Workshop electrics

[tonyelectric]

Mind you don't get lost round the forest of dean, theres many who've never ben seen, or heard of again!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From what you say it is not a new circuit so it is not cut and dried as to if it requires Part P.

Not sure what "requires Part P" means. There can be no doubt that Part P applies to the work because it is associated with the installation and supply in a dwelling.

And as you say, it ought to all be tested, and it's difficult to see how someone could say they'd made reasonable provision for safety if they'd bunged a CU in and not done any testing.


Also there can be no doubt that it is notifiable:

I have bought a garage consumer unit which looks easy enough to wire up.

 

[Stoday]

Render the switch in the garage consumer unit inoperable and it becomes a distribution board. Then it becomes non-notifiable according to notes e and f:

e Conservatories and attached garages are not special locations. Work in them is therefore not notifiable...

f Detached garages and sheds are not special locations...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Render the switch in the garage consumer unit inoperable and it becomes a distribution board. Then it becomes non-notifiable according to notes e and f:

Please tell us which part of Schedule 2B matches the installation of a distribution board and the creation of outgoing circuits from it, and therefore makes the work non-notifiable.

 

[Stoday]

Please tell us which part of Schedule 2B matches the installation of a distribution board and the creation of outgoing circuits from it, and therefore makes the work non-notifiable.

I never said that; I said "according to notes (e) and (f)". They are part of the Approved Document that is supposed to explain how the law should work. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure what the words in a Statutory Instrument mean so I expect the AD to tell me what's meant by them. Oh and the BC is not a lawyer either, so he is not qualified to advise on what's notifiable or not.

It might cost me over £100 to notify work, so I don't want to do so if it's not required. If there's any ambiguity in the requirement, as here, I'll choose the version that costs me least.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Stoday - it is notifiable, and you know full well it is. Ambiguity? You are the one choosing to interpret AD P in an ambiguous way in order to create the ambiguity which you're relying on to decide that installing a CU without a main switch and new circuits being supplied by it is non-notifiable work.

Even if you do want to use a document which does not define the law to determine what the law says, you still need to read it properly.

Look again at Table 1 - work that need not be notified.

Work consisting of:
Replacing any fixed electrical equipment (for example, socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses) which does not include the
provision of any new fixed cabling
Is he replacing anything? No, he is adding a CU in the workshop. Or a distribution board, if you insist. (An insistence, BTW, which shows an understanding of the subtleties of wording, descriptions and regulations which completely destroys the credibility of your claim that you cannot understand what Schedule 2B says).

Is he providing new fixed cabling? Yes he is.

So how does the first provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Replacing the cable for a single circuit only, where damaged, for example, by fire, rodent or impact
Is he doing that? No he is not.

So how does the second provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Re-fixing or replacing the enclosures of existing installation components
Is he doing that? No he is not.

So how does the third provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Providing mechanical protection to existing fixed installations
Is he doing that? No he is not.

So how does the fourth provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding
Is he doing that? No he is not.

So how does the fifth provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve a special installation and consists of:

Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit
Is he adding lighting points to an existing circuit? No he is not.

So how does the sixth provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit
Is he adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing circuit? No he is not.

So how does the seventh provision in Table 1 make the work non notifiable?


Sorry, Stoday, but you are completely wrong. Your grasp of the nuances of "consumer unit" v "distribution board" show that you do not have a limited grasp of written English, and to claim that you cannot understand the list of work in Schedule 2B is at best far-fetched.

boggie - don't decide not to notify because you believe Stoday.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would the two ****s who think that I should not have asked Stoday which part of Schedule 2B made the work described non-notifiable as he claimed, and that I should not have then replied pointing out that he is without any doubt wrong, see if between you you can come up with a convincing justification for your behaviour?

Maybe you could show where Schedule 2B does list the work as non-notifiable?

Or maybe you could point us all at a hitherto unknown replacement version of Approved Document P which no longer contains the entries in Table 1 which I quoted verbatim?

Or maybe you could stop acting like destructive, petty and stupid children.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whoever you are, ****, you will not get me to lie down and accept your monstrous, lying, dangerous and destructive behaviour by voting down posts I make where I criticise you.

 

[Stoday]

Thank you BAS for creating an opportunity for me to make my case even more convincing by asking which part of Schedule 2B made the work non-notifiable.

First, Section 2B does not require compliance with all the Table 1 provisions; any one will be enough to make the work non-notifiable. As it is, my case complies with two of them.

Is he adding lighting points to an existing circuit? No he is not.
...
Is he adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing circuit? No he is not.

Oh yes he is.

The OP’s existing circuit is an unenergised 10mm cable from the CU to the attic, where the excess is coiled up. The OP’s intention is to extend this circuit, via a distribution board to his proposed lighting and power points.

Your grasp of the nuances of "consumer unit" v "distribution board" show that you do not have a limited grasp of written English, and to claim that you cannot understand the list of work in Schedule 2B is at best far-fetched.

Of course I can understand the distinction between “consumer unit” and “distribution board”; I’m an electrical engineer. However, I think it very unlikely that a lawyer would understand that distinction any more than I understand the niceties of legal jargon. The Government does not expect me or others involved in building to understand legal jargon either; that’s why the Approved Documents have been published.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

First, Section 2B does not require compliance with all the Table 1 provisions; any one will be enough to make the work non-notifiable. As it is, my case complies with two of them.

Schedule 2B and Table 1 are nothing to do with each other - they are from different documents, and the former, which is the actual law, makes no reference to the latter.

There is nothing in Schedule 2B which you will encounter which matches what the OP is doing - you will reach the bottom without finding the work to be non-notifiable.

Is he adding lighting points to an existing circuit? No he is not.
...
Is he adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing circuit? No he is not.

Oh yes he is.

No he is not.

He is clearly adding a new CU, or DB if you insist, and therefore the circuits to which he will be adding the sockets and lights do not yet exist.

The OP’s existing circuit is an unenergised 10mm cable from the CU to the attic, where the excess is coiled up. The OP’s intention is to extend this circuit, via a distribution board to his proposed lighting and power points.

That unenergised 10mm² cable is not the circuit to which he will be adding the sockets and lights. Those circuits will be the ones originating from the protective devices in the DB.

Of course I can understand the distinction between “consumer unit” and “distribution board”; I’m an electrical engineer.

Then you should have no problem in understanding the definition of "circuit", and recognising that one for sockets coming from a breaker in a DB originates at that breaker, not at the origin of the sub-main feeding the DB.

However, I think it very unlikely that a lawyer would understand that distinction any more than I understand the niceties of legal jargon.

"Legal jargon"?

Stripped of all the non-electrical stuff like doors and windows and WCs and heating controls etc, this is Schedule 2B:

Genuine Q: Which parts of that don't make sense to you because they are written in "legal jargon"?

The Government does not expect me or others involved in building to understand legal jargon either; that’s why the Approved Documents have been published.

Well we went through that too, and there is nothing in Table 1 which makes the work non-notifiable unless we go with your definition of "circuit". So, as an electrical engineer, do you want to claim that "An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected from overcurrent by the same protective devices(s)" does not mean that the new cable supplying the new lights in the workshop, connected to the new B6 MCB in the new DB is not a new circuit?

 

[Stoday]

...there is nothing in Table 1 which makes the work non-notifiable unless we go with your definition of "circuit". So, as an electrical engineer, do you want to claim that "An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected from overcurrent by the same protective devices(s)" does not mean that the new cable supplying the new lights in the workshop, connected to the new B6 MCB in the new DB is not a new circuit?

The definition of a circuit is very simple — 4th form physics stuff. If a circuit is complete and energised, current flows through it.

Current will flow through a fuse or MCB so that must be part of the circuit, not its origin unless a definition states otherwise.

Moreover, the notion that a circuit should start from and end at the point where circuit protective measures are connected is clearly ridiculous for the purposes of part P. If this were the case, Building Control would be involved every time an appliance is plugged into a socket because a new circuit and its protective measures have been connected.

BAS may consider that the language in Schedule 2B is clear for the layman but the government didn’t think so. Hence it published not only the Approved Document in 2005 but further explanations and examples in 2006.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The definition of a circuit is very simple — 4th form physics stuff. If a circuit is complete and energised, current flows through it.

So do you disagree with the definition in Part 2 of the Wiring Regulations?

Are you saying that if I unplug/switch off every appliance on a circuit I no longer have a circuit because no current is flowing through it?

Current will flow through a fuse or MCB so that must be part of the circuit, not its origin unless a definition states otherwise.

What's your take on the definition of circuit in Part 2 of the Wiring Regulations?

You say that the fuse or MCB is part of the circuit, so if a new fuse or MCB is installed along with the cable(s) running from it, how is the combined new fuse/MCB + new cable(s) not a new circuit?

Moreover, the notion that a circuit should start from and end at the point where circuit protective measures are connected is clearly ridiculous for the purposes of part P. If this were the case, Building Control would be involved every time an appliance is plugged into a socket because a new circuit and its protective measures have been connected.

But then if we go with your notion, that for the purposes of Part P a circuit begins at the very origin of the installation, and can have any number of fused-down branches without those being circuits themselves, then, for the purposes of Part P, you cannot comply with the Wiring Regulations - you're going to be looking more than a bit iffy re 314 if your installation only has a single circuit.

Do you really believe that Part P requires you to not comply with the Wiring Regulations?

BAS may consider that the language in Schedule 2B is clear for the layman but the government didn’t think so. Hence it published not only the Approved Document in 2005 but further explanations and examples in 2006.

1) That does not answer my question - you claim that you can't understand "legal jargon". Is Schedule 2B unintelligible to you because of "legal jargon"?

Never mind what other people make of it, and never mind what you think or expect other people to make of it. What do you think of Schedule 2B? Can you understand it or not?

2) The Approved Document does not support your claim that the installation of a new DB in a workshop with new fixed wiring coming from new protective devices in that DB is not notifiable, unless we accept your claim that the DB itself isn't notifiable and that the newly installed assemblies of cables and protective devices are not circuits.

Let's look at some of the problems that these "definitions" of yours throw up.

Firstly, you seem to want to rely on the advice and interpretation and guidance and examples etc which are given in AD P in order to help, as you say, the layman understand what's required.

General

0.2 A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of BS 7671:2001 as amended or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA; and
b. guidance given in installation manuals that
are consistent with BS 7671:2001, such as:
i. the IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers)
On-Site Guide;
ii. the series of IEE Publications, Guidance
Notes Nos 1 to 7.

So - are you happy that the layman should be guided by this advice, or not? If you are (and it's hard to see why you should not be, given what you said about why the Government published AD P in the first place), why are you straight away wanting to not go with the definition of "circuit" in the Wiring Regulations?

An inconsistency there, I think.


Also, you want to rely on the quite subtle and, (in keeping with your earlier themes) quite unclear to the layman and legislators difference between a consumer unit and a distribution board, as defined in Part 2 of BS 7671, but not the definition of circuit in the same place nor do you want to recognise that 314 refers to assemblies originating at a protective device as being circuits.

An inconsistency there, I think.


But we have more to come. On Page 7 it says (with my emphasis):

When not necessary to involve building
control bodies
0.7 It is not necessary to give prior notification
of proposals to carry out electrical installation
work to building control bodies in the following
circumstances:
a. The proposed installation work is undertaken
by a person registered with an electrical self-
certification scheme prescribed in regulations
(see schedule 2A of the Regulations). In these
cases the person is responsible for ensuring
compliance with BS 7671:2001 or an
equivalent standard and all relevant building
regulations requirements. A full list of schemes
with contact details is given in Appendix E.
OR
b. The proposed electrical installation work is
non-notifiable work of the type described in
Table 1 and does not include the provision of
a new circuit (see schedule 2B of the
Regulations).

And then in Table 1 it says

a. Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to
the consumer unit...

Saying "notifiable jobs include" does not preclude jobs not listed from also being notifiable, does it?

And the document does tell people to refer to Schedule 2B, doesn't it?

Do you think that the writers of the legislation, and the writers of the Approved Document were aware of the difference between a CU and a DB, and that they wrote the AD with the expectation that a layman would be aware of the difference, and that they meant the rules to be that new cables running from a new MCB in a new enclosure with a main switch would be notifiable but new cables running from a new MCB in a new enclosure without a main switch would not be notifiable?

Really?

Do you truly believe that those two alternatives are consistent with the general thrust of the legislation, or that they are inconsistent but only if you insist on there being a difference between a CU and a DB?

Even if you'll admit to nothing here, please be honest within yourself - do you, as an intelligent person, really believe that the Approved Document means to draw a distinction between a CU and a DB in order that a layman can better understand what is meant by "consumer unit" and "existing circuit" in Schedule 2B, and that you should therefore be advising laymen to remove the main switch from a CU to make it a non-notifiable DB?


But we'll move on.

On p16 of AD P there is this diagram:

You can clearly see that parts of it are labelled "First floor lighting circuit", "Ground floor lighting circuit", "First floor ring", "Ground floor ring" etc, i.e. these elements are identified as individual circuits, and they each run from a different fuse or circuit breaker in the CU.

What definition of "circuit" would you like to use which would be consistent with the illustration of "circuits" when the fuses/MCBs are in a CU not applying when the fuses/MCBs are in a DB?

Do you think that given how crucial it would be to whether creating a new one is notifiable or not that such a distinction would be consistent with the idea that AD P was published to make things easier for laymen to understand?

Or would it be inconsistent with such an ethos?



Basically, Stoday, you have got no chance of your cherry picking of definitions or your insistence that a document meant to make things easier to understand would use the implied difference between a CU and a DB in wording describing what is and is not notifiable, being anything other than foolishness.

 

[boggie42]

Hey guys - i did not mean to come across as arogant or wishing to dodge official proceedures, its just with money so tight i do most things myself. If i feel that it cou;d be dangerous or beyond my capabilities i would not even attempt it.
The last thing i wanted was to kick start armegeddon on here !!
Sorry if that is what i have done, it was not intentional

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The rancour is not your fault - sadly the forum has become infected by a bunch of deranged nihilists who think that lies and destruction are in everyone's best interests.

I really don't think that Stoday's idea that turning a CU into a DB by removing the main switch changes the status of the work has any merit whatsoever - it is illogical and inconsistent, it flies in the face of the written law and the obvious intent of the Approved Document, and I believe he was wrong to give you the advice.

But the work does need proper design and proper testing, there may be issues of exporting a TN-C-S earth, and to be sure that it's all safe involves skills and tools that most DIYers won't have.

Ask your friend to do the same quality job of designing and testing that he would if he was doing it all, ask him to direct your physical installation work, and ask him to issue an EIC for it all. And tell him that you know it won't be a 5-minute job for him and that you are not expecting him to do it for free, or even just a cup of coffee.

 

[boggie42]

ok no problem - thanks.
I think it best if this message was locked or deleted b4 anymore can be written !!