thoughts on non notifiable work

[ajohn]

Some people love arguing.

The arguments are down to the regs. Personally I feel they are the worst thing I have ever seen for people to work to.The people who generate them like the intelectual challenge of producing them in this fashion. It seems that it follows some sort of established "standard".

presume you mean with an RCD in it. If so, it's a reasonable question, but one answer is that it is not applicable for a ring final circuit

Obviously but I don't know if plastic is ok but clearly this is not a cu and metal units are available anyway but will generally be larger. I read the regs as applying to buried cables associated with any type of final circuit. A catch all as I mentioned. It's an area that causes me a lot of grief with a new feed to our garage. It would pay me to do part of it myself according to the 17th however if I don't export earth to it and use a PEN there problems disappear as an rcbo could be used for the feed.

I started spending money when a meter installer told me what would have to be done to earth our gas pipes. Earth wire around the front door visible from the street. I thought hang on because the basics of the regs was set in the 70's mentioning RCDs before they were really available. I was authorised to connect up the mains then. Also concerns about an electrician telling me what a cu upgrade should contain without going through the options.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Obviously but I don't know if plastic is ok but clearly this is not a cu

It might be:

I read the regs as applying to buried cables associated with any type of final circuit. A catch all as I mentioned.

Applies to all new cables - yes.

It's an area that causes me a lot of grief with a new feed to our garage. It would pay me to do part of it myself according to the 17th however if I don't export earth to it and use a PEN there problems disappear as an rcbo could be used for the feed.

PENs are not allowed within dwellings.
It is undesirable to have the feed on an RCD, so use a method where one is not required. I.e. SWA or visible routes.

I started spending money when a meter installer told me what would have to be done to earth our gas pipes. Earth wire around the front door visible from the street.

Gas pipes are not earthed intentionally.

I thought hang on because the basics of the regs was set in the 70's mentioning RCDs before they were really available. I was authorised to connect up the mains then. Also concerns about an electrician telling me what a cu upgrade should contain without going through the options.

Ok, I think.


Ajohn, you continue to post things that are half right and using incorrect terms. This is unwise when supposedly giving advice.


We might think we know what you actually mean but, of course, cannot be sure.

 

[Alec_t]

The arguments are down to the regs. Personally I feel they are the worst thing I have ever seen for people to work to.

Created by lawyers to keep fellow lawyers busy for years to come?

 

[ajohn]

PENs are not allowed within dwellings.
It is undesirable to have the feed on an RCD, so use a method where one is not required. I.e. SWA or visible routes.

There is a complication routing the cable plus a rather a long length of it. L to armour shorts can be a complication using swa especially if a fuse is used. Heavier cable makes the install more difficult due to where it needs to run. Catch 22 here due to where all cabling needs to run.

Gas pipes are not earthed intentionally.

The meter installer mentioned that he has to leave a post card concerning gas pipe earthing in many premisses he goes to while saying that in our case the cable would run around our front door from the supply to the gas pipes. I can use the where the pipe enters the premisses option meaning it can be concealed. In theory a spike could be used too.

using incorrect terms.

Really ? Ahhh well. In some respect it may be better to not mention any way of doing anything with electrics on a DIY forum. Using a small modern cu to provide power to a room isn't really any different to adding a spur via an rcd fcu. It might also turn out to be a convenient way of doing it before a main CU is upgraded. An electrician may say arggggggggg but new wiring complies and one might go down the rcd fcu route which isn't any different really. Running lights off it as well - no.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is a complication routing the cable plus a rather a long length of it. L to armour shorts can be a complication using swa especially if a fuse is used. Heavier cable makes the install more difficult due to where it needs to run. Catch 22 here due to where all cabling needs to run.

I don't understand.

The meter installer mentioned that he has to leave a post card concerning gas pipe earthing in many premisses he goes to while saying that in our case the cable would run around our front door from the supply to the gas pipes. I can use the where the pipe enters the premisses option meaning it can be concealed. In theory a spike could be used too.

Then he and you do not know what you are talking about.

Really ? Ahhh well. In some respect it may be better to not mention any way of doing anything with electrics on a DIY forum. Using a small modern cu to provide power to a room isn't really any different to adding a spur via an rcd fcu. It might also turn out to be a convenient way of doing it before a main CU is upgraded. An electrician may say arggggggggg but new wiring complies and one might go down the rcd fcu route which isn't any different really. Running lights off it as well - no.

Totally irrelevant to my point about you using incorrect terms.

 

[JohnW2]

Created by lawyers to keep fellow lawyers busy for years to come?

Fortunately, lawyers rarely, if ever, get involved in matters regarding interpretation of 'the regs' (BS7671). Indeed, if any lawyer did try that, his 'opposition' could probably bring it to an rapid halt by pointing out that compliance with BS761 is not compulsory/mandatory, anyway!

Kind regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

It's now mandatory in rented accommodation.

 

[JohnW2]

It's now mandatory in rented accommodation.

Sort of, although it seems a bit ambiguous to me. As I understand it, what is required is to ensure that "electrical safety standards" specified in BS7671:2018 are met - but the pre-amble of BS7671 says that compliance with previous editions (but not with the current edition) does not necessarily indicate any safety issue.

It certainly is very unusual. As we have discussed before, it's very unusual (at least partially for understandable reasons) for legislation to go anywhere near explicitly requiring compliance with any Standard over which the legislators have no control.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Leaving aside the discussion over whether compliance with previous versions is sufficient - the law now explicitly makes compliance with the 2018 edition mandatory for rented accommodation. This is a significant change from the previous situation where compliance with BS7671 was "just a convenient way of proving compliance with Part P".
As discussed in other threads, here and on other forums, the reason is fairly simple to see - too many landlords just don't g.a.s. about tenant safety, and local authorities have been unable or unwilling to take action with the tools that were already available to them. So we have more rules that will be ignored by the unscrupulous and unenforced by local authorities unless "something happens" to make them look at a particular property or landlord.
I've just done a fresh EICR for my flat before a new tenant moves in. The house next door will need a new CU before next July even though there's nothing wrong with it other than the lack of definition of "non-combustible" in BS7671 It's less than 10 years old and all RCBO - so still better than, or at least as good as, a lot of new stuff that'll be getting installed these days.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As well as everything that has been said about the new rules, along with previous alterations, they only apply to private landlords.

The Conservative Government since 2010, for some reason, seems intent on doing everything to discourage or get rid of private landlords; presumably so that their corporate friends can take over.

 

[JohnW2]

Leaving aside the discussion over whether compliance with previous versions is sufficient - the law now explicitly makes compliance with the 2018 edition mandatory for rented accommodation. This is a significant change from the previous situation where compliance with BS7671 was "just a convenient way of proving compliance with Part P".

Indeed - as I said, it's very unusual. There are other examples, similar to the Part P / BS7671 situation, in which compliance with some independent Standard or (non-statutory) regulation is generally regarded sufficient to demonstrate compliance with some law - but, as I said, extremely rare for a law to actually require compliance with something like that. Quite apart from anything else, the recent legislation explicitly requires adherence with the 'safety standards' (whatever they are) in BS7671:2018 - which, for all the legislators knew, might have become obsolete the day after the legislation went live!

I personally think that, rather than create the inconsistency you mention, the legislators should probably have stuck with their own legislation, and required that electrical installations in rented accommodation should comply with (Part P of) The Building Regulations - so that the theoretical choice of methods of demonstrating compliance with Part P would be the same for rented as for all other accommodation.

In practice, of course, compliance with BS7671 is nearly always the way used to demonstrate compliance with Part P, but that's not the point, and (at least theoretically) nor is it the only way it can be done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/regulation/2/made

 

[JohnW2]

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);"

Indeed - that's the definition I was talking about.

What things "IN" BS7671:2018" are to be regarded as constituting "electrical safety standards". As I recently observed, one of the earliest things written "IN" BS7671:2018 is :

Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

BS7671:2018 itself does not seem to feel that non-compliance with its current requirements necessarily constitutes any safety issue.

Kind Regards,

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed - that's the definition I was talking about.

What things "IN" BS7671:2018" are to be regarded as constituting "electrical safety standards".

Isn't it the other way round?

"Electrical safety standards" (in the new law) means the contents of BS7671.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't it the other way round? "Electrical safety standards" (in the new law) means the contents of BS7671.

That's obviously how many people (particularly those looking for electrical work!) are interpreting it - but I have been trying to point out that it's not necessarily as simple/clear as that.

In particular, some (again, including those wanting to generate work for themselves) are interpreting it as meaning that there is a requirement for rental accommodation to comply with all the specific requirements of the current edition of BS7671 (i.e. as if it were a 'new build'). However, as I recently wrote "the contents of BS7671" includes a statement that things not explicitly compliant with the current edition (but compliant with earlier ones) are not necessarily unsafe - so "electric safety standards" are not necessarily violated by things not explicitly compliant with BS7671:2018, are they?

However, as I've said, I can see those with 'vested interests' trying to take advantage of this new legislation, at the cost of landlords.

Kind Regards, John