I very much doubt it. As far as I can make out, most LABCs know little, if anything, about matters electrical, and hence have to contract out any required I&T. I therefore doubt they understand enough to have anything approaching an 'expert opinion' as to what constitutes a 'new circuit'.
I certainly wouldn't expect anything approaching or even remotely resembling an expert opinion from them, but did wonder if, after a couple of years of this new set of notification rules being in place, any of them might have expressed any sort of opinion.
Given considerations of 'CYA' etc., I don't think it's hard to guess in which direction they would tend to 'err' if asked "is this notifiable?" - which probably means that many of those who think they may be talking about a 'grey area' might well be reticent to ask the question!
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that most LABCs see notification of electrical work as a 'money spinner' and that, on the contrary, they'd be happiest if all notifiable electrical work were self-certified. Don't forget that the appearance of Part P put demands on them which theoretically required expertise way beyond what that required for their traditional roles.
I doubt that BCOs usually have any particular interest in the income of the LA. FWIW, the few I have spoken to in recent years have all essentially said that "Part P is a pain" and that, as I previously suggested, they would be delighted if all notifiable electrical work was self-certified. Also, bear in mind that government (both central and local) is generally so inefficient that merely 'processing the paperwork' probably costs out at a quite appreciable sum!
Who did they have in mind - Anybody, or only somebody holding a recognized qualification?
I suspect that the individuals concerned may well not really care (they just want to be rid of electrical work!), but they were actually talking about members of self-certification schemes
Which, to me, rather casts doubts on the council's integrity. Is it right that they decide to put an extortionate price on something which is a legal requirement because they couldn't get things organized properly? They knew Part P was coming and had time to prepare for it, so why should anyone wanting to do a simple electrical job in his own house suffer because of their ineptitude?
On a side note, I have several of the old "wind up" Meggers, including one which has the low resistance range, but I also have a couple of the very low-ohms battery-operated Meggers, 1950's era in the brown and green bakelite cases. Nice instruments they were too - I wonder if Evershed & Vignoles ever dreamed that some of these pieces of equipment would still be going strong over half a century later?
Even then, since the new colors were available before 2005 that by itself wouldn'y prove anything. Even with date-coded materials dated 2005 or later, there was enough scope that in many cases they couldn't prove anything anyway (replacement of damaged cable, etc.). Now that the notification rules have been relaxed even further, there are some things which while done post-2004 might have been identifiable as notifiable at the time could now no longer be proved, since post-2013 they're no longer so.
Despite the fuss sometimes made about not having pieces of paper for work done causing a problem when selling, I can't help but feel that it's overstated. Either buyers will bargain a little, get their own surveys done (which they would have to do to be sure of everything being safe anyway, given all the non-notifiable work which could be done), or just accept a property "as is."
As I said, I think 're-purposing' an existing circuit can be a particularly grey area, where some people would say that it was a 'new circuit'. However, I don't think that the examples you give really come into that category - if one installs socket(s) on a new branch of an existing radial circuit, or installs one socket on an unfused spur (or multiple sockets on a fused spur) from an existing ring final, then I don't think anyone would call that a 'new circuit', and the fact that one had used 'existing cable' for that new branch/spur does not alter that.
That's an example of the 'grey area', where some people would say that it's a 'new circuit', particularly if the 'old heating board' had been disconnected. Otherwise one could utilise, for any new purpose, some existing wiring that had been disconnected for years and claim that it was not a 'new circuit'.
Agreed - If one can run completely new cable from an existing fuseway to new sockets and that isn't considered a new circuit, one can certainly do the same with cable which happens to be there already. I doubt that anyone here would find that contentious.
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
