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

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?
Parents

  • 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.
Reply

  • 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.
Children
No Data