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?
On 7 Jan,
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?
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.
So for prat P compliance if the cable is damaged you have to replace in the
Then you can alter the circuit to move tha cable to a different route.
Prat P is a load of B*******!
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)
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."
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.
Yup, can't argue with that!
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.
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.
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)
The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.
In article ,
Terry Fields writes:
Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer.
It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.
As a comparison, Australia and New Zealand had even more
strict regulations on wiring work. New Zealand scrapped its,
and has seen such incidents drop very significantly, whereas
Australia hasn't. This again backs up what I said during the
Part P consultation that the deaths are largely due to not
doing anything to wiring installations which really need work
doing on them, and not as claimed (but unsubstantiated) by
the Part P proposals due to DIY and unqualified tradesmen.
Part P inevitably encourages not doing anything, which is
the dangerous route.
New wiring colours came in before Part P. You can buy cable with old wiring
colours on eBay. No surveyor, IME, has ever checked wiring colours. Do waht all
sensible people are doing with Part P; ignoring it.
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?
In article ,
A google search on this NG might reveal the details -- it came up
here at the time. IIRC, the figures covered 2005. It might have been
early 2007, but only the 2005 figures were available at the time.