn't want to spend his own money up front in case he doesn't get paid ( because (s)he messed up the project ).

 

[JohnW2]

Are you saying I should not believe the OP

I'm saying that you certainly should not automatically believe all OPs and since, unfortunately, I have no crystal ball, I can't tell you which ones to believe and which ones not to believe!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Tell you what - why don't you contact North Bucks BC, run the idea past them, and see if they think it would be OK for you to do some notifiable work that way.

[it's AVDC actually].

What would be interesting would to contact them 'anonymously' and to ask them whether (if such were the only two options I would contemplate) they would prefer that to happen or for me to do the work, ignore notification (and probably also testing) and involve no electrician at any point. One imagines that I would get the 'obvious' answer, but it would give some insight into whether they were more concerned about electrical safety or the law and their systems/fees.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Go for it.

I'll try my council too. Need to create an anonymous email address first though, as I really am, by the looks of it, doing a notifiable project this year...

But I won't ask them to say which of two illegal courses of action they prefer - I'll just ask about the "under supervision" option.

 

[JohnW2]

Go for it. .... I'll try my council too. Need to create an anonymous email address first though, as I really am, by the looks of it, doing a notifiable project this year... ... But I won't ask them to say which of two illegal courses of action they prefer - I'll just ask about the "under supervision" option.

Good luck - but, as I said, you'll almost certainly get the 'obvious' ('party line') answer. As I said, the interesting thing about my idea of asking for their preference between "two illegal courses of action" is that (if they gave a reply) it would reveal whether they actually have any true interest in electrical safety - since it's quite obvious which is (in terms of electrical safety) the 'lesser of those two (illegal) evils'.

Kind Regards, John