SWA and Building Control

[DM Construction]

This is my first post. I’d really appreciate any advice.

I have a detached workshop that in 1999 had power supplied to it via a 32 A SWA cable. Dedicated 32 A circuit via RCB from house CU to workshop, SWA terminated correctly, etc. All done by electrical contractors as part of a house and workshop rewire.

In early 2005 I built a storage shed (Schedule 2 exempt from normal building regs), and ran a length of SWA that extended power from the workshop to it. It was old colours (red and black), still permissible in 2005. But I didn’t realise or perhaps ignored the fact that Part P had just come into effect, and that this was now notifiable work. For various reasons I’ve never used this to power anything in the shed, I had an extension cable rigged up that supplied enough power for lighting. The SWA just terminates in the shed.

A few years ago I ran another length of SWA from the storage shed to a security light in the garden. It simply connects to the existing SWA termination point in the shed and ends in an external socket that the security light is plugged in to. So still on the original circuit. I understand that this normally isn’t notifiable following the 2013 changes to the regs, as it’s an alteration to an existing circuit. However I stupidly used some old SWA that I had lying around with pre-harmonised red and black cores, when I should have bought some new cable.

Finally now at the point where I want to power the shed properly, and will need to install a garage type CU – at which point I realized I needed to get an electrician in, as I understand secondary CUs are still notifiable?

Now thinking about approaching building control to confess, ask for their advice, and see if they will issue a regularisation certificate.

For the first sin of not notifying the work at the time – work that I believe wouldn’t be notifiable today given the 2013 changes to the regs – what is BC’s attitude likely to be?

For the second sin of using the pre-harmonised cable for the garden light, how might BC view this? Would I simply be allowed to identify the ends with the correct colours using heat-shrink sleeving?

What sort of tests might BC require to be carried out on these cables to confirm that they are safe?

So long as BC are happy with the workmanship, what is the likely outcome going to be? Any thoughts on how much is this likely to cost to resolve?

Thanks!

 

[Midwest]

It depends on your BC. They may allow you to have your work verified by an EICR, or have it certified by a Third Party Scheme member.

If not they may require you to have a Regularisation Certificate, mine charges £440 + vat for that. That involves the same process as the other two methods, that is an electrician inspecting and testing your work, will he/she be able to examine how the swa was installed?

Only way to find out, is consult your BC.

 

[littlespark]

Identify the cores. Ie brown and blue sleeving over the red and black.

Is there anything to say that this additional work wasn’t done at the same time as the initial SWA run?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Ignore the notification requirement. When part P was introduced in 2005 any work planned at the time was exempt. For a period.
Yours didn’t need notification at that time.

Since then, electrical work outdoors has been removed from the notification list, unless it is a new circuit. Your work are additions to the original circuit, and not a new circuit. Therefore BC involvement is not required.

 

[Dustydazzler]

As above , I would never involve the planning department/ builders control for work that has been installed years ago. Just seems a complete and utter waste of time And money.
in the grand scheme nobody gives a rats arse if you wired your shed garage hot tub cabin or work shop a decade ago.
I know loads of people who have done diy electrical jobs at home then some years later ask me to certify it. I tell them don’t even bother. Why pay me to certify something you put in years ago, the only thing I can do is an eicr if they want one

 

[Midwest]

Till you come to sell the property and you fill in the conveyancing document.

Edit; mind you I think there’s a time limit on regularisation or putting things correct as it were.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Till you come to sell the property and you fill in the conveyancing document.

Edit; mind you I think there’s a time limit on regularisation or putting things correct as it were.

I have moved 3 times and every time the only question asked about the electrical is has any wiring been done since 2005. Tick yes or no.
Tick no and no further questions asked.
It is as simple as that to avoid any possible snags regarding old wiring additions

 

[Midwest]

I have moved 3 times and every time the only question asked about the electrical is has any wiring been done since 2005. Tick yes or no.
Tick no and no further questions asked.
It is as simple as that to avoid any possible snags regarding old wiring additions

It’s a legal document you are signing to say items or facts are true to your best beliefs about the property you are selling; questions like have you had disputes with any neighbours, as another example.

I don’t know what the consequences of telling untruths would be, but that’s not something I would choose to do, and I don’t think you should advise other people to do so, in a professional capacity, as it were.

 

[Soi disant]

Your work are additions to the original circuit, and not a new circuit. Therefore BC involvement is not required.

It would be required were he to

install a garage type CU

DM - don't install one, as it's completely unnecessary. Sockets can go on the 32A circuit, and lights from an FCU on it.

Couple of points though - how did you "[connect] to the existing SWA termination point in the shed", and is the circuit RCD protected?

 

[Dustydazzler]

It’s a legal document you are signing to say items or facts are true to your best beliefs about the property you are selling; questions like have you had disputes with any neighbours, as another example.

I don’t know what the consequences of telling untruths would be, but that’s not something I would choose to do, and I don’t think you should advise other people to do so, in a professional capacity, as it were.

A lot of the tick boxes come with 3 options

yes
no
not sure

just tick the box and move on, if you aren’t sure tick not sure. If you don’t ‘think’ the cable to the shed constitutes electrical work then tick no.
you aren’t telling an untruth you are just ticking the box you believe is nearest to to truth

 

[Midwest]

A lot of the tick boxes come with 3 options

yes
no
not sure

just tick the box and move on, if you aren’t sure tick not sure. If you don’t ‘think’ the cable to the shed constitutes electrical work then tick no.
you aren’t telling an untruth you are just ticking the box you believe is nearest to to truth

But the OP knows the latter two to not be true, and I guess most other people will know exactly what is true or not, in similar circumstances.

In these situations someone will 'move on', but someone will also move in to the property. Is honesty such a bad thing.

 

[pc1966]

I would avoid Building Control really.

As you are looking to get the wiring sorted anyway, see if you can get an electrician in for the garage CU stuff and to also check the rest of it out (EICR style). That way the new work is certified with BG and the old stuff you can ignore safe in the knowledge that it is safe.

 

[Midwest]

I would avoid Building Control really.

As you are looking to get the wiring sorted anyway, see if you can get an electrician in for the garage CU stuff and to also check the rest of it out (EICR style). That way the new work is certified with BG and the old stuff you can ignore safe in the knowledge that it is safe.

As the original work was completed in 2005, which appears should of been notified (OP’s interpretation). However, as this is now more than two years ago, the BC would have no enforcement powers at its disposal, and I would suggest even if they had, they would be unlikely to use them in such circumstances.

Ive found my BC being sensible in their approach, when I’ve asked guidance for carrying out notifiable work in my own property. They suggested an EICR, although I’ve decided to go the 3rd party route.

As said, the only real issue the OP has, is if the property be sold, with no appropriate certification in place.

I would seek guidance from BC, I think the worst could happen is paying for a regularisation. I suspect they would advise an EICR.

 

[Soi disant]

As the original work was completed in 2005, which appears should of been notified (OP’s interpretation). However, as this is now more than two years ago, the BC would have no enforcement powers at its disposal, and I would suggest even if they had, they would be unlikely to use them in such circumstances.

Abbosolootely.

Has anybody ever heard of anyone ever being prosecuted for failing to notify electrical work when they should have done?

As said, the only real issue the OP has, is if the property be sold, with no appropriate certification in place.

Telling the truth about that is the key, otherwise it's potentially fraud. If buyers were really concerned about uncertificated shed supplies the housing market would sieze up.

I would seek guidance from BC, I think the worst could happen is paying for a regularisation. I suspect they would advise an EICR.

Seriously I'd say do nothing. No good can come of it. Regularisation would cost more than an EICR, an EICR could be done at time of sale if the buyer asks, and in the meantime not only can Building Control do nothing, they'd have no desire to do anything.

 

[DM Construction]

Thanks all for the responses and guidance. Given that the work was done so long ago now, and is no longer notifiable, I've decided not to bother BC.

I had talked to BC about my plans circa 2002, and at that time they said it was all Schedule 2 exempt. No BC involvement required.

When I come to sell I will disclose this work to a buyer. I've learnt that if it was recent work their solicitors could take out an indemnity insurance policy (which I would end up paying for - probably £200 or so). If anyone notified BC of the work prior to the policy being taken out, then the policy would be void. But it's a moot point given that the work is far more than 12 months old so the local authority can't take any enforcement action.

And as has been highlighted in this thread, and confirmed by a Sparky I know, there's no real benefit in involving BC especially as the work isn't notifiable any more. I know the work was done correctly. Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale, so the buyer can then be sure the circuit is still safe.

Cheers.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale,

You would be better off leaving it to a buyer to decide (and pay for) an EICR should they want one. Most will take the usual bland report that a house buyers survey gives them.
If you decide to do an EICR, the report might throw up some substantial and expensive things that should be done. You would have to disclose this to the buyer. What will happen is that the buyer will use it as a lever to chop the price, or you will get it done, at your expense (plus making good of decorations etc) and you will get zero benefit.

 

[Soi disant]

When I come to sell I will disclose this work to a buyer. I've learnt that if it was recent work their solicitors could take out an indemnity insurance policy

Because they get commission?

Those policies are complete and utter con.

If anyone notified BC of the work prior to the policy being taken out, then the policy would be void.

So when you're selling, the instant their solicitor suggests it, "innocently" tell BC and ask what the situation is.

Then you can disclose to their solicitor that you can't take out insurance.

But in any event, without reading back on p1, hasn't it been established that you didn't do any notifiable work? There was an official transition phase when work already begun didn't become notifiable.

But it's a moot point given that the work is far more than 12 months old so the local authority can't take any enforcement action.

And as has been highlighted in this thread, and confirmed by a Sparky I know, there's no real benefit in involving BC especially as the work isn't notifiable any more. I know the work was done correctly. Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale, so the buyer can then be sure the circuit is still safe.

Cheers.

 

[DM Construction]

There was a transition period - but only if you had submitted plans or a building notice prior to 1 Jan 2005. Because BC had previously told me - some time in 2003 - that everything I was planning to do was exempt (and it still was in 2005, apart from Part P coming into force), I didn't submit any plans or a notice as I wasn't required to. Catch 22.

I wasn't aware of Part P until much later. I don't recall ever hearing about it at the time. While ignorance of the law is no defence, I didn't deliberately try to flout it. As was the case for many people at the time.

Anyway, enough said.