Barristers, might live on this planet but they often operate in another world. Your group are clearly not clued up on what was happening in relation to this particular statutory instrument.In case you’re interested (probably not ), the discussion arose whilst I was dining with a close family member and a number of other barristers, one of whom was a QC with particular interest/expertise in this area. The debate was largely academic (and hence way over my head), but it was clear that the group included people who would probably have been prepared to present both arguments to a court, particularly since none of them was aware of the point having yet been tested in a court.
Kind Regards, John.
Unless they were keeping their powder dry and licking their lips in anticipation of the fat fees to come.
It has certainly been widely discussed in legal circles for over 18 months with various warnings to firms - highlighting the importance of them not becoming a stated case.
It has been highlighted by the Law Society in March 2010.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/cancellingcontracts/4466.article
And some stated cases, albeit in relation to the credit agreement part of the statutory instrument are highlighted here.
http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2011/03/24/Credit-Hire-The-Never-Ending-Story.aspx
The bottom line.... for any work over £35 you must include all the elements required in the SI otherwise your client could refuse to pay and you could end up with a criminal conviction.
Whether or not electricians choose to ignore the legislation is up to them, I just don't want my name appearing after R v .....
Here is a recent case..
http://www.rhondda-cynon-taf.gov.uk/en/news/archive/2011/june/roguetraderprosecuted.aspx