Workshop electrics

[Stoday]

My definition of a circuit is fundamental and universal. It applies to the 400kV and 275kV National Grid, to distribution from 33kV to 400V, to wiring installations in consumers’ premises and to electronic equipment. It applies to a.c. and d.c. circuits.

To reiterate, the current flows around the circuit. Wherever the current flows, that’s part of the circuit. Of course the circuit exists before it is energised and switched on. If the circuit’s d.c., electrons flow from the negative supply source, around the circuit at the rate of a few inches per minute and back to the positive supply source. Wherever the current flows, that’s part of the circuit.

Now, I did say unless otherwise defined. BS 7671 does define a circuit, for its purposes, as “starting and ending at the point where protective measures are connected.” Nothing wrong with that providing everyone understands that that definition of a circuit does not apply outside the limits of BS7671. In particular, the AD does not define a circuit and as BAS has pointed out, BS7671 is not the only standard that complies.

As for my understanding of legal documents, I’ll give an example: In a contract if you read the word “consideration” most people would understand it to mean something very different from what BAS and I understand.

Apart from the honourable exception of Prince of Darkness, it seems most of the regular contributors to this forum seek to interpret part P in a way that encourages notification. For a DIYer working in his own home and, if necessary, getting an electrician to test his work, notification adds nothing to safety but costs a significant sum. I think it’s proper to seek every opportunity to identify excuses as to why notification is not required in such a situation.

 

[Wangerman]

Good post

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In particular, the AD does not define a circuit and as BAS has pointed out, BS7671 is not the only standard that complies.

None of the following questions are rhetorical - I really would love to see your answers to them.

What do you think is meant by "circuit" on p7 of AD P where it says:

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).

?

What do you think it means by "circuit" on p8 where it says:

Replacing the cable for a single circuit only.....

Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit

Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit

If the circuit’s protective measures are unaffected.

If the circuit’s protective measures and current-carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by increased thermal insulation.

Only if the existing circuit protective device is suitable and provides protection for the modified circuit....

Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to
the consumer unit, and extensions to circuits
in kitchens and special locations (bathrooms,
etc)...

?

What do you think it means on p9 where it says

However, work is notifiable only if it involves
fixed wiring and the installation of a new
circuit or the extension of a circuit in a kitchen
or special location or associated with a
special installation.

and

Work to connect an electric gate or garage
door to an existing isolator is not notifiable,
but installation of the circuit up to the isolator
is notifiable.

and

The fitting and replacement of cookers and
electric showers is not notifiable unless a new
circuit is needed.

?

What do you think it means on p10 where it says

Tested appropriately to check satisfactory
performance in relation to continuity of
conductors, insulation resistance, separation
of circuits, polarity, earthing and bonding
arrangements....

?

What do you think it means on p11 where it says

1.16 The Minor Works Certificate lists six
essential tests for additions and alterations that
do not include the provision of a new circuit.

and

For relatively simple notifiable jobs, such
as adding a socket-outlet to a kitchen circuit,

?

What do you think it means on p13 where it says:

..such works on the existing fixed electrical
installation in the building as are necessary to
enable the additions and alterations, the circuits
which feed them, ...

?

What do you think it means by all the references to "circuit" in Appendix A, particularly in the diagrams on pp16 & 17?


Do you think it means the same thing each time, or do you think the definitions are inconsistent?

If they are inconsistent, do you think that that inconsistency was intended, and if not which of the meanings are the ones they want you to use?

Do you think that any or all of the meanings change on the change from a CU to a DB brought about by removing the former's main switch?

If you do, do you think that was intended?


In all of the places where "circuit" is used, does the provision or advice make sense when your definition is used?

If not, does the fault lie in the Approved Document or in your definition?

As for my understanding of legal documents, I’ll give an example: In a contract if you read the word “consideration” most people would understand it to mean something very different from what BAS and I understand.

Thank you for the example.

In this other example of an extract from a legal document, are you able to understand it:

or does some or all of it not make sense to you because it is written in "legal jargon"?

Apart from the honourable exception of Prince of Darkness, it seems most of the regular contributors to this forum seek to interpret part P in a way that encourages notification.

I don't seek to "interpret" it in any way, as I see no need for any "interpretation" because Schedule 2B is unambiguous.

For a DIYer working in his own home and, if necessary, getting an electrician to test his work, notification adds nothing to safety but costs a significant sum.

Nowhere near as significant a sum as it could cost if, in the future, the failure to notify when you should have done becomes an issue.

I think it’s proper to seek every opportunity to identify excuses as to why notification is not required in such a situation.

I think it is proper to look at what the law says about notification, because it is clearly and unambiguously described. By all means avail yourself of the mistakes in AD P, such as the one on p9:

The installation of equipment attached to the
outside wall of a house (for example security
lighting, air conditioning equipment and radon
fans) is not notifiable provided that there are
no exposed outdoor connections...

But I believe it is folly to imagine that a court would agree that the meaning of "new circuit" in Approved Document P changes if the main switch is removed from a consumer unit to make it into a distribution board, or that you could successfully claim that installing an enclosure with MCBs/RCDs/RCBOs and an external isolation switch was non-notifiable because that item was not a consumer unit. Courts are very ready to act on what they believe the intention of the law-makers was, and they will go for the intention which has maximum consistency over the interpretation which generates inconsistency every time.

 

[Stoday]

I have defined a circuit from first principles. BS7671 defines a special case of a circuit for its purposes. The AD does not define what it means by a circuit, but does imply a definition by the issues pointed out by BAS.

So what is this implied definition? My interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household. Note my use of the definite article with “consumer unit” The AD only refers to “the consumer unit” and never “a consumer unit”, implying that there’s only one. The AD could have referred to “a consumer unit”, as is used in Schedule 2B, but did not do so. I assume because 2B, written for lawyers, would mislead those for whom the AD has been written.

The OP’s proposal then, is to extend an existing circuit into the garage where he will add lighting points and sockets, via a distribution board as is good practice and does not need to notify.

It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that if the OP ignored best practice and extended his house’s ring final and lighting circuits into his garage, there would be no question; notification would not be required.

In this other example of an extract from a legal document, are you able to understand it:

No. It does not mean what it appears to mean. If it were straightforward, Table 1 in the AD would have been a verbatim copy of Schedule 2B. It is not. I assume that where a non-legal reader would be misled by 2B, the words have been changed to clarify the meaning.

Nowhere near as significant a sum as it could cost if, in the future, the failure to notify when you should have done becomes an issue.

Really?
(1) Can you explain why the leaflet “New rules for electrical safety in the home”, published by the then ODPM answers the question “What will happen if I do not follow the Building Regulations?” with
• The electrical installation might not be safe
• You will have no record of the work done
• You may have difficulty selling your home if you do not have the right electrical safety certificates
• Your local authority’s Building Control Department may insist that you put right faulty work.
With no mention of any penalty.
(2) Can you give just one example from the five years since part P was introduced, where a DIYer was taken to court for not notifying work he had done in his own home?

Courts are very ready to act on what they believe the intention of the law-makers was

Utter tosh! Just cite a case where the judge has said such a thing. Just one will do.

Anyone can see that that statement is nonsense because no two judges will make the same interpretation. We would finish up not knowing what the law meant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household. Note my use of the definite article with “consumer unit” The AD only refers to “the consumer unit” and never “a consumer unit”, implying that there’s only one.

The immediate problem with that is what if there isn't only one?

Does your definition mean that the house has no circuits, as none of them can be said to go back to the consumer unit?

Does it mean that installing a new MCB and new cables running from it is not notifiable, as it says it is in Additional Note (a) on p8, because that says

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

?

Do you think it means that a reasonable interpretation of Approved Document P is that the definition was meant to clarify the fact that Part P and the notification requirements in the Building Regulations don't apply where a house has more than 1 CU?

Or do you think that these questions that arise from your interpretation mean that your interpretation is deeply flawed, to put it mildly?

The AD could have referred to “a consumer unit”, as is used in Schedule 2B, but did not do so. I assume because 2B, written for lawyers, would mislead those for whom the AD has been written.

Are you ever going to tell us which bits of 2B you think are misleading or not understandable because it was written for lawyers?

If you think that the difference between "a CU" and "the CU" is so significant, can you tell us which confusion in Schedule 2B was clarified by wording it differently in AD P?

The OP’s proposal then, is to extend an existing circuit into the garage where he will add lighting points and sockets, via a distribution board as is good practice and does not need to notify.

Can we look forward to you advising people from now on that if they remove the isolation switch from a CU it becomes a DB, and that therefore they can install new one(s) of those, and new circuits running from it, (or through it? From what you write I'm unclear), without it being notifiable, because you genuinely believe that that is the meaning and intention of the Building Regulations, as clarified by the Approved Document, and that therefore it is the best and most accurate advice which can be given?

As far as I can see, your interpretations of what the Building Regulations must mean by "circuit" and "consumer unit" (as distinct from "distribution board") someone could rewire a house if they leave the old CU in place and use its incomer to feed the new CU with its incomer removed, and it would all be non-notifiable.

It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that if the OP ignored best practice and extended his house’s ring final and lighting circuits into his garage, there would be no question; notification would not be required.

Indeed not, and one of the problems the legislation created was to encourage people to go for non-optimal solutions in order to avoid notification.

In this other example of an extract from a legal document, are you able to understand it:

No. It does not mean what it appears to mean. If it were straightforward, Table 1 in the AD would have been a verbatim copy of Schedule 2B. It is not. I assume that where a non-legal reader would be misled by 2B, the words have been changed to clarify the meaning.

Very well.

Perhaps it would be instructive to compare Schedule 2B with Tables 1 & 2 in the AD P and see how the wording has changed, and if we can point to confusion or lack of clarity in the former which was resolved by the change?

In the side-by-side comparison below I've removed the non-electrical parts of 2B, and where possible I've incorporated the lettered Notes from Table 1 into the actual provisions. I've also omitted most of the additional notes - if you believe that to be unfair in regard to the issues of circuits and consumer units please say.

I must admit I can't see any substantive differences, or clarifications which make your interpretation of what the Building Regulations actually mean by circuits and consumer units a reasonable one, so I'd be interested if you can show me where to look.

Nowhere near as significant a sum as it could cost if, in the future, the failure to notify when you should have done becomes an issue.

Really?
(1) Can you explain why the leaflet “New rules for electrical safety in the home”, published by the then ODPM answers the question “What will happen if I do not follow the Building Regulations?” with
• The electrical installation might not be safe
• You will have no record of the work done
• You may have difficulty selling your home if you do not have the right electrical safety certificates
• Your local authority’s Building Control Department may insist that you put right faulty work.
With no mention of any penalty.

I said nothing about any penalty, if by that you mean a fine.

I was thinking of the 3rd bullet point. Buyers, and their solicitors, are becoming more savvy, and are asking about notifiable work, and if you don't have the necessary approvals then you've handed a stick to your buyer and invited him to beat you with it.

Bullet #4 could also cost you, although it's pretty unlikely to happen regarding electrical work.

(2) Can you give just one example from the five years since part P was introduced, where a DIYer was taken to court for not notifying work he had done in his own home?

No I can't, and I'm confident that I'll never be able to, but see above - that wasn't what I was thinking of.

If you're buying a house which has had notifiable work done but not notified you'd be a fool not to use that to try and get the price reduced.

Courts are very ready to act on what they believe the intention of the law-makers was

Utter tosh! Just cite a case where the judge has said such a thing. Just one will do.

Anyone can see that that statement is nonsense because no two judges will make the same interpretation. We would finish up not knowing what the law meant.

It is very much not nonsense, it is exactly how our legal system works.

We have what is known as a common law legal system. Decisions made by higher courts are binding on the courts below them in accordance with the system of judicial precedent. In civil and criminal proceedings, the role of the judge or magistrate is to apply the law to the facts in any particular case. However this is not always easy as legislation is often ambiguous and open to different interpretations. In such cases it is the job of the higher courts to decide how legislation is to be interpreted.

The problem you imagine, of different judges interpreting things differently does not arise as once one has made a decision it is then binding on all future cases, where the facts are sufficiently similar.

Decisions can be overturned by higher courts

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and its decisions on both civil and criminal cases are binding on all other domestic courts. Next down are the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal, which is bound by the Supreme Court, but binds all courts below. Then there are the civil and criminal divisions of the High Court. Its decisions only bind the Crown and magistrates courts. The lowest courts - the Crown and magistrates court for criminal and the County Court for civil cases– cannot bind any other court.

Did you know, for example, that there is no actual statutory offence of murder? All the laws against murder have been established by the common law system.

Just cite a case where the judge has said such a thing. Just one will do.

OK.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits a course of conduct which causes harassment, alarm or distress. But it was unclear from the wording of the act, whether or not it could also be used to protect companies from harassment. In a case before the High Court it was decided that companies could not be protected, as this was not the intention of Parliament when passing the legislation.

http://www.freebeagles.org/caselaw/CL_hs_Curtin (2)_sum.html

So no, it's not utter tosh, unlike your interpretation of Approved Document P.

 

[holmslaw]

BAS you're a waste of space, a couple of thumbs down for you're inability to clearly communicate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One, it seems, not a couple.

Was that from you?

Care to explain what it is about the post that's wrong?

 

[Stoday]

My interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household. Note my use of the definite article with “consumer unit” The AD only refers to “the consumer unit” and never “a consumer unit”, implying that there’s only one.

The immediate problem with that is what if there isn't only one? The other one's a distribution board.

Does your definition mean that the house has no circuits, as none of them can be said to go back to the consumer unit?
If you look on page 363 of BS7671 you will read "A radial final circuit starts and finishes at the distribution board..."

Does it mean that installing a new MCB and new cables running from it is not notifiable, as it says it is in Additional Note (a) on p8, because that says
Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to
the consumer unit...
According to my definition it's notifiable if the new circuit is connected directly to the consumer unit.

Do you think it means that a reasonable interpretation of Approved Document P is that the definition was meant to clarify the fact that Part P and the notification requirements in the Building Regulations don't apply where a house has more than 1 CU?
The AD assumes there is only one CU.

Can we look forward to you advising people
No. I am only stating my opinion. People can agree with me or not, as they choose.

Buyers, and their solicitors, are becoming more savvy, and are asking about notifiable work, and if you don't have the necessary approvals then you've handed a stick to your buyer and invited him to beat you with it.
If you have done work that you believe is not notifiable, then this does not apply.


Stoday — Courts are very ready to act on what they believe the intention of the law-makers was.
BAS — Lots of bumf about this.
Parliament makes statute law not common law, so stop trying to confuse the issue. I never said that judges could not interpret the law. The issue was that of judges taking account of what parliament intended. That can only apply to statute law.

It is easy to see what was intended for part P because the deliberations when it was being formulated were published. The early drafts did not restrict work in kitchens, but did so later to catch the kitchen cowboys. It was not the intention to catch DIYers too. Should that be a loophole through which DIYers can escape notification?

The FreeBeagles case law report is not from a disinterested source. I cannot find a disinterested report to check its veracity.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

Banal Sheds has the brass neck to implicate Stoday as a "deranged nihilist" - "infecting this forum" (page two of this sorry thread). BAS ought to be bloody well ashamed of himself to attack such a member as Stoday,
who joined this forum some six years ago.

Stoday has the gift of brevity in his posts. BAS has something to learn from him!


Perhaps BAS could remind me of his former 'motto' regarding Part P - just to save me looking it up? As I recall, it was in 'ROT Script' and began with the 'F' word and mentioned effing The Rt Hon, DPM John Prescott MP.

Such is BAS' turncoat, hypocritical disposition......


Lucia.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The other one's a distribution board.

Earlier on you said that the defining characteristic of a distribution board was that it had no main switch.

So please revisit my questions above for the situation where an installation has more than one consumer unit, each with it's own main switch, and none of them supplied by any of the others.

If you look on page 363 of BS7671 you will read "A radial final circuit starts and finishes at the distribution board..."

But earlier on you refused to recognise the definition of circuit in BS 7671 when discussing what AD P meant by it:

Now, I did say unless otherwise defined. BS 7671 does define a circuit, for its purposes, as “starting and ending at the point where protective measures are connected.” Nothing wrong with that providing everyone understands that that definition of a circuit does not apply outside the limits of BS7671. In particular, the AD does not define a circuit and as BAS has pointed out, BS7671 is not the only standard that complies.

So having said that I think it's disingenuous of you to now try and use what it says.

And it's irrelevant anyway to my question, as I was talking about consumer units, which according to you are not the same as distribution boards:

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:...

Does your definition mean that it's notifiable if the new circuit is connected directly to a consumer unit?

You have said that your interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household, and you have said that you think the used in AD P if the definite article is significant

My interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household. Note my use of the definite article with “consumer unit” The AD only refers to “the consumer unit” and never “a consumer unit”, implying that there’s only one.

and you have said that it was deliberate, and done with the intention of clarifying Schedule 2B:

The AD could have referred to “a consumer unit”, as is used in Schedule 2B, but did not do so. I assume because 2B, written for lawyers, would mislead those for whom the AD has been written.

You cannot deny that houses can and do have more than consumer unit, so what do you think was the intention of the clarification?

The AD assumes there is only one CU.

Stoday, you aren't an idiot, but you are in serious danger of starting to behave like one. Why won't you accept that you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole?

...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.

Do you really expect us to believe that you genuinely think that the people who wrote the Approved Document intended it not to apply to houses with more than one consumer unit?

Can we look forward to you advising people
No. I am only stating my opinion. People can agree with me or not, as they choose.

This is advice:

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:...

Can we look forward to you advising people from now on that if they remove the isolation switch from a CU it becomes a DB, and that therefore they can install new one(s) of those, and new circuits running from it without it being notifiable, because you genuinely believe that that is the meaning and intention of the Building Regulations, as clarified by the Approved Document, and that therefore it is the best and most accurate advice which can be given?

If you have done work that you believe is not notifiable, then this does not apply.

It would if the buyer ended up taking it to court.

Unless the court agreed with you that the intention of Parliament was that the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations would not apply to distribution boards, or circuits coming from distribution boards, or to dwellings with more than one consumer unit, then the seller would be hosed.

I never said that judges could not interpret the law.

Really?

Courts are very ready to act on what they believe the intention of the law-makers was

Utter tosh! Just cite a case where the judge has said such a thing. Just one will do.

Anyone can see that that statement is nonsense because no two judges will make the same interpretation. We would finish up not knowing what the law meant.

The issue was that of judges taking account of what parliament intended. That can only apply to statute law.

The Building Act is statute law.

The Building Regulations are Statutory Instruments, they too are statute law.

It is easy to see what was intended for part P

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure what the words in a Statutory Instrument mean.

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.

because the deliberations when it was being formulated were published. The early drafts did not restrict work in kitchens, but did so later to catch the kitchen cowboys. It was not the intention to catch DIYers too.

You're sure it wasn't the intention to regulate DIY work in kitchens?

Why are you so sure?


Anyway, if you are now saying that it's easy to see what the intentions were, are you now able to tell us what the intention of Schedule 2B is, in relation to defining non-notifiable work, and are you now able to tell us in what way Tables 1 & 2 in AD P differ substantially from Schedule 2B, or do you think that if you keep on ignoring those questions people won't realise that you actually have no reasonable answers for them?

The FreeBeagles case law report is not from a disinterested source. I cannot find a disinterested report to check its veracity.

No, it is not a disinterested source, but being interested does not make them liars.

Do you think that when they referenced a report in The Times of Mr Justice Eady giving his decision of what Parliament intended by a piece of legislation that they were not telling the truth?

 

[bernardgreen]

Someone wrote

The Building Regulations are Statutory Instruments, they too are statute law.

The aim of the building regulations is to try to ensure buildings are safe and sound for the intended purpose.

They seem to accept BS 7671 as the acceptable standard for electrical wiring. It fits most cases of domestic installation. But if an installation is designed to a different standard and that design can be shown to be a safe and sensible installation then the aims of the building regulations will have been met without reference to BS 7671.

That is certainly true in other area of the building regulations.

 

[holmslaw]

Another thread ruined by sheddy's pointless drivel.

 

[ricicle]

Another nail in the coffin of this forum I expect......

 

[ELZ4742]

everyones entitled to there opinion...











...think ill start voting Communist.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Another thread ruined by sheddy's pointless drivel.

Another nail in the coffin of this forum I expect......

Stoday has made the following claims:

1) The installation of a distribution board is not notifiable.

2) The installation of a new circuit originating at a distribution board is not notifiable.

3) AD P is meant to clarify the law, and that clarification draws a definite and intended distinction between dwellings with 1 CU and those with more than 1.

Would you two care to explain why it is drivel or a nail in the coffin of this forum to try to get him to see that he is wrong?

Holmslaw might be right about one thing - it might be pointless, because Stoday may well be adopting the strategy of when in a hole, keep digging.

Every time he comes up with another "interpretation" or "definition" he just creates more inconsistencies and more highly improbable consequences. It's that advice based on inconsistencies and improbabilities which is damaging the the forum, not me trying to get him to see the error of his ways.

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:...

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.

The AD assumes there is only one CU.

C'mon guys, try for a few minutes to act like reasonable and intelligent people and ignore your knee-jerk reaction to say that I'm automatically wrong - do you really think that Stoday's advice is sound?