Is this a new circuit?

[JohnW2]

Since it does not supply electrical equipment, it is not a circuit, in the same way the lighting circuit is not a circuit unless at least one light is switched on. ... So every time you switch a light on, to make a circuit, but not a new circuit, the circuit has been made before.

With respect, I really don't think such pedantic / 'trying to be clever' comments do anything to aid our discussions

We all 'know' what is meant by a 'sockets circuit', 'cooker circuit' or whatever, and continue to call it that even if there are no connected and 'switched on' loads to complete the (electrical)'circuit'.

BS 7671 states "supplied from the same origin and protected against over current by the same protective device(s)." this means adding FCU will form a new circuit ...

Same comment as above., Again, I think we all 'know' that there is no intention that an FCU creates a 'new circuit'.

So for the example given where an immersion heater is removed and replaced with sockets, I think we must accept it was a final circuit ...

it was, and still is a 'final circuit' even after the immersion has been replaced by a socket. I don't see how this helps you to decide whether or not it becomes a 'new (final) circuit' when the immersion is changed to a socket.

However as I said before, it would need a court to decide, so the main thing is if using an installation certificate or a minor works certificate, I would say if using a minor works it is not a new circuit, that does not mean it is a new circuit if using a installation certificate, but if a minor works has been used, it shows the person doing the work considered at the time it was not a new circuit.

As you imply, the guidance in BS7671 says "... The Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate is intended to be used for additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit.". As you say, it therefore follows that if the installer issues a Minor Works Certificate he/she believes that they did not create a new circuit. However, the opinion of the installer surely should not be the criterion by which one decides whether something should be regarded as a 'new circuit', should it?

Most laws are written with the idea they will be added to with case law ...

I don't think that legislators see it like that. They do their best to write laws which are comprehensive and non-ambiguous and therefore not open to variations in interpretation. It is only because they rarely succeed totally in that aim that courts have to make decisions about interpretation, creating Case Law. A court (i.e. Case Law) cannot alter anything in Statute which is clear and unambiguous - only the legislators (i.e. Parliament) can do that.

... the Welsh Part P leaves very little leeway ...

As we have pointed out to you countless times "Welsh Part P" is identical to "English Part P".

To install a consumer unit with a 13 amp or other size socket supplied from every overload device which can then latter be replaced with another device would not be in the sprite of the law, but I would think it would be a brave inspector to try and take it to court as illegal...

It would seem that some people would disagree with you - or, at least, would say that subsequent replacement of the socket with some other connected load (immersion, shower, cooker, lights or whatever) would constituter 'creating a new circuit' (because of the 'new purpose').

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Because not not suggesting that an mcb, connected to a metre or so of downstream cable, is not not a circuit, is not the same as saying it is not a new circuit when connected up to a new cooker.

That sentence is a little difficult to read ( ), but what would you think if, say, a socket (rather than a cooker) were connected (directly or indirectly) to that bit of cablr?

Incidentally the OP refers to an mcb in the CU, so presumably an rcd would be required, further cementing the point that this is a new circuit.

If some of the cable is to be 'buried' and/or if the cooker control unit (if fitted) included a socket, then RCD protection would indeed be required (and most would probably say 'sensible' even if such requirements did not exist). However, it is far from impossible that there is already an RCD upstream of the MCB ... in my house, I have many dozens of final circuits, virtually all protected by MCBs, but (unless it were specifically relevant) I would probably not usually bother to mention that there were RCDs upstream of all my MCBs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

That sentence is a little difficult to read ( ), but what would you think if, say, a socket (rather than a cooker) were connected (directly or indirectly) to that bit of cablr?


It would be a new circuit because cable has been removed and a socket added, and might require a lower rated mcb for a single socket radial of one metre's length.

Blup

 

[EFLImpudence]

It would be a new circuit because cable has been removed and a socket added,

I don't think so.
Replacing damaged cable and adding sockets was (still in Wales) always allowed without being notifiable.

and might require a lower rated mcb for a single socket radial of one metre's length.

Well, it wouldn't require a lower rated MCB - but

now if you are replacing the MCB, the definition of a circuit:
"An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device."
would start the argument all over again.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If a regulation involves such differences of opinion and so many ways of avoiding it then it is clearly not fit for purpose and should be abandoned.

 

[ericmark]

If a regulation involves such differences of opinion and so many ways of avoiding it then it is clearly not fit for purpose and should be abandoned.

I would agree with that, I did read not so long ago about an electrician who was taken to court for saying he was a scheme member and was not. But the electrician admitted the crime, so was rather an open and shut case.

Also a Pembrokeshire electrician has pleaded guilty to supplying a report claiming the electrics in a household property were satisfactory when they were not. It cost him £2600 for saying it was satisfactory when it was not. Have not seen any with the reverse when an electrician says unsatisfactory when it was satisfactory, so electricians can rip off their clients.

But not as yet seen a case where the electrician or other person has done an A1 job and has not simply paid his dues to the council. Claimed to be a scheme member when not yes, but for simply not paying the council no.

I would think it very unlikely anyone would be taken to court for simply not informing the council.

 

[JohnW2]

Happy New Year!!

If a regulation involves such differences of opinion and so many ways of avoiding it then it is clearly not fit for purpose and should be abandoned.

Agreed - or, if not abandoned, considerably modified and clarified such as to considerably reduce the scope for varying opinions about interpretation, and reduce the number of potential loopholes.

For what it's worth (I'm hardly an appropriate person to be doing it), I've been trying to think about what I personally might regard as more sensible/rational rules about 'notifiability' (in England) in relation to the situations we are discussing, but have not really come to any particularly useful conclusions....

IF (and it's probably a big IF) 'installing a new circuit' were to remain notifiable, about the only definition of 'a new circuit' that I would consider fairly straightforward would be a 'literal' one - i.e. a completely new set of wiring fed from a completely new (previously not present) OPD. I might also consider adding to that a change to a (previously present) circuit which involved/included changing the OPD to one of higher rating.

However, I'm not at all sure that (given what is not notifiable in England) even those situations really justify their being 'singled out' as notifiable. As you have pointed out, even pre-2013 (and certainly now) in England (and still in Wales) it was probably allowable to replace most/all of the wiring of any circuit without notification (potentially with a cable of inappropriate type or CSA). Furthermore, 'fiddling around in existing CUs' (including replacement of OPDs) is not, per se, notifiable in England, and anyone modifying or extending an existing circuit (not notifiable in England, and not even in Wales in most cases for sockets and lighting circuits) could do do just as 'inappropriately' (inadequate cable CSA, no RCD protraction where required etc.) as they could when installing a 'new circuit'.

I therefore somewhat to struggle to see anything much to be gained by trying to define a 'new circuit', the installation of which requires notification.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

On coming to sell my late mothers house, I could not find the completion and compliance certificates, so asked local council (Wales) for replacements, was told it would take 4 months, and would cost however long it took council worker to find them.

So what is the point, traceable records are only any good if traceable within a reasonable time and cost.

If the solicitor could request copies of completion and compliance certificates then there would be some point. But I now look at it as a simple tax.

I did find the documents in the end, and when I read them, realised pointless, as there was no cross reference between the installation certificate and the completion certificate, and most of the early work had been replaced when most of house was rewired, I realised there were three signatures for the electrical work completed, and no real way to work out who did what.

 

[JohnW2]

It would be a new circuit because cable has been removed and a socket added, and might require a lower rated mcb for a single socket radial of one metre's length.

Why?

If many metres of the cable were adequately protected by the existing MCB, why would one metre of it not also be adequately protected by the existing MCB?

As for it being a 'single socket radial', again the MCB rating required to protect the cable is the same whether the circuit supplies one socket or 20 sockets.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

On coming to sell my late mothers house, I could not find the completion and compliance certificates, so asked local council (Wales) for replacements, was told it would take 4 months, and would cost however long it took council worker to find them.

Unless you were desperate to sell rapidly, I think you were probably wasting your time/effort (and potentially money).

As far as I am concerned, if a buyer and/or their solicitor wants such documents, it is down to them to find them. Indeed, even if such documents never existed, as far as the sale/purchase is concerned, that is the buyer's problem (to decide whether they wish to proceed with the purchase), not the sellers. As far as the sale is concerned, the only important thing is that the seller should not lie about the the existence (or non-existence) of such documents, whether they can be 'found' or not'.

Kind Regards, John