regulation opinions.

[billy10]

Hi all,

I basically Wanted to see if anybody knew of any regulation which eludes to having 1 lighting circuit in a single storey dwelling being non compliant in any way.

I personally do not know of one and can not find one nor can my scheme providers tech support so wondered if anybody here knew of one.

many thanks,
Billy

 

[DPG]

See 314.1 Division of circuits. Daz

 

[Pete999]

The building regulations might have something to say on the matter

 

[billy10]

That's the only one which could fit but the way i see it is it's no different to having 1 lighting circuit downstairs/upstairs in a 2 storey dwelling. If you are on the floor where the lighting circuit trips you are going to be in darkness no matter what you do.

It seems to be argueable both ways.

 

[Andy78]

It might help if we knew the circumstances and details of the installation in question as that may help add context and relevance.

 

[snowhead]

It might help if we knew the circumstances and details of the installation in question as that may help add context and relevance.

Like is it a 1 Bed studio flat or a 5 Bed Bungalow with 2 bathrooms 2 reception, playroom etc.

Size matters.

 

[Simonslimline]

That's the only one which could fit but the way i see it is it's no different to having 1 lighting circuit downstairs/upstairs in a 2 storey dwelling. If you are on the floor where the lighting circuit trips you are going to be in darkness no matter what you do.

It seems to be argueable both ways.

Unless you plug a lamp in.

 

[billy10]

Ok fair point, Details of installtion are,

small single storey maisonette, 5 rooms overall, 6 lights in whole house, 4 circuits, shower and house ring on one RCD, Kitchen ring and lighting on another, fuseboard in cupboard in corner of the kitchen with no door.

 

[billy10]

Unless you plug a lamp in.

The simple, logical approach haha You'll go far with a thought process like that!

 

[telectrix]

be a bloody overkill to split 6 lights into 2 separate circuits.

 

[Andy78]

Ok fair point, Details of installtion are,

small single storey maisonette, 5 rooms overall, 6 lights in whole house, 4 circuits, shower and house ring on one RCD, Kitchen ring and lighting on another, fuseboard in cupboard in corner of the kitchen with no door.

what is the situation that has brought this issue up ? is it a rewire job, alterations, new build, or is an EICR being performed ?

 

[billy10]

be a bloody overkill to split 6 lights into 2 separate circuits.

Exactly Mr Telectrix, seems stupid to have 2 lighting circuits for a place so small but apparently adolf from the council (god knows what it's got to do with him) wants to reject a certificate based on that fact without even seeing the property or infact even knowing what type of property it is.

 

[billy10]

what is the situation that has brought this issue up ? is it a rewire job, alterations, new build, or is an EICR being performed ?

It's a rewire carried out a couple of months back now, all ok until an email landed in my inbox yesterday saying the council have rejected my installation certificate which the client had to send them as part of some agreement to have works done.

Spoke to the guy and he seems to think it's uncompliant due to 1 lighting cicuit in the house as it doesn't meet segregation, god knows how many circuits he'd have in a job with 3 floors on it. By the sounds of it he'd like 2 per floor.

 

[DPG]

Would be better split, but as above it seems a bit OTT in this case. Daz

 

[Andy78]

It's a rewire carried out a couple of months back now, all ok until an email landed in my inbox yesterday saying the council have rejected my installation certificate which the client had to send them as part of some agreement to have works done.

Spoke to the guy and he seems to think it's uncompliant due to 1 lighting cicuit in the house as it doesn't meet segregation, god knows how many circuits he'd have in a job with 3 floors on it. By the sounds of it he'd like 2 per floor.

I'd respond asking exactly which regulations it breaches and what specific remedial action, relevant to the property in question, he proposes.
I would assume his involvement would be as the building control officer as this is notifiable work.

 

[DPG]

Put another light in somewhere that's fed from an FCU off the ring. Daz

 

[billy10]

I'd respond asking exactly which regulations it breaches and what specific remedial action, relevant to the property in question, he proposes.
I would assume his involvement would be as the building control officer as this is notifiable work.

I asked him which reg it contravened and he said 314.2 - in my opinion it's very open to both views but he's making an argument based on assumptions and when i mentioned it was a 1 floor maisonette he sounded suprised.

He has proposed to pull a new cable to the first point of the lighting circuit and split into 2 from there - farsical solution but some can't be reasoned with.

He's not the building control officer, i mentioned the Part P cert to him and he said he doesn't care about that as he doesn't see it so sounds to me like he's some kind of QS for the council. To be honest it's a bit of a strange situation, never really heard of it before.

 

[billy10]

Originally to get him to shut up i said ok no problem i'll stick a maintained emergency light within the fuseboard cupboard but he rekons that wouldn't help the situation. After that i just gave up trying to reason with the man.

I think this is a case of someone trying to justify a job as it seemed a bit heavy handed and an overreaction to reject a certificate based on something this ridiculous.

 

[stevethesparks]

Don't sound like you will get him to budge, and it might just be easier to keep him happy. Have you tried talking to your scheme provider?

 

[Andy78]

I asked him which reg it contravened and he said 314.2 - in my opinion it's very open to both views but he's making an argument based on assumptions and when i mentioned it was a 1 floor maisonette he sounded suprised.

He has proposed to pull a new cable to the first point of the lighting circuit and split into 2 from there - farsical solution but some can't be reasoned with.

He's not the building control officer, i mentioned the Part P cert to him and he said he doesn't care about that as he doesn't see it so sounds to me like he's some kind of QS for the council. To be honest it's a bit of a strange situation, never really heard of it before.

If he has quoted 314.2 then that doesn't really cover the issue he has raised. That would be more relevant to 314.1 (i) and (iii).
As said, ask what remedial action he proposes as your previous suggestions to him have been declined.

 

[billy10]

Don't sound like you will get him to budge, and it might just be easier to keep him happy. Have you tried talking to your scheme provider?

I've spoken to my scheme provider and they agree with me, he basically said that he'd never heard of this before and neither have I.

It's all just boiling down to one persons preference I think and he's trying to make his opinion fact by spouting open to interpretation regulations.

I'm waiting to speak to the customer as they haven't answered their phone thus far but it's an awkward situation as I think it's compliant, my scheme provider thinks so too and general consensus here seems to indicate people think the same so maybe wait to see how it pans out.

 

[billy10]

If he has quoted 314.2 then that doesn't really cover the issue he has raised. That would be more relevant to 314.1 (i) and (iii).
As said, ask what remedial action he proposes as your previous suggestions to him have been declined.

To be honest it's all going to boil down to the client and what they want to do with it, I'd say they'll just want it signed off and by the sounds of it, like was said before, he's not going to budge now as I've questioned him over it and he's going to want to be seen to be right.

He's remedial action that's been suggested is pulling in a new circuit and pulling a new feed (off of opposite RCD) to just 1 light at the start of the existing and split them there!

It's just one of those where he caught me off guard with it this morning as it didn't even enter my head it could be that what made them reject the cert so got me thinking.

 

[Andy78]

To be honest it's all going to boil down to the client and what they want to do with it, I'd say they'll just want it signed off and by the sounds of it, like was said before, he's not going to budge now as I've questioned him over it and he's going to want to be seen to be right.

He's remedial action that's been suggested is pulling in a new circuit and pulling a new feed (off of opposite RCD) to just 1 light at the start of the existing and split them there!

It's just one of those where he caught me off guard with it this morning as it didn't even enter my head it could be that what made them reject the cert so got me thinking.

Daft really. I would say a couple of emergency lights would provide a better solution than just separating one light onto a different circuit.
I would have to agree with the fella though that one lighting circuit is not meeting the wording and intent of the regulations.

 

[NDG Elecs]

If you are a member of a scheme then why is it not being self certified by yourself? Not having a go, just confused that's all. Is it that he is refusing to sign off the entire project?

You have put the main RFC on one RCD and the light on the other so that is exactly the same as many 2 storey house installs. I can sort of see his point, but agree with you that a couple of NM emergency lights would be a better solution to him digging his heels in. Some folks don't have the ability to say "fair enough I see your point"...


Edit: I seem to have half copied Andy's post above...! Not intentional!

 

[billy10]

If you are a member of a scheme then why is it not being self certified by yourself? Not having a go, just confused that's all. Is it that he is refusing to sign off the entire project?

You have put the main RFC on one RCD and the light on the other so that is exactly the same as many 2 storey house installs. I can sort of see his point, but agree with you that a couple of NM emergency lights would be a better solution to him digging his heels in. Some folks don't have the ability to say "fair enough I see your point"...


Edit: I seem to have half copied Andy's post above...! Not intentional!

No I have carried out all the and tested it and self certified it with my scheme, this just adds to the confusion here, he's trying to act as tho he's some sort of QS over me in this situation but he's nothing to do with it.

All that's happened is the customers bought a house, i think council own the freehold from what I can gather, I've carried out a Rewire and certified it, Part P'd it and we've said our goodbyes, then 2 months down the line the council have said they reject my certificate based on the above.

I've got to be honest all of it seems to point to Jeremy beadle being behind this.

 

[telectrix]

more like jeremy jobsworth.

 

[NDG Elecs]

Still a touch confused mate! If it's a privately bought house why is the council even involved! Why have they got your certificate? I normally just submit details of address and the works carried out, that's all.

If it's 8 weeks after have you not already got your compliance cert through. I would possibly tell him to complain to your scheme if he aint happy, see how far that gets him!!

Don't quite see how the free holder bit fits in though. Good luck!

 

[billy10]

Well it gets even more farsical, the customer has now just emailed me and apparently he's accepted the certificate now and all is ok.

What a rollercoaster of a day.

 

[billy10]

Still a touch confused mate! If it's a privately bought house why is the council even involved! Why have they got your certificate? I normally just submit details of address and the works carried out, that's all.

If it's 8 weeks after have you not already got your compliance cert through. I would possibly tell him to complain to your scheme if he aint happy, see how far that gets him!!

Don't quite see how the free holder bit fits in though. Good luck!

No I'm with you on the confusion mate. God knows how or why he's involved, nor why he's got a copy of the installation cert.

I've had the part p compliance form through after I registered it.

It's all one big mess, not sure anybody except the guy knows what he means or what's going on.

 

[telectrix]

so now send him an additional certificate.... " --- OF THE MONTH".

 

[andyb]

Glad it's sorted, but can you have a single storey maisonette?

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[Flanders]

If he has quoted 314.2 then that doesn't really cover the issue he has raised. That would be more relevant to 314.1 (i) and (iii).
As said, ask what remedial action he proposes as your previous suggestions to him have been declined.

I do Like it when Job worth who quote the wrong Regs always reminds me of Rimmer on Red drawf , But it looks like he's got Billy on 314.1 (iii) , But I would argue the table lamp or stand lamp would cover that or the wives Candles Might of been better off missing a sticker off the consumer unit so he had something to pull you up on that was easier to rectify Its looks like you will have to bite the bullet this time unless you can get your scheme to back you up in writing

edit ...Just seen you post Billl Glad its sorted:hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray:

 

[billy10]

Glad it's sorted, but can you have a single storey maisonette?

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

It's basically just a house split up into 2 flats but they called it a maisonette so I adopted the name for it too!

If I did actually have to put in a new circuit I was actually going to name the new circuit after him on the install cert. An eye for an eye and all that haha

 

[Midwest]

If the customer has the leasehold to the flat, to which the council have the freehold to the whole building, there will be certain contractual things that the leaseholder must observe. Things like the leaseholder is not allowed to lay laminate or wood flooring, e.g. There is probably a clause do to with the extent of electrical work carried out in the flat, or freeholder has right to exam such work etc. That said, as be alluded to previously, the council guy is being a bit awkward.

 

[YoungScud]

Well it gets even more farsical, the customer has now just emailed me and apparently he's accepted the certificate now and all is ok.

What a rollercoaster of a day.

I think I can explain that, although I may sound cynical. He's got a bit worried about it, talked to someone who knows what he's talking about and been advised that this could bite him square on the 'arris if you pushed the matter. He's a twa*t.

 

[Paul.M]

Division (not separation.....DaveSparks told me off last time for saying that lol) of circuits within a dwelling is within the regs but on such a small property, lights on one RCD and Sockets on another RCD should be acceptable. Jobsworth imho.

I'm starting a 3 bed bungalow rewire next week and the only reason why it will have 2 lighting circuits is due to the very large extension that is being built. It requires the lighting over 2 RCD's due to the functionality of the property if/when a mcb or rcd trips. End of the day it is only a bungalow! If the lights trip grab a torch or plug in a table lamp to find the yellow pages and call an electrician and not the LABC, they wont help you much.

 

[7029 dave]

Surely if it's a council job, then they would have given you their specification of the job, crazy as it sounds, single floor one lighting circuit 6 lights. (so what) How about 1 circuit per room.?

 

[billy10]

To be honest I haven't the slightest Clue where the council fit into this, I'm still in the dark about their involvement but they've "accepted" my certificate now.

the original contract was with me and my customer so the spec was made by the customer.

Maybe if this guy had his way we'd be installing emergency lighting in all rooms on domestic jobs in the 18th edition.

 

[Davisonp]

I am currently watching TV in the living room with the lounge light on. There are no lights turned on upstairs at the moment, so, despite having two circuits, I would still be in complete dark if the downstairs lighting circuit tripped now.
An emergency light by the consumer unit would save scrambling round for a working torch.

 

[telectrix]

I am currently watching TV in the living room with the lounge light on. There are no lights turned on upstairs at the moment, so, despite having two circuits, I would still be in complete dark if the downstairs lighting circuit tripped now.
An emergency light by the consumer unit would save scrambling round for a working torch.

total overkill.the light provided by the TV will be sufficient to light the way to your beer supplies, so what's the problem?