Shed Wiring Question

[EFLImpudence]

I thought I had already answered that (and invoked any wrath) by saying that the previous list of non-notifiable work included fused spurs without specifying which fuses may be used and that a fused spur is not an FCU.

Yes, but that was just in relation to 'fused spurs' probably/presumably still being non-notifiable. However, I was really asking whether you agreed with my step-by-step extrapolation from that (presumption) to saying that an enclosure containing a switch and OPDs (aka a 'CU'), fed from an existing circuit, was also probably non-notifiable?

Yes, I've said the fusing method for the spur is not mentioned.

It has just occurred to me that an unfused spur was notifiable but was/is not a new circuit.

Was it (notifiable)? ....

or(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit;...

Do you not think that "adding socket outlets ... to an existing ring or radial circuit" would include unfused spurs?

Yes, so do we presume the purpose of specifically mentioning 'fused spurs' (being allowable without notification) was for the connection of appliances (rather than sockets) and if so what about 'unfused spurs' to appliances?


It really is too unclear and badly written to try and fathom.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but that was just in relation to 'fused spurs' probably/presumably still being non-notifiable. However, I was really asking whether you agreed with my step-by-step extrapolation from that (presumption) to saying that an enclosure containing a switch and OPDs (aka a 'CU'), fed from an existing circuit, was also probably non-notifiable?

Yes, I've said the fusing method for the spur is not mentioned.

. OK. So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.

Yes, so do we presume the purpose of specifically mentioning 'fused spurs' (being allowable without notification) was for the connection of appliances (rather than sockets) and if so what about 'unfused spurs' to appliances?

It could be that they were being more clever than we've given them credit for, and were actually anticipating some discussions/uncertainties such as we've been having. In other words, they might have thought/feared that, without them specifically exempting 'fused spurs' from notification, some people might have thought that such additions were notifiable because (per BS7671 definition of 'circuit', of which they were presumably aware) a fuse theoretically creates a new circuit (so not an addition to an existing one).

It really is too unclear and badly written to try and fathom.

Nothing new!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I've said the fusing method for the spur is not mentioned.

. OK. So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.[/quote]
IF, yes but if not, no.

It could be that they were being more clever than we've given them credit for, and were actually anticipating some discussions/uncertainties such as we've been having. In other words, they might have thought/feared that, without them specifically exempting 'fused spurs' from notification, some people might have thought that such additions were notifiable because (per BS7671 definition of 'circuit', of which they were presumably aware) a fuse theoretically creates a new circuit (so not an addition to an existing one).

I did think that but thought it too fanciful.

So, that would mean they are notifiable now?

 

[JohnW2]

OK. So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.

IF, yes but if not, no.

OK. I really don't think that many people believe that the 'relaxations' in 2013 resulted in fused spurs becoming notifiable, so I'll take that as essentially a 'yes' ('no' only if 'many {or most} people' are misinterpreting the current rules).

It could be that they were being more clever than we've given them credit for, and were actually anticipating some discussions/uncertainties such as we've been having. In other words, they might have thought/feared that, without them specifically exempting 'fused spurs' from notification, some people might have thought that such additions were notifiable because (per BS7671 definition of 'circuit', of which they were presumably aware) a fuse theoretically creates a new circuit (so not an addition to an existing one).

I did think that but thought it too fanciful. So, that would mean they are notifiable now?

. Not necessarily. 'They' may not themselves have been thinking (or be currently thinking) in terms of the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit', but merely feared that some people would think in those terms.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

OK. I really don't think that many people believe that the 'relaxations' in 2013 resulted in fused spurs becoming notifiable,

If the regulations are decided by democracy.

so I'll take that as essentially a 'yes' ('no' only if 'many {or most} people' are misinterpreting the current rules).

Unless they decided the previous exemption was foolish.

Not necessarily. 'They' may not themselves have been thinking (or be currently thinking) in terms of the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit', but merely feared that some people would think in those terms.

If that is so then, surely, they should think in terms of a definition in their same publication.

 

[JohnW2]

OK. I really don't think that many people believe that the 'relaxations' in 2013 resulted in fused spurs becoming notifiable,

If the regulations are decided by democracy.

Regulations aren't, but 'common practices' are

so I'll take that as essentially a 'yes' ('no' only if 'many {or most} people' are misinterpreting the current rules).

Unless they decided the previous exemption was foolish.

I would find it hard to regard it as foolish, given that there is no electrical difference between connecting something to an existing circuit with an FCU and connecting it with a fused plug plugged into a socket.

Not necessarily. 'They' may not themselves have been thinking (or be currently thinking) in terms of the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit', but merely feared that some people would think in those terms.

If that is so then, surely, they should think in terms of a definition in their same publication.

Indeed they should.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, you wouldn't - since I don't regard what is downstream of the FCU as being a separate circuit.

So why did you ask if there were any differences in testing between a "circuit" (for want of a better word) originating from an FCU, and one originating from an MCB in a CU?

However, I would say exactly the same if, rather than buying an off-the shelf FCU, I put a fuse (and maybe a switch) in some enclosure of my choosing ... and still exactly the same if I put two fuses (and maybe switch{es}) in some enclosure of my choosing to provide two 'fused spurs'.

What if you had the same self-assembled unit, but used MCBs instead of fuses?

Would you still say that whatever originated from the MCBs were not circuits?

Exactly, and I don't believe that they do regard an FCU as creating a new circuit, particularly given that adding fused spurs was one of the few things which was not notifiable even prior to the 2013 (in England) relaxations. I think you believe the same - except it seems that you only believe it if one uses an off-the-shelf FCU, and not if one emulates it with a fuse (and maybe switch) and enclosure. Is that what you believe?

I hadn't thought about that. Although it would be easy to define, if one wanted to, by referring to BS 1363.

What if I replace my CU with something I assemble from an enclosure, busbars, N & E distribution blocks, switches, RCDs, MCBs, RCBOs and a few lengths of tri-rated cable.

Are you saying that it would not be notifiable?

Are you saying that any cables supplying loads which did not already exist, and I install at the time I install the new enclosure etc would not be new circuits, and therefore would not be notifiable?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

one can argue logically and rationally that a 'CU' (emulated, hence logically also 'off-the -shelf') fed from an existing circuit should also not be notifiable?

In what way is the previous existence of the circuit supplying the "CU" relevant?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.

No, I'm just going to ask, with an increasing sense of wonderment and bemusement at your increasingly perverse and pointless "definitions" whether you really, genuinely think that a CU supplied by an existing circuit from another CU does not create any new circuits, whether you really, genuinely think that someone could build a house, have an electrician install a CU with an 80 or 100A MCCB in it, supplying a "normal" CU alongside it, and then proceed to wire the entire dwelling without it being notifiable, and whether you really, genuinely think that that is what the law says, and would have no qualms about advising people to proceed in that way.

because (per BS7671 definition of 'circuit', of which they were presumably aware) a fuse theoretically creates a new circuit (so not an addition to an existing one).

The only people who believe that BS 7671 makes that a circuit will be the ones who believe that BS 7671 requires them to identify it as a circuit, and enter its details and full set of test results in one of the lines in the schedule of a certificate.

 

[JohnW2]

No, you wouldn't - since I don't regard what is downstream of the FCU as being a separate circuit.

So why did you ask if there were any differences in testing between a "circuit" (for want of a better word) originating from an FCU, and one originating from an MCB in a CU?

Because I wanted to hear your opinion.

What if you had the same self-assembled unit, but used MCBs instead of fuses? Would you still say that whatever originated from the MCBs were not circuits?

I asked that question myself. I see no electrical difference, so don't see why it should alter anything - and at least one person here seems to agree with me.

... I think you believe the same - except it seems that you only believe it if one uses an off-the-shelf FCU, and not if one emulates it with a fuse (and maybe switch) and enclosure.

I hadn't thought about that. Although it would be easy to define, if one wanted to, by referring to BS 1363.

Yes, it would be easy, but they haven't done that.

What if I replace my CU with something I assemble from an enclosure, busbars, N & E distribution blocks, switches, RCDs, MCBs, RCBOs and a few lengths of tri-rated cable. Are you saying that it would not be notifiable?

I've also more-or-less asked that question. I'm not "saying" whether or not it would be notifiable - the fact that we're debating these issue shows that none of us, including myself, know for certain. What I am saying is that (by analogy with, say, multiple FCUs) there is an argument that if everything in that enclosure is supplied from an OPD in another CU, that it may not be notifiable.

Are you saying that any cables supplying loads which did not already exist, and I install at the time I install the new enclosure etc would not be new circuits, and therefore would not be notifiable?

I am suggesting that such might be the case, particularly if the 'new CU' was not actually needed (we often see OPs being told that their proposed 'garage CUs' are unnecessary). It all comes down to the distinction between 'a new circuit' and an 'extension of an existing circuit' - your view appears to be that interposing any protective device other than an FCU in an 'extension to an existing circuit' actually creates a new circuit, but I personally don't think that is necessarily the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In what way is the previous existence of the circuit supplying the "CU" relevant?

It is very relevant since, as I have said, this all comes down to the question of the distinction between 'extending an existing circuit' (not notifiable) and creating a 'new circuit' (notifiable) - and whether interposing an OPD (other than an off-the-shelf FCU) in what would otherwise be a non-notifiable 'extension to an existing circuit' necessarily turns it into a notifiable 'new circuit'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm just going to ask ... whether you really, genuinely think that a CU supplied by an existing circuit from another CU does not create any new circuits ....

I "really, genuinely think" that there is uncertainty, given that most people (maybe even you) seem to think that a 'bank of FCUs' (maybe even 'emulated FCUs', and maybe even with MCBs instead of fuses) supplied by an existing circuit from a CU does not create any new circuits.

... whether you really, genuinely think that someone could build a house, have an electrician install a CU with an 80 or 100A MCCB in it, supplying a "normal" CU alongside it, and then proceed to wire the entire dwelling without it being notifiable ...

Not being a lawyer, I haven't got a clue as to whether that could be done lawfully without notification with the legislation as currently (IMO very poorly) written - I'm certainly not sure that it couldn't. However, what I do "really, genuinely think" it that it certainly should not be lawful - and that's the reason why the legislation needs to be far more clear and explicit about what it is saying.

... and whether you really, genuinely think that that is what the law says, and would have no qualms about advising people to proceed in that way.

As above, it's impossible for me or anyone else to be sure what the law 'says', since it seems to be so poorly written. Qualms don't come into it, since, in view of the uncertainties, you would not find me "advising people to proceed in that way". On the contrary, as in this thread, in these garage/shed/outhouse threads, I usually suggest that, if there is an 'existing circuit' which can be extended, the way to avoid the uncertainties (and, in most people's minds, notifiability) is to not use a 'garage' (or whatever) CU. It was when I wrote that in this thread that you jumped in head-first with scathing comments about those uncertainties, and turned this into a re-visit of a wheel which has already spun many a time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the fact that we're debating these issue shows that none of us, including myself, know for certain.

I do. As in I am certain.

What I am saying is that (by analogy with, say, multiple FCUs) there is an argument that if everything in that enclosure is supplied from an OPD in another CU, that it may not be notifiable.

Madness.

I am suggesting that such might be the case

Madness.

particularly if the 'new CU' was not actually needed

And getting even madder - now you are trying to suggest that the law is different if something unnecessary is installed.

your view appears to be that interposing any protective device other than an FCU in an 'extension to an existing circuit' actually creates a new circuit, but I personally don't think that is necessarily the case.

My view is that a CU does not become not a CU because it is supplied from a device in another CU.

In what way is the previous existence of the circuit supplying the "CU" relevant?

It is very relevant since, as I have said, this all comes down to the question of the distinction between 'extending an existing circuit' (not notifiable) and creating a 'new circuit' (notifiable) - and whether interposing an OPD (other than an off-the-shelf FCU) in what would otherwise be a non-notifiable 'extension to an existing circuit' necessarily turns it into a notifiable 'new circuit'.

A question which would be asked only by somebody who thought that a CU would become not a CU if an existing circuit supplies it, or if another CU supplies it.

I "really, genuinely think" that there is uncertainty, given that most people (maybe even you) seem to think that a 'bank of FCUs' (maybe even 'emulated FCUs', and maybe even with MCBs instead of fuses) supplied by an existing circuit from a CU does not create any new circuits.

OK - I'll clarify my position, despite the lack of the term in the legislation, and I will not discuss it with you on the grounds that your whole argument is based on madness.

If it's not a BS 1363 fused connection unit then it is a new circuit. No matter whether the box it comes from is supplied from another CU, or a technically-non-CU distribution board, or a switchfuse, or a solar power inverter, or a generator, or from the meter tails (with or without bypassing the meter), or from the lamppost in the street outside. And no matter whether it is a 1-module CU, or a 20-module one. No matter whether it was bought as a type-tested assembled consumer unit or built from bits by the installer. No matter whether the protective devices are MCBs, fuses or RCBOs. If it's not a BS 1363 fused connection unit then it creates a new circuit.

Not being a lawyer, I haven't got a clue as to whether that could be done lawfully without notification with the legislation as currently (IMO very poorly) written - I'm certainly not sure that it couldn't.

I am. As in I am sure. I'm also sure that in the hypothetical situation of you being in court charged with contravening the Building Regulations because you didn't notify something that you would be extremely ill-advised to try using any of your arguments to show that you can't have broken the law because it is so badly written.

It was when I wrote that in this thread that you jumped in head-first with scathing comments about those uncertainties, and turned this into a re-visit of a wheel which has already spun many a time.

Absolutely.

And I will do it again and again and again if necessary, because scathing comments are what your mad arguments need.

 

[JohnW2]

the fact that we're debating these issue shows that none of us, including myself, know for certain.

I do. As in I am certain.

In that case, there is clearly no scope for discussion. I will leave others to read the rest of your post.

Kind Regards, John