Part P (again)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

coherers

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 7:05:16 AM11/23/04
to
Hi,

I've been following the threads on here regarding Part P and its effects on
DIY work on-and-off since late 2002, and I thought I now understood exactly
what the situation was.

But today on the Rospa site I see the following unqualified statement:

<quote>
Notification will not be required if –
*....
*...

* DIY work that follows the IEE guidance or that in the listed DIY
manuals based on BS 7671 and IEE.
</quote>

(http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafety/articles/domestic_electrical.htm,
section 3.2.5 )

Is this correct? This would imply that one **can** do major works as long as
7671 is followed.

Comments anyone ?

p.s. As it is a topic that has been done over and over, an I propose Part P
and electrical DIY as an addition to the FAQ?


"coherers"


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 7:22:10 AM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:05:16 GMT, "coherers"
<nos...@deathtoallspammers.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been following the threads on here regarding Part P and its effects on
>DIY work on-and-off since late 2002, and I thought I now understood exactly
>what the situation was.
>
>But today on the Rospa site I see the following unqualified statement:
>
><quote>
>Notification will not be required if –
> *....
> *...
>
> * DIY work that follows the IEE guidance or that in the listed DIY
>manuals based on BS 7671 and IEE.
></quote>
>
>(http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafety/articles/domestic_electrical.htm,
>section 3.2.5 )
>
>Is this correct? This would imply that one **can** do major works as long as
>7671 is followed.
>
>Comments anyone ?
>

I don't think that this is correct. They seem to have confused
standards for the work with what is and what isn't controlled.

Have a look at

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041808.htm

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

use...@isbd.co.uk

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 8:11:01 AM11/23/04
to
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:05:16 GMT, "coherers"
> <nos...@deathtoallspammers.com> wrote:
>
> ><quote>
> >Notification will not be required if ?

> > *....
> > *...
> >
> > * DIY work that follows the IEE guidance or that in the listed DIY
> >manuals based on BS 7671 and IEE.
> ></quote>
> >
> >(http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafety/articles/domestic_electrical.htm,
> >section 3.2.5 )
> >
> >Is this correct? This would imply that one **can** do major works as long as
> >7671 is followed.
> >
> >Comments anyone ?
> >
>
> I don't think that this is correct. They seem to have confused
> standards for the work with what is and what isn't controlled.
>
> Have a look at
>
> http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041808.htm
>
However it will be a wonderful resource to reference when someone asks
why some work hasn't had building regs. approval! :-)

--
Chris Green

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 8:35:58 AM11/23/04
to


There's a thought. Better archive it before they correct it.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 8:55:54 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:roa6q090g6rt65adg...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:05:16 GMT, "coherers"
> <nos...@deathtoallspammers.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've been following the threads on here regarding Part P and its effects
on
> >DIY work on-and-off since late 2002, and I thought I now understood
exactly
> >what the situation was.
> >
> >But today on the Rospa site I see the following unqualified statement:
> >
> ><quote>
> >Notification will not be required if -

> > *....
> > *...
> >
> > * DIY work that follows the IEE guidance or that in the listed
DIY
> >manuals based on BS 7671 and IEE.
> ></quote>
> >
> >(http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafety/articles/domestic_electrical.htm,
> >section 3.2.5 )
> >
> >Is this correct? This would imply that one **can** do major works as long
as
> >7671 is followed.
> >
> >Comments anyone ?
>
> I don't think that this is correct.

It is correct. That is what it says.

> They seem to have confused
> standards for the work with what is and what isn't controlled.
>
> Have a look at
>
> http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041808.htm

And where does that negate the above?


Steve Jones

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:19:02 AM11/23/04
to Andy Hall

From the link you gave Andy:


DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
REQUIRED

Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,

(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

(c) consists of -

(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;

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

(iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary
equipotential bonding.


I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the new
regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.


Steve

Steve Jones

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:20:01 AM11/23/04
to

From the link you gave Andy it states:


DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
REQUIRED

Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,

(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

(c) consists of -

(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;

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

(iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary
equipotential bonding.


I thought adding new socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:34:02 AM11/23/04
to

Do you believe everything you read on web sites?


>
>> They seem to have confused
>> standards for the work with what is and what isn't controlled.
>>
>> Have a look at
>>
>> http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041808.htm
>
>And where does that negate the above?
>

Look at Part P of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2B near the bottom.

The Schedule 1 piece gives the scope of where electrical work is
controlled. This is in a dwelling and buildings associated with or
supplied from it.

Schedule 2B lists exemptions.

DIY work following BS7671 is not exempted.

I've emailed ROSPA and asked them to check their information.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:34:45 AM11/23/04
to

"Steve Jones" <sjo...@nopspamplease.com> wrote in message
news:41A346D6...@nopspamplease.com...

"special location"? What is that?

> (b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
"special installation" (whatever that is)

> (c) consists of -
>
> (i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;
>
> (ii) adding socket outlets and fused
> spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit; or

So if you leave 1 foot od each of the two wores comming for the 30 amp fuse
from the CU you can do anything. The circuit is existing and sockets and
fused spurs added.

> (iii) installing or upgrading main or
> supplementary equipotential bonding.
>
> I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the new
> regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.

Yep. You are right. So anything goes as long as it is not in a kitchen or
"special location", whatever that is.

I can see why they homed in on kitchen. This is to prevent cowboy kitchen
fitters slapping cables all around the place. That MPs daughter who died
probably prompted this.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:00:15 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:7li6q0h9vj6k5iim9...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:19:02 +0000, Steve Jones
> <sjo...@nopspamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > From the link you gave Andy:
> >
> >
> >DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
> >REQUIRED
> >
> >Work which -
> >
> > (a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> >
> > (b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> >
> > (c) consists of -
> >
> > (i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing
circuit;
> >
> > (ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing
> >ring or radial circuit; or
> >
> > (iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary
> >equipotential bonding.
> >
> >
> >I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the new
> >regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.
> >
>
> You can because they are considered to be a minor work.
>
> Whether or not this makes any sense is another issue.
>
> As far as I am concerned, If somebody is competent (or not) to add a
> spur or socket then I see no real reason why they can't add a circuit
> from the competence perspective.
>
> It's just as easy to get into trouble installing a spur as it is a
> circuit.
>
> For example, cable of inadequate size could be used, or people could
> add a spur to the end of a spur from a ring circuit.
>
> Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
> safety mechanism and should also be tested.

This does not have to be connected to the electrical system.

> The exemptions seem much more arbitrary than considered, especially
> when there isn't a problem to address in the first place.

Steve Jones

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:52:43 AM11/23/04
to
Well this is good news, Part P doesn't seem so restrictive after all. I
was under the impression that changing cracked socket/light/ceiling
fittings was about all you could do.

> The exemptions seem much more arbitrary than considered, especially
> when there isn't a problem to address in the first place.

Should we have expected anything else!


Steve

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:58:56 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:lrh6q0tf6tl6tdir1...@4ax.com...

> Look at Part P of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2B near the bottom.
>
> The Schedule 1 piece gives the scope of where electrical work is
> controlled. This is in a dwelling and buildings associated with or
> supplied from it.
>
> Schedule 2B lists exemptions.
>
> DIY work following BS7671 is not exempted.

" SCHEDULE 2B

Regulation 12(5)

DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
REQUIRED

1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;

[does not say that you cannot touch the ring main]

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components,
where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where
the circuit protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors
are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.

2. Work which -

Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,

(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
"special installation"]

(c) consists of -

(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;

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

[So if you leave 1 foot od each of the two wores comming for the 30 amp fuse


from the CU you can do anything. The circuit is existing and sockets and

fused spurs added.]

(iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding.

3. In paragraph 2 -

"special installation" means:

- an electric floor
- ceiling heating system,
- garden lighting
- electric power installation,

[what does this mean?]

- an electricity generator
- an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled lighting
set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical
Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994[8];

[what is "extra low voltage"? So this appears to mean you can install 12v
downlighters and run the cables]

"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant zones
specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air
sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published by the
Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as
BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2.".
[so can't fix electrical equipment "near" a bath, shower, pools& sauna.]

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 9:49:36 AM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:34:45 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve Jones" <sjo...@nopspamplease.com> wrote in message

>> From the link you gave Andy:


>
>>
>> DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO
>> BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
>> REQUIRED
>>
>> Work which -
>>
>> (a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
>
>"special location"? What is that?

From the SI:


"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant
zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a
hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published
by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards
Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2.".

>


>> (b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
>
>So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
>"special installation" (whatever that is)

No they don't. The word "and" is important here. For exemption,
conditions (a), (b) *and* (c) must apply.


>
>> (c) consists of -
>>
>> (i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;
>>
>> (ii) adding socket outlets and fused
>> spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit; or
>
>So if you leave 1 foot od each of the two wores comming for the 30 amp fuse
>from the CU you can do anything. The circuit is existing and sockets and
>fused spurs added.

This would appear to meet the letter of the legislation.

We had a thread a while back where somebody suggested putting looped
circuits into a CU for this reason.

It is one more reason why the whole thing, like most of this kind of
legislation, is a nonsense.

>
>> (iii) installing or upgrading main or
>> supplementary equipotential bonding.
>>
>> I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the new
>> regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.
>
>Yep. You are right. So anything goes as long as it is not in a kitchen or
>"special location", whatever that is.
>
>I can see why they homed in on kitchen. This is to prevent cowboy kitchen
>fitters slapping cables all around the place. That MPs daughter who died
>probably prompted this.
>

Entirely possible but completely flawed.

coherers

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:29:30 AM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:roa6q090g6rt65adg...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:05:16 GMT, "coherers"
> <nos...@deathtoallspammers.com> wrote:
>
> ><quote>
> >Notification will not be required if -

> > *....
> > *...
> >
> > * DIY work that follows the IEE guidance or that in the listed
DIY
> >manuals based on BS 7671 and IEE.
> ></quote>
> >
> >(http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafety/articles/domestic_electrical.htm,
> >section 3.2.5 )
> >
>
> I don't think that this is correct. They seem to have confused
> standards for the work with what is and what isn't controlled.
>
> Have a look at
>
> http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041808.htm
> .andy
>

Thanks Andy.

Having taken a look at this, Part P and other postings, I am now sure it is
wrong.

Further, it now seems clear to me that **all** domestic electrical works are
covered by Building Regs.

The exemptions appear to be about notification, not about whether it is
covered by the Regs or not. The title of Schedule 2B is "DESCRIPTIONS OF


WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS REQUIRED"

The only exempt works are described in the "Limits of Application" column of
amendments to Schedule 1 - i.e.:
<quote>
The requirements of this Part apply only to electrical installations that
are intended to operate at low or extra-low voltage and are -


(a) in a dwelling;

(b) in the common parts of a building serving one or more dwellings, but
excluding power supplies to lifts;

(c) in a building that receives its electricity from a source located within
or shared with a dwelling; and

(d) in a garden or in or on land associated with a building where the
electricity is from a source located within or shared with a dwelling.
</quote>

Everything else is covered by the regs, but not all works require
notification.

The Part P Approved Document seems to take that view. From section 0.8
<quote>
When the non-notifiable work
described in Table 1 [i.e Schedule 2B] is to be
undertaken by a DIY worker, a
way of showing compliance would
be to follow the IEE guidance or
guidance in other authoritative
manuals that are based on this,
and to have a competent person
inspect and test the work and
supply a Minor Electrical
Installation Works Certificate. The
competent person need not
necessarily be registered with an
electrical self-certification scheme
but, as required by BS 7671, must
be competent in respect of the
inspection and testing of an
installation
</quote>

Note the use of the word "compliance". The regs apply even for minor DIY.So
if we don't want to get a certified "professional" to check our stuff, we
will have to do ourselves certificates !

"coherers"

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:21:04 AM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:56 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:lrh6q0tf6tl6tdir1...@4ax.com...
>> Look at Part P of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2B near the bottom.
>>
>> The Schedule 1 piece gives the scope of where electrical work is
>> controlled. This is in a dwelling and buildings associated with or
>> supplied from it.
>>
>> Schedule 2B lists exemptions.
>>
>> DIY work following BS7671 is not exempted.
>
>" SCHEDULE 2B
>
>Regulation 12(5)
>
>DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT OF FULL PLANS
>REQUIRED
>
>1. Work consisting of -
>
>(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;
>
>[does not say that you cannot touch the ring main]

You are looking at it the wrong way round.

These are *exemptions*.

Other works are controlled.

>
>(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
>
>[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]

No.


>
>(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components,
>where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;
>
>(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where
>the circuit protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors
>are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.
>
>2. Work which -
>
>Work which -
>
>(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
>
>(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
>
>[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
>"special installation"]

No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.


>
>(c) consists of -
>
>(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;
>
>(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial
>circuit; or
>
>[So if you leave 1 foot od each of the two wores comming for the 30 amp fuse
>from the CU you can do anything. The circuit is existing and sockets and
>fused spurs added.]

The legislation would appear to leave that loophole.


>
>(iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding.
>
>3. In paragraph 2 -
>
>"special installation" means:
>
>- an electric floor
>- ceiling heating system,
>- garden lighting
>- electric power installation,
>
>[what does this mean?]

It isn;t a bulletted list

"special installation" means an electric floor or ceiling heating
system, a garden lighting or electric power installation, an
electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which


is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to
in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations
1994[8]

>
>- an electricity generator
>- an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled lighting
>set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical
>Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994[8];
>
>[what is "extra low voltage"? So this appears to mean you can install 12v
>downlighters and run the cables]

Less than 50v AC or 120v DC


>
>"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant zones
>specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air
>sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published by the
>Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as
>BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2.".
>[so can't fix electrical equipment "near" a bath, shower, pools& sauna.]
>
>
>

--

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:25:35 AM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:00:15 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:7li6q0h9vj6k5iim9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:19:02 +0000, Steve Jones
>> <sjo...@nopspamplease.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
>> safety mechanism and should also be tested.
>
>This does not have to be connected to the electrical system.
>

It is part of the electrical system in that if absent there is an
increased risk of shock and other issues.

Just because something is not normally current carrying doesn't mean
that it's unimportant.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:32:06 AM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:l4j6q09nc9mjs9kjf...@4ax.com...

You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1 metre
lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".

You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So you
can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it was
"defective".

> It is one more reason why the whole thing, like most of this kind of
> legislation, is a nonsense.

> >> (iii) installing or upgrading main or
> >> supplementary equipotential bonding.
> >>
> >> I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the new
> >> regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.
> >
> >Yep. You are right. So anything goes as long as it is not in a kitchen
or
> >"special location", whatever that is.
> >
> >I can see why they homed in on kitchen. This is to prevent cowboy kitchen
> >fitters slapping cables all around the place. That MPs daughter who died
> >probably prompted this.
> >
> Entirely possible but completely flawed.

Now where are the regs that say a replacement cylinder needs the BCO
involved?

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:22:43 AM11/23/04
to

It;s better, but not usefully better.

If you're an idiot you can still get into trouble and if you are
competent, it's stupidly restrictive.

Now where was my hunting horn?

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:51:17 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:bsk6q015o66ivds3l...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:56 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:lrh6q0tf6tl6tdir1...@4ax.com...
> >> Look at Part P of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2B near the bottom.
> >>
> >> The Schedule 1 piece gives the scope of where electrical work is
> >> controlled. This is in a dwelling and buildings associated with or
> >> supplied from it.
> >>
> >> Schedule 2B lists exemptions.
> >>
> >> DIY work following BS7671 is not exempted.
> >
> >" SCHEDULE 2B
> >
> >Regulation 12(5)
> >
> > DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE
> > NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT
> > OF FULL PLANS REQUIRED
> >
> >1. Work consisting of -
> >
> >(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;
> >
> >[does not say that you cannot touch the ring main]
>
> You are looking at it the wrong way round.
>
> These are *exemptions*.

You are not exempted from touching the ring main as you can "replacing any
socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;". To do this may entail
working on the ring main. Simple. Obvious.

> Other works are controlled.
>
> >(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
> >
> >[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]
>
> No.

Yes! You are exempted if the cable is damaged and needs replacing. hat may
mean the whole ring main. Simple. Obvious.

> > (c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of
> > existing installation components,
> > where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;
> >
> > (d) providing mechanical protection to an
> > existing fixed installation, where
> > the circuit protective measures and
> > current carrying capacity of conductors
> > are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.
> >
> >2. Work which -
> >
> >Work which -
> >
> >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> >
> >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> >
> >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
> >"special installation"]
>
> No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
> means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.

No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).

> >(c) consists of -
> >
> >(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit;
> >
> >(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial
> >circuit; or
> >

> >[So if you leave 1 foot of each of the two wires


> >comming for the 30 amp fuse
> >from the CU you can do anything. The circuit
> >is existing and sockets and
> >fused spurs added.]
>
> The legislation would appear to leave that loophole.

> >(iii) installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential
bonding.
> >
> >3. In paragraph 2 -
> >
> >"special installation" means:
> >
> >- an electric floor
> >- ceiling heating system,
> >- garden lighting
> >- electric power installation,
> >
> >[what does this mean?]
>
> It isn;t a bulletted list

I streched out the commas.

> "special installation" means an electric floor or ceiling heating
> system, a garden lighting

So you can't plug in a low voltage garden light set to a socket on the
outside of the house? Me thinks not.

> or electric power installation, an
> electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which
> is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to
> in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations
> 1994[8]
>
> >
> >- an electricity generator
> >- an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled
lighting
> >set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical
> >Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994[8];
> >
> >[what is "extra low voltage"? So this appears to mean you can install 12v
> >downlighters and run the cables]
>
> Less than 50v AC or 120v DC

So, you can't fit 12v downlighters. So, that is why Homebase do not sell
12v lights anymore.

use...@isbd.co.uk

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:51:35 AM11/23/04
to
>
> (ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial
> circuit; or
>
Yet another reason to standardise on 20 amp MCB, 2.5sq mmm radial
circuits, you can expand them as much as you like without requiring
building regs approval.

Although reading that it would appear to effectively include any
modification of a ring too, it depends on one's interpretation.

--
Chris Green

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:32:30 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:o0p6q0dlld4n6fdc4...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

> >You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1 metre
> >lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".
> >
> >You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So you
> >can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it was
> >"defective".
>

> It says that you can replace a damaged cable.
>
> Theoretically, all the cable segments
> in a ring could be damaged, but
> it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?

If one is down then the lot gets replaced.

> >> It is one more reason why the whole thing, like most of this kind of
> >> legislation, is a nonsense.
> >
> >> >> (iii) installing or upgrading main or
> >> >> supplementary equipotential bonding.
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought adding socket outlets and spurs was not allowed under the
new
> >> >> regs, but this says otherwise. Except for a kitchen.
> >> >
> >> >Yep. You are right. So anything goes as long as it is not in a
kitchen
> >or
> >> >"special location", whatever that is.
> >> >
> >> >I can see why they homed in on kitchen. This is to prevent cowboy
kitchen
> >> >fitters slapping cables all around the place. That MPs daughter who
died
> >> >probably prompted this.
> >> >
> >> Entirely possible but completely flawed.
> >
> >Now where are the regs that say a replacement cylinder needs the BCO
> >involved?
> >
> >

> Part L1 IIRC.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:22:29 AM11/23/04
to

I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"

First of all it is a "ring final circuit".

Secondly one is allowed to change fittings.


>
>> Other works are controlled.
>>
>> >(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
>> >
>> >[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes! You are exempted if the cable is damaged and needs replacing. hat may
>mean the whole ring main. Simple. Obvious.

Of course. However, it is fairly unlikely, and the intent is that
installing a new circuit is a controlled activity.

They have simply listed the exemptions because they thought that they
are fewer in number than listing what is controlled in detail.

By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
I've repeatedly said that it's bullshit and achieves nothing because
it is unenforcable.

I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
cronies. I am sure that if this ever does become a big issue (which
is unlikely), that he will seek to distance himself from it in exactly
the same shameful way that he has from hunting legislation.

>> > (c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of
>> > existing installation components,
>> > where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;
>> >
>> > (d) providing mechanical protection to an
>> > existing fixed installation, where
>> > the circuit protective measures and
>> > current carrying capacity of conductors
>> > are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.
>> >
>> >2. Work which -
>> >
>> >Work which -
>> >
>> >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
>> >
>> >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
>> >
>> >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
>> >"special installation"]
>>
>> No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
>> means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
>
>No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).

There doesn't need to be because there is a comma.

I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).

>
>So you can't plug in a low voltage garden light set to a socket on the
>outside of the house? Me thinks not.

It doesn't say that. It is only a special installation if the
lighting set is NOT a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE


marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment
(Safety) Regulations 1994

>
>> or electric power installation, an
>> electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which
>> is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to
>> in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations
>> 1994[8]
>>
>> >
>> >- an electricity generator
>> >- an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled
>lighting
>> >set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical
>> >Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994[8];
>> >
>> >[what is "extra low voltage"? So this appears to mean you can install 12v
>> >downlighters and run the cables]
>>
>> Less than 50v AC or 120v DC
>
>So, you can't fit 12v downlighters. So, that is why Homebase do not sell
>12v lights anymore.

You can fit luminaires anyway. 12v is less than 50v by the way.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:11:00 AM11/23/04
to

"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30h4jmF...@uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:bsk6q015o66ivds3l...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:56 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> > >news:lrh6q0tf6tl6tdir1...@4ax.com...
> > >> Look at Part P of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2B near the bottom.
> > >>
> > >> The Schedule 1 piece gives the scope of where electrical work is
> > >> controlled. This is in a dwelling and buildings associated with or
> > >> supplied from it.
> > >>
> > >> Schedule 2B lists exemptions.
> > >>
> > >> DIY work following BS7671 is not exempted.
> > >
> > >" SCHEDULE 2B
> > >
> > >Regulation 12(5)
> > >
> > > DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHERE
> > > NO BUILDING NOTICE OR DEPOSIT
> > > OF FULL PLANS REQUIRED
> > >
> > >1. Work consisting of -
> > >
> > >(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;
> > >
> > >[does not say that you cannot touch the ring main]
> >
> > You are looking at it the wrong way round.
> >
> > These are *exemptions*.
>
> You are exempted from touching the ring main as you can "replacing any

> socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;". To do this may entail
> working on the ring main. Simple. Obvious.

typo. fixed above.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:03:50 AM11/23/04
to

<use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message news:30h4k7F...@uni-berlin.de...

It says clearly "ring", so a ring is exempt.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:30:04 AM11/23/04
to

>

This is as I understand it, but do remember that the Approved
Documents do not have the force of law - they are simply a guideline.

So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
in effect the status quo today.

>
>"coherers"

Mike Harrison

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:52:59 AM11/23/04
to
>Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
>safety mechanism and should also be tested.

Isn't this so that plumbers don't need to jump through the hoops when doing pipework that needs
earthing ?

RichardS

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:40:11 AM11/23/04
to
"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30h70vF...@uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:o0p6q0dlld4n6fdc4...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > >You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1
metre
> > >lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".
> > >
> > >You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So
you
> > >can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it
was
> > >"defective".
> >
> > It says that you can replace a damaged cable.
> >
> > Theoretically, all the cable segments
> > in a ring could be damaged, but
> > it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?
>
> If one is down then the lot gets replaced.
>
<snip>

So, when you slip with your hacksaw and nick the insulation of one leg of a
ring, you'd rip the lot out and replace it, would you?

--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


RichardS

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:36:52 AM11/23/04
to

"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30h4jmF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
<snip>

> >
> > >2. Work which -
> > >
> > >Work which -
> > >
> > >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> > >
> > >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> > >
> > >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
> > >"special installation"]
> >
> > No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
> > means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
>
> No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).
>

Does this interpretation have any legal precedence whatsoever? It is not
normal in written english to put "and" after every item in a list, merely
once following the penultimate item.

<snip>

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:44:33 AM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:h9o6q0dhta0047f90...@4ax.com...

I don't see the term "ring final circuit".

> Secondly one is allowed to change fittings.

> >> Other works are controlled.
> >>
> >> >(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
> >> >
> >> >[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Yes! You are exempted if the cable is

> > damaged and needs replacing. That may


> > mean the whole ring main. Simple. Obvious.
>
> Of course. However, it is fairly
> unlikely, and the intent is that
> installing a new circuit is a
> controlled activity.

"fairly unlikely" is not good enough. It is either black or white in regs.
Installing a new cable on an existing breaker is not a new circuit.

> They have simply listed the exemptions
> because they thought that they
> are fewer in number than listing what
> is controlled in detail.

Not interested in opinions.. It is either black or white.

> By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
> I've repeatedly said that it's bullshit and achieves nothing because
> it is unenforcable.
>
> I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
> cronies.

No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring mains
is.

> I am sure that if this ever does become a big issue (which
> is unlikely), that he will seek to distance himself from it in exactly
> the same shameful way that he has from hunting legislation.

He voted again hunting I believe. Fox hunters? I would burn the lot 'em.

> >> > (c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of
> >> > existing installation components,
> >> > where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;
> >> >
> >> > (d) providing mechanical protection to an
> >> > existing fixed installation, where
> >> > the circuit protective measures and
> >> > current carrying capacity of conductors
> >> > are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.
> >> >
> >> >2. Work which -
> >> >
> >> >Work which -
> >> >
> >> >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> >> >
> >> >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> >> >
> >> >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
> >> >"special installation"]
> >>
> >> No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
> >> means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
> >
> >No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).
>
> There doesn't need to be because there is a comma.

> I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
> is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).

No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.

> >So you can't plug in a low voltage garden light set to a socket on the
> >outside of the house? Me thinks not.
>
> It doesn't say that. It is only a special installation if the
> lighting set is NOT a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE
> marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment
> (Safety) Regulations 1994
>
> >
> >> or electric power installation, an
> >> electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which
> >> is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to
> >> in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations
> >> 1994[8]
> >>
> >> >
> >> >- an electricity generator
> >> >- an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled
> >lighting
> >> >set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the
Electrical
> >> >Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994[8];
> >> >
> >> >[what is "extra low voltage"? So this appears to mean you can install
12v
> >> >downlighters and run the cables]
> >>
> >> Less than 50v AC or 120v DC
> >
> >So, you can't fit 12v downlighters. So, that is why Homebase do not sell
> >12v lights anymore.
>
> You can fit luminaires anyway. 12v is less than 50v by the way.

But you can't take away the rose and fit a j box and transformer with wires
to the downlighters. Something to do with cowboys and kitchens again.

coherers

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 12:10:41 PM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:p7p6q0hhmqv82i195...@4ax.com...

Right - there is a tendency for the Approved documents to "extend" the law,
which really irritates me 'cos there are enough real regulations without
f***head's office inventing them

> So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
> in effect the status quo today.
>

There is one big change in the status quo. Currently, if we add a socket and
skimp on the inspection/testing, we may end on the wrong side of the civil
law. After 1st Jan, if we do anything which doesn't comply with regs, we
could end up with a criminal record ( s35, Building Act 1984).

Ditto for the professionals though, which might be the silver lining....

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 12:17:29 PM11/23/04
to

"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30h7niF...@uni-berlin.de...

> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:h9o6q0dhta0047f90...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:51:17 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
<snip>

> >
> > I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"
> >
> > First of all it is a "ring final circuit".
>
> I don't see the term "ring final circuit".
>

Well, it certainly isn't a ring main, otherwise you would be working out in
the road !..


Owain

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 12:00:20 PM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" wrote

| "special installation" means an electric floor or ceiling heating
| system, a garden lighting or electric power installation, an
| electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which
| is *** NOT a pre-assembled lighting set *** bearing the CE marking

| referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety)
| Regulations 1994[8]

(my emphasis *** added)

This would appear to mean that if you buy a pre-assembled lighting set of
transformer and luminaires you can DIY, but if you buy a transformer and
luminaires separately it becomes a special installation and thus
certifiable?

Owain


IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:15:11 PM11/23/04
to

"RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote in message
news:41a367ed$0$4693$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...

> "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:30h70vF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:o0p6q0dlld4n6fdc4...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1
> metre
> > > >lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".
> > > >
> > > >You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So
> you
> > > >can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it
> was
> > > >"defective".
> > >
> > > It says that you can replace a damaged cable.
> > >
> > > Theoretically, all the cable segments
> > > in a ring could be damaged, but
> > > it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?
> >
> > If one is down then the lot gets replaced.
> >
> <snip>
>
> So, when you slip with your hacksaw

You don't use hacksaws on cables sunny boy. Best you get pro in.


Message has been deleted

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:17:14 PM11/23/04
to

":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30ha7cF...@uni-berlin.de...

I'm not interested in assumptions or opinions.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:28:48 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:44:33 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>

>> >socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;". To do this may entail
>> >working on the ring main. Simple. Obvious.
>>
>> I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"
>>
>> First of all it is a "ring final circuit".
>
>I don't see the term "ring final circuit".

That is the term in BS7671. In the SI it is referred to as a ring
circuit.


>
>> Secondly one is allowed to change fittings.
>
>> >> Other works are controlled.
>> >>
>> >> >(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
>> >> >
>> >> >[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> > Yes! You are exempted if the cable is
>> > damaged and needs replacing. That may
>> > mean the whole ring main. Simple. Obvious.
>>
>> Of course. However, it is fairly
>> unlikely, and the intent is that
>> installing a new circuit is a
>> controlled activity.
>
>"fairly unlikely" is not good enough. It is either black or white in regs.
>Installing a new cable on an existing breaker is not a new circuit.

I agree. The intent of the legislation is that you should be able
to replace *a* cable.

You have stretched it to the point that the entire ring would need to
be replaced. That would mean a new circuit and is therefore not
exempt. A damaged cable means just that - e.g. somebody banged a
nail through a section. It is unlikely that somebody would
systematically bang a nail through every section of cable in a ring.
That is what I meant by "fairly unlikely".

It is an obvious loophole.


>
>> They have simply listed the exemptions
>> because they thought that they
>> are fewer in number than listing what
>> is controlled in detail.
>
>Not interested in opinions.. It is either black or white.

That is the problem. Twojags and his cronies have done such a poor
job of drafting the legislation that it is full of potential
loopholes. This is not a surprising outcome.

>
>> By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
>> I've repeatedly said that it's bullshit and achieves nothing because
>> it is unenforcable.
>>
>> I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
>> cronies.
>
>No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring mains
>is.

I don't think he knows which day of the week it is. I can assure
you that his cronies knew what they were *trying* to do.

I have a letter in my file from Raynsford in answer to a letter
written to him by my MP, where it is clear that his hand had been in
this.

It is typical for these characters now to try to distance themselves
from unenforceable and unnecessary legislation. Prescott tried it
today with regard to the hunting legislation and seriously expects
people to believe him.

>
>> I am sure that if this ever does become a big issue (which
>> is unlikely), that he will seek to distance himself from it in exactly
>> the same shameful way that he has from hunting legislation.
>
>He voted again hunting I believe. Fox hunters? I would burn the lot 'em.

.. and DIY electricians no doubt.


>> >> >
>> >> >Work which -
>> >> >
>> >> >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
>> >> >
>> >> >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
>> >> >
>> >> >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
>> >> >"special installation"]
>> >>
>> >> No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
>> >> means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
>> >
>> >No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).
>>
>> There doesn't need to be because there is a comma.
>
>> I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
>> is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).
>
>No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.

I suspect that you probably are.

>>
>> You can fit luminaires anyway. 12v is less than 50v by the way.
>
>But you can't take away the rose and fit a j box and transformer with wires
>to the downlighters. Something to do with cowboys and kitchens again.
>

Who knows? There are transformers that fit in place of ceiling roses
and power pairs of wires onto which are clipped lamps.

RichardS

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:26:05 PM11/23/04
to
"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30hd1jF...@uni-berlin.de...

as suspected. utterly avoided the question.

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:30:59 PM11/23/04
to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gnpu0y.qb9x0qqm60e8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

> IMM <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > So if you leave 1 foot od each of the two wores
>
> I doubt you could manage to leave 1 inch either end of the two whores.

He is getting worse. Sad isn't it. Sad.....


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:32:37 PM11/23/04
to

It's clear enough in this case. It is common to create long
sentences in legalese precisely so that the punctuation controls the
meaning.

Equally, sometimes extra words are added, which in common-use English
scan badly. For example, if you look at the text of a European
Union Directive you will see that it is plastered with "whereases"
If you take these out, the document becomes more easily readable.

coherers

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:39:04 PM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:8hv6q0d705i12mgdf...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:44:33 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
> >"fairly unlikely" is not good enough. It is either black or white in
regs.
> >Installing a new cable on an existing breaker is not a new circuit.
>
> I agree. The intent of the legislation is that you should be able
> to replace *a* cable.
>
> You have stretched it to the point that the entire ring would need to
> be replaced. That would mean a new circuit and is therefore not
> exempt. A damaged cable means just that - e.g. somebody banged a
> nail through a section. It is unlikely that somebody would
> systematically bang a nail through every section of cable in a ring.
> That is what I meant by "fairly unlikely".
>
> It is an obvious loophole.

I like to do a ring without actually breaking the conductors where
possible. Loop in/loop out, **carefully** removing the insulation. = Single
bit of cable. Do it that way, and you only have to "accidentally" nick one
section when it is time to replace the ring, and oh dear, the whole circuit
has to be changed. What a shame!

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:47:15 PM11/23/04
to


Regulation 9 of the Regulation mentioned is simply setting out the
requirement for the CE mark to be placed on equipment offered on the
market.

It's largely meaningless in a lot of cases where components are used
to form a system.

For example, components in your PC carry a CE mark individually and
are related to that component in areas like safety and electromagnetic
compatibility. Of course, a disk drive can't do anything on its own,
so a disk drive vendor will normally put it into a typical system and
have it tested by a third party lab. If it passes certain standards
then the manufacturer can issue a Declaration of Conformity and apply
the CE mark. Then he can sell the product.
A major equipment vendor will have complete systems tested and go with
that. However, a small system integrator will not go for a lab test
and it's pot luck whether the system meets EMC requirements. Because
safety is largely a funtion of the PSU, it's unlikely that he would
get into trouble on the safety aspects.

For garden lights, vendors supply a transformer, LV wiring and the
lamps either as sets or with bits available separately. They should
be tested as a system for safety etc. - i.e. all of the relevant
standards for that type of product - that is the principle of CE
marking. (I didn't say it was any good).

So.... if you were to buy the items from one vendor and install them
then there should be no issue, expecially as most of these
transformers plug in as appliances anyway.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:49:11 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:32:30 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:o0p6q0dlld4n6fdc4...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> >You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1 metre
>> >lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".
>> >
>> >You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So you
>> >can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it was
>> >"defective".
>>
>> It says that you can replace a damaged cable.
>>
>> Theoretically, all the cable segments
>> in a ring could be damaged, but
>> it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?
>
>If one is down then the lot gets replaced.

Perhaps you are the reason why this legislation has been introduced.
I would recommend that you follow the guidelines.

By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
either.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 1:51:54 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:52:59 GMT, Mike Harrison <mi...@whitewing.co.uk>
wrote:

Possibly. There is a new mediaeval guild/income tax net for
plumbers.

My point was really that service and equipotential bonding is an
important safety feature so it is surprising that it is exempted.

Message has been deleted

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:03:23 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:10:41 GMT, "coherers"
<nos...@deathtoallspammers.com> wrote:

>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message

>> This is as I understand it, but do remember that the Approved


>> Documents do not have the force of law - they are simply a guideline.
>
>Right - there is a tendency for the Approved documents to "extend" the law,
>which really irritates me 'cos there are enough real regulations without
>f***head's office inventing them
>
>> So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
>> in effect the status quo today.
>>
>There is one big change in the status quo. Currently, if we add a socket and
>skimp on the inspection/testing, we may end on the wrong side of the civil
>law. After 1st Jan, if we do anything which doesn't comply with regs, we
>could end up with a criminal record ( s35, Building Act 1984).
>
>Ditto for the professionals though, which might be the silver lining....
>
>

True. Although I suspect in reality that the whole thing will end up
being a white elephant anyway.

Our resident ex and current BCOs might like to comment here, but it
seems to me that the only time where violations of building control
are likely to be detected are

a) If they are visible from the exterior of the house - e.g. an
extension

b) The neighbours shop the householder

c) Something bad happens

d) The property is sold.


For wiring, a) and b) are unlikely if it is the only work - of course
if it's part of something else then that's a bigger issue and the
person is already in violation of other parts anyway.

c) is possible, but we know that the number of bad things like fires
and shocks attributable to fixed wiring are small. Since this
regulation allows spurs to be fitted uncontrolled, it does not protect
the MP's electrocuted daughter if the cooker hood wiring was to a
spur, except in so far that it was in a kitchen and therefore
controlled. I see no logical reason why the same thing with a
different appliance couldn't have happened in another room.

In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because it
was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an electrician in
and the installation is tested. If it passes then fine, if not then
it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is going to call up
Building Control and ask them to come round with handcuffs.

RichardS

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:13:04 PM11/23/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:5n17q01n4s3nmq56e...@4ax.com...

And of course dont forget that the idea of paying money for the sharpest,
slipperiest, most aggressive solicitor that you can find is to protect you
from answering any nasty questions untruthfully or to your detriment....

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:18:11 PM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:8hv6q0d705i12mgdf...@4ax.com...

I'm interested in the intention, I am interested in the black and white
facts.

> You have stretched it to the point
> that the entire ring would need to
> be replaced. That would mean a
> new circuit and is therefore not
> exempt.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

A ring main is a single circuit. FACT If any or all of the cables are
damaged that can be replaced right back to the breaker.

> A damaged cable means just
> that - e.g. somebody banged a
> nail through a section. It is unlikely
> that somebody would systematically
> bang a nail through every section of
> cable in a ring. That is what I meant
> by "fairly unlikely".

I'm not interested in assumptions and opinions.

> It is an obvious loophole.

> >> They have simply listed the exemptions
> >> because they thought that they
> >> are fewer in number than listing what
> >> is controlled in detail.
> >
> >Not interested in opinions.. It is either black or white.
>
> That is the problem. Twojags and
> his cronies

NO! the permanent gov department.

> >> By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
> >> I've repeatedly said that it's bullshit and achieves nothing because
> >> it is unenforcable.
> >>
> >> I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
> >> cronies.
> >
> >No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring
mains
> >is.
>
> I don't think he knows
> which day of the week it is.

He does and he has a great left hook. My hero.

> I have a letter in my file from Raynsford in answer to a letter
> written to him by my MP, where it is clear that his hand had been in
> this.

They do not write it up. Techie people from the department do. Then they
give it lawyers who convert it to gobbledy gook with hereuntos in it. BOY,
you really are naive.

< snip babble >

> >> I am sure that if this ever does become a big issue (which
> >> is unlikely), that he will seek to distance himself from it in exactly
> >> the same shameful way that he has from hunting legislation.
> >

> > He voted against hunting I believe. Fox hunters?


> > I would burn the lot 'em.
>
> .. and DIY electricians no doubt.

No just fox hunters. Burn 'em.

> >> >> >Work which -
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or
a
> >> >> >"special installation"]
> >> >>
> >> >> No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
> >> >> means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
> >> >
> >> >No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).
> >>
> >> There doesn't need to be because there is a comma.
> >
> >> I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
> >> is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).
> >
> >No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.
>
> I suspect that you probably are.

You are not used to legal docs that is clear. The "and" joins those beneath
it,. not above. Duh!

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:19:15 PM11/23/04
to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gnpwfm.lfx1w1onh0a3N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> IMM <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip ignorant babble>

This is sad, he is getting worse. Must be all that shit he has kicked all
his life.
Sad but true.


IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:24:19 PM11/23/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:3e17q05cn15vpsn17...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:32:30 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:o0p6q0dlld4n6fdc4...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1
metre
> >> >lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".
> >> >
> >> >You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So
you
> >> >can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it
was
> >> >"defective".
> >>
> >> It says that you can replace a damaged cable.
> >>
> >> Theoretically, all the cable segments
> >> in a ring could be damaged, but
> >> it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?
> >
> >If one is down then the lot gets replaced.
>
> Perhaps you are the reason why
> this legislation has been introduced.
> I would recommend that you follow
> the guidelines.

What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

> By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
> either.

I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.


IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:32:04 PM11/23/04
to

"RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote in message
news:41a38bc3$0$22184$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...

A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer
questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to
get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said " I
always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at
all. He won, we lost, he walked away".

coherers

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:34:04 PM11/23/04
to
"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30hgnlF...@uni-berlin.de...

>
> > >Work which -
> > >
> > >(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
> > >
> > >(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
> > >
> > >[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
> > >"special installation"]
> >
> > No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
> > means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.
>
> No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).

It **is** (a) and (b) and (c). That is the way legislation reads.

Part P translates this as

"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
Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit
Installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding"

i.e. (a) and (b) and (c)


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:32:06 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:18:11 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>

>
>I'm interested in the intention, I am interested in the black and white
>facts.

You're going to look for a long time in any legislation enacted by
this government.,


>
>> You have stretched it to the point
>> that the entire ring would need to
>> be replaced. That would mean a
>> new circuit and is therefore not
>> exempt.
>
>(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
>
>A ring main is a single circuit. FACT If any or all of the cables are
>damaged that can be replaced right back to the breaker.

A ring main is not used for interior house wiring. A ring circuit
(correctly ring final circuit) is.

It may or may not be necessary to replace more than one section of
cable if it is damaged.

However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I already
said that I thought the legislation was a nonsense, so I see no reason
to try to justify its idiocies.


>
>> That is the problem. Twojags and
>> his cronies
>
>NO! the permanent gov department.

Would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from Raynsford?


>
>> >> By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
>> >> I've repeatedly said that it's bullshit and achieves nothing because
>> >> it is unenforcable.
>> >>
>> >> I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
>> >> cronies.
>> >
>> >No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring
>mains
>> >is.
>>
>> I don't think he knows
>> which day of the week it is.
>
>He does and he has a great left hook. My hero.

Obviously. He seems to be as confused as you are.


>
>> I have a letter in my file from Raynsford in answer to a letter
>> written to him by my MP, where it is clear that his hand had been in
>> this.
>
>They do not write it up. Techie people from the department do. Then they
>give it lawyers who convert it to gobbledy gook with hereuntos in it. BOY,
>you really are naive.

As I said, would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from
Raynsford?

>

>> >> I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
>> >> is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).
>> >
>> >No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.
>>
>> I suspect that you probably are.
>
>You are not used to legal docs that is clear. The "and" joins those beneath
>it,. not above. Duh!

Don't be stupid. It's perfectly obvious both from the text and the
context that it is all three.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:36:12 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:24:19 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message

>>


>> Perhaps you are the reason why
>> this legislation has been introduced.
>> I would recommend that you follow
>> the guidelines.
>
>What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.

>
>> By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
>> either.
>
>I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.
>

Can I recommend that you try those festooned between tall towers -
ideally the tallest.......?

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:38:31 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:32:04 -0000, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

>

>
>A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer
>questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to
>get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said " I
>always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at
>all. He won, we lost, he walked away".
>

So were you a policeman as well then, or just the helmet?

Mike Harrison

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:40:03 PM11/23/04
to

>> So, when you slip with your hacksaw
>
>You don't use hacksaws on cables sunny boy. Best you get pro in.

Ever tried cutting 16mm armoured or 25mm meter tails with sidecutters....?

Mike Harrison

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:41:32 PM11/23/04
to

Since when did Part P have anything to do with safety ?

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:50:00 PM11/23/04
to

"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30hd5cF...@uni-berlin.de...

It's neither, it's fact !

(Electrical) Ring Main = the 'company' distribution cables.

(Electrical) Ring Circuit = building power distribution cables laid out in a
'ring'.


Message has been deleted

Joe

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 4:58:53 PM11/23/04