Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3427 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Part P - new circuits

Arran Cameron
Installing a new circuit from the CU is notifiable to the LABC under Part P of the Building Regulations.


Examples include:

1. A circuit for a burglar alarm.

2. A circuit for outside lights.

3. Removing a fixed appliance (such as a heater) from a ring main and providing it with its own dedicated MCB.


However, additions and alterations to existing circuits are not notifiable.


This creates a situation where certain contractors who are not registered electricians are forced to connect any appliances they install to existing circuits rather than providing them with their own dedicated circuits and MCB. Examples include burglar alarm installers wiring alarms to ceiling lights or kitchen fitters wiring heaters to ring mains and cooker switches.


It's probably safe to say that only a small fraction of homeowners are aware that new circuits are notifiable to the LABC under Part P, and a high proportion of them completely ignore the regulations when it comes to their own DIY installations. It's also quite commonplace for cables for new circuits to be installed by builders or labourers, rather than electricians, even if they do not connect them to the appliance or the CU.


Part P regulations have also resulted in a phenomenon of plug-in houses where a large amount of permanent or semi-permanent wiring, including to ceiling lights, is plugged into sockets on a ring main. Anything which is plugged into a socket is outside of the scope of Part P regulations.


My own view of Part P regulations for new circuits, from the perspective of an engineer rather than an electrician, is that methods used by DIY installers or contractors to circumvent having to notify LABC can potentially result in installations that are more dangerous than if they were powered from a new circuit.


Would it make more sense to abolish notification of the LABC for new circuits?
  • 0
    Yes, it encourages people to keep connecting to existing circuits without upgrading the existing installation.


    However people are obsessed with creating new circuits, a two bedroom house does not not need five socket ring circuits as I have seen, a house with five rooms including the bathroom and five socket ring circuits.


    The requirement for electrical work in kitchens and bathrooms  to be notified should never have “deregulated” as those are the rooms where new appliances are added and circuits altered; and where most dodgy electrical work is carried out, with outdoor electrical work being the next area of concern.


    Dedicated cooker circuits are often abandoned with new ovens being installed to socket circuits, rather than the circuit being adapted, I recently saw a spurred double socket with two plug in socket adapters supplying the washing machine, dishwasher, oven and gas hob ignition, but the cooker circuit only supplied the hood. Such arrangements are not unusual.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:

    Would it make more sense to abolish notification of the LABC for new circuits?




    An alternative would be to make additions to circuits notifiable.


    Arran's argument is sound, so in fact we need to stop kitchen fitters, or whoever, adding to circuits which are already fully loaded; or whose OPD may not be suitable for directly connected appliances. The problem is that such an approach would be disproportionate if, for example, the requirement was only to add a socket or luminere in a workshop or shed.

  • 0

    Chris Pearson:


    Arran's argument is sound, so in fact we need to stop kitchen fitters, or whoever, adding to circuits which are already fully loaded; or whose OPD may not be suitable for directly connected appliances. The problem is that such an approach would be disproportionate if, for example, the requirement was only to add a socket or luminere in a workshop or shed.



     




    I thought one of the drivers for Part Pee was to allow kitchen fitters etc to get qualifications which would allow them to self certify their work when installing additional sockets etc as part of their main work.


    While the intention may have been good it allowed a lot of people to register with a scam as part Pee certified and then to take on work outside their level of experience and competence. 


    Then there was little publicity and no enforcement of Part P unless someone died or the house burnt down. I see a lot of work that should have been certified under Part P and when I ask for the test certs I get a blank look and "what are they?" questions. 


    There seem to be  lot of installations around with spare circuits originally installed that "electricians" have been able to use to get around the notification of new circuits requirement. 


    Since Part P was introduced I think I have only been asked twice if I was registered.

  • 0

    kfh:



    I thought one of the drivers for Part Pee was to allow kitchen fitters etc to get qualifications which would allow them to self certify their work when installing additional sockets etc as part of their main work.


    While the intention may have been good it allowed a lot of people to register with a scam as part Pee certified and then to take on work outside their level of experience and competence. 


    There were all these fly by night training courses for kitchen fitters, burglar alarm installers, etc. to enable them to self certify their work, with the result that many decided to add consumer unit replacements or even entire house rewires to their repertoire of services they advertised despite the fact that they were not properly trained and qualified electricians.


    There seem to be  lot of installations around with spare circuits originally installed that "electricians" have been able to use to get around the notification of new circuits requirement.


    There is the big question as to what is considered to be an existing circuit. In a similar way that there are roads to nowhere, there can be cables emanating from a CU that come to an abrupt end in a terminal box nearby. Could these be used by the burglar alarm installer or a homeowner who is installing a pond pump and a couple of outside lights in the back garden in order to circumvent having to notify LABC?


    Does an existing circuit even need to have any cable connected to it or is it defined by a MCB or RCBO being physically present in the CU even if nothing is connected to it?
     

  • 0

    Arran Cameron:




    kfh:





    There seem to be  lot of installations around with spare circuits originally installed that "electricians" have been able to use to get around the notification of new circuits requirement.


    There is the big question as to what is considered to be an existing circuit. In a similar way that there are roads to nowhere, there can be cables emanating from a CU that come to an abrupt end in a terminal box nearby. Could these be used by the burglar alarm installer or a homeowner who is installing a pond pump and a couple of outside lights in the back garden in order to circumvent having to notify LABC?


    Does an existing circuit even need to have any cable connected to it or is it defined by a MCB or RCBO being physically present in the CU even if nothing is connected to it?
     


     




    I think it was being implied that the circuit fairy had called by and installed a spare circuit ready for use.


    Andy B.

  • 0
    It is quite legal and possible to fit and notify a CU with 10 off 1 foot lengths each ending in a JB and no loads connected at all. Everything else is an addition to an existing cct. and non-notifible.


    The real reason for part P was to pacify the trade bodies lobbying the govt, with very little representation from the other side, and a general (in my view mistaken) tendency in government to believe that more regulation is automatically better. than less.

    Actually it may have been better to insist on inspections at change of house ownership.

    And there really is no evidence that accidents have fallen at any faster rate than they were already falling  before it was introduced....
  • 0

    mapj1:

    It is quite legal and possible to fit and notify a CU with 10 off 1 foot lengths each ending in a JB and no loads connected at all.




    Now who would do a thing like that? ?


    If there is no load, how do you do a functional check? Certainly, IMHO, nothing wrong with a socket by the CU pending further work. ?

  • 0
    Err, a good friend who is registered with a trade body, doing a favour for some one with significant electrical know-how but who is not registered, and intends to  do his own wiring in slower time and is keen to not do anything that is illegal. Paper work is then fine - "New Consumer unit installed with stub circuits for lights heating and power as per schedule" Notified with list of breakers and test results.

    Paper work for changes to stub circuits will be completed in due course.

    Functional  test is "do the volts reach the JB" It is very quick...

    Not perhaps in the spirit of the rules, but not disobeying the letter.

    (I have found part P can sometimes be more of a hindrance than help to doing a good job...)
  • 0

    mapj1:

    It is quite legal and possible to fit and notify a CU with 10 off 1 foot lengths each ending in a JB and no loads connected at all. Everything else is an addition to an existing cct. and non-notifible.




    I have wondered if there is a lack of consistency between different LAs over the definition of a new circuit. Examples include:

    1. The cable itself - even if it's connected to an existing MCB or RCBO.

    2. The addition of a MCB or RCBO to the CU, even if nothing is connected to it but notification isn't required when a cable is finally connected to it.

    3. The connection of a new supply cable to an MCB or RCBO, but notification isn't required to install the supply cable or the MCB or RCBO.



    Actually it may have been better to insist on inspections at change of house ownership.

    I agree with this. However, will there be a loophole for repossessed houses and houses sold at auctions which tend to be sold without any documentation about the electrics or the patio door keys for that matter?

    And there really is no evidence that accidents have fallen at any faster rate than they were already falling  before it was introduced....

    True.


    There is however an argument that Part P is difficult to enforce when it comes to DIY installations. Prosecutions are very rare. LABC officers have the power and authority to demand removal of work that should have been notified but this is also rare unless the work was found out to be clearly dangerous.
  • 0
    This is Part P of The Building Regulations

    0862763acb373c3894504b109bbdc2ac-huge-part-p.jpg


    That is all there is.

    Introduced in 2005.

    Other than that, there are no Part P regulations to enforce.

    There are no qualifications or courses related to it.


    The notification requirements are contained in Regulation 12 of The Building Regulations.


    If a householder employs a non-registered electrician or kitchen fitter to do notifiable work, it is up to the householder to notify the Local Authority before the work commences.

    Whether they know that is another matter.



    In England in 2013, The Government removed most of notifiable work so blame them for any lack of clarity in the wording of the regulations..


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines