Hi
I intend to board the loft space, at the same time, change the wiring for
the upstairs lighting circuit.
I will run this along the top of the boards to a junction box where it will
meet the cable going down to the CU.
Not a big job, so does it fall under "notify council" "Part P" requirements?
TIA
--
Vass
'06 R1
www.doubleyolk.co.uk

Vass wrote:

I intend to board the loft space, at the same time, change the wiring for
the upstairs lighting circuit.
I will run this along the top of the boards to a junction box where it will
meet the cable going down to the CU.
Not a big job, so does it fall under "notify council" "Part P" requirements?

Alteration to an existing circuit, and not in a special location, so no
- it is not notifiable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

wrote:

Alteration to an existing circuit, and not in a special location, so no
- it is not notifiable.

How does that differ from the ruling that replacing damaged cable must run
via the same route and be identical in rating to the original?

That is a different circumstance slightly - it is saying you can replace
a cable without at the same time adding a socket or lighting point etc.
and it not count as installing a new circuit (which would be notifiable)

(although "same current capacity" is open to interpretation - i.e. you
could argue a larger cable can carry the same current)

If I was replacing damaged cable, I would certainly consider why it was
damaged, and re-route accordingly, but then it seems to be notifiable.

Unless you extended the circuit in the process... ;-)

The general guidance (additional notes - page 8) is that:

"b. Replacement, repair and maintenance jobs are generally not
notifiable, even if carried out in a kitchen or special location or
associated with a special installation."

So for prat P compliance if the cable is damaged you have to replace in the
same route?

I would guess they are avoiding the possibility of you altering the
design parameters of a circuit - changing the route may also change the
thermal environment of the cable etc.

If you know what you are doing it all becomes a bit of a nonsense anyway.

Then you can alter the circuit to move tha cable to a different route.

Prat P is a load of B*******!

Yup, can't argue with that!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Brian wrote:

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why

Yup, the way most would go I expect... especially as local authorities
don't seem to have got their act in order regarding signing off work set.

worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Brian wrote:

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why

Yup, the way most would go I expect... especially as local authorities
don't seem to have got their act in order regarding signing off work set.

worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

"Brian" wrote in message
...
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.


Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,

will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?

--
Vass

Vass wrote:

Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,

New colours were permitted before the introduction of part P and old
colours were still permitted after.

will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?

Unlikely in practice


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jan 8, 9:18*am, "Vass" wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message

...

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,
will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?


You could do the work using 'old colours' wire which is still
available (on eBay for example).

Robert

Brian wrote:
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Has anyone actually been prosecuted under Part P in the three years
which it has been in force? I don't mean prosecuted for putting in a
dangerous installation but prosecuted for putting in an installation
that fully complies with the wiring regulations but without filling in
the required paperwork?

Andrew

On Jan 8, 3:04*pm, Andrew May wrote:
Brian wrote:
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Has anyone actually been prosecuted under Part P in the three years
which it has been in force? I don't mean prosecuted for putting in a
dangerous installation but prosecuted for putting in an installation
that fully complies with the wiring regulations but without filling in
the required paperwork?

The "required paperwork" would be the Building Control paperwork I
suppose, if yo uwere doing the work without Part P. I did ask our
local BC about what to do if I wanted to do my own wiring and have
them inspect it. The fee was £100 for each inspection. He said that
they would do a continuity and insulation test at the meter to check
it.

presumably the 'offence' would be failing to notify BC of the work.
Is that a criminal offence? I guess not. Is it a tort?

Robert