adding lights to a plug socket?

[EFLImpudence]

Schedule 4 - exception to non-notifiable work.

“special installation” means an electric floor or ceiling heating system, an outdoor lighting or electric power installation, an electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994(1);

Ambiguous ?

I think it time all these so-called guides were banned.

 

[rjm2k]

It's interesting that Part P was brought in based on estimates from 2004 that showed there were 43 Deaths and 2900 Injuries related to Electricity in the home and that Part P would reduce this to 35 and 2350 respectively.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2077837.pdf

I'm sure there's more stats out there, but in 2007 ELECSA reckon based on Government stats that the figures were
68 Deaths, 6265 Injuries

http://www.elecsa.co.uk/Documents/Public-Documents/Householders/HowSafeIsYourHome-May2011.aspx

Unfortunatly neither seems to mention who did the work that caused the death/injury or if it was someone doing DIY at the time vs regular use of electricity.

The consultation above asks if we think it's worked?!

Why does it seem to have had the opposite effect? Just more ageing electrics in the home, or are homeowners being forced to use professionals who in some (but obviously not all) cases are probably doing a worse job than a "competent" DIYer who wants a safe home?

 

[SimonH2]

Before the questions can be answered, you have to ask what is the definition of "related to Electricity in the home".
Does tripping over an extension lead count ? If so then I could see more cases of that when people are (falsely) being told that "Part P prevents extra sockets by DIY" and so they carry on with an extension lead across a doorway/whatever.
Just a "for example".

 

[JohnW2]

I think it time all these so-called guides were banned.

I think an Approved Document is a lot more than a 'guide'. It is frequently pointed out (here and elsewhere) that Approved Document P is not 'law'. That is, of course, literally true, but the way in which this document, issued by Government, has been written is such as to,in practice, almost give it the status of law. The preamble to Approved Document P reads:

This document is one of a series that has been approved and issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing practical guidance with respect to the requirements of Schedule 1 to and regulation 7 of the Building Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2531) for England and Wales [as subsequently amended] ....Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

I would suggest that any sane Court of law would interpret that (in particular the bit I have highlighted in red) as saying that following the 'guidance' contained in the Approved Document is one way of 'achieving compliance with the requirements [of the law]' - what else can "there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance...." possibly be taken to mean?

If the same government which has written the laws writes this in an Approved Document, this surely would more-or-less compel a Court to conclude that this is how the government wish the law to be interpreted. That being the case, I would think that 'complying with the guidance contained in Approved Document P' would almost always have to be accepted as indicating compliance with Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think an Approved Document is a lot more than a 'guide'.

You say that but..

This document is one of a series that has been approved and issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing practical guidance with respect to the requirements of Schedule 1 to and regulation 7 of the Building Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2531) for England and Wales [as subsequently amended] ....Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations.

then...

However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

Would that other way be to follow the actual law?

I would suggest that any sane Court of law would interpret that (in particular the bit I have highlighted in red) as saying that following the 'guidance' contained in the Approved Document is one way of 'achieving compliance with the requirements [of the law]' - what else can "there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance...." possibly be taken to mean?

You seem to be arguing both ways in that -

There are alternative ways to comply so we must follow the approved document to comply.

If the same government which has written the laws writes this in an Approved Document, this surely would more-or-less compel a Court to conclude that this is how the government wish the law to be interpreted.

It is quite often the case that the court has to interpret the law (as written) because it is so badly written.

That being the case, I would think that 'complying with the guidance contained in Approved Document P' would almost always have to be accepted as indicating compliance with Part P.

Unless you actually obeyed what the law itself said.



However, as is the case, the actual law states "special installation means an outdoor lighting installation" where 'special installation' means the work is notifiable.

Then a document, intended to 'offer practical guidance' for the situation states that the outdoor lighting installation is not notifiable if there are no exposed outdoor connections. The situation is clearly nonsensical.
When are there ever any exposed outdoor connections?

This 'exemption' does not apply to an exterior socket outlet since it is an outdoor connection [N.B. NOT exposed] that (which) may be connected to cables that (which) cross the garden and requires RCD protection.

The fact that there is an 'S' on requires indicates that the RCD protection is required by the socket and not the cables.

So - as written, the deciding factor leading to the requirement of notification is that the external socket outlet requires RCD protection whereas the external lighting fixture does not.
Is RCD protection the determining factor for notification in any other instance?

The situation is clearly ludicrous and, either written by idiots or those who know nothing of the actual wording of the actual law, or, more worryingly, the same people who wrote the actual law.

 

[JohnW2]

The situation is clearly ludicrous and, either written by idiots or those who know nothing of the actual wording of the actual law, or, more worryingly, the same people who wrote the actual law.

As we've discussed at great length many times, I agree that the situation is ludicrous. Just as with with BS7671, Approved Document P is very badly written in places and, as you have illustrated appears contradictory with the law in some cases.

However, it is the same primary legislation (Building Act 1984) which empowers the same 'person' (generically described as "the Secretary of State") to publish and approve secondary legislation (i.e. SIs) and Approved Documents - so, in law, both are considered to have been written by the same 'person'. Courts are therefore likely to appreciable weight to both when attempting to interpret the intent of the 'Secretary of State'. The fact that Approved Documents are regarded as usefully supplementary to SIs can be seen in the 1984 Act, when it says:

7 Compliance or non-compliance with approved documents.E+W.
(1)A failure on the part of a person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but if, in any proceedings whether civil or criminal, it is alleged that a person has at any time contravened a provision of building regulations— .
(a)a failure to comply with a document that at that time was approved for the purposes of that provision may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and .
(b)proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

In cases of apparent contradictions, the Courts obviously have a bit of a problem, but I would suggest that they are likely to give more weight to more detailed and specific statements. In the case we are discussing, they might well conclude that when the 'Secretary of State' wrote (in Approved Doc P), very specifically, "The installation of equipment attached to the outside wall of a house (for example security lighting .....) is not notifiable provided that there are no exposed outdoor connections and the work does not involve ... new circuit ... or kitchen/special location" (s)he could not possibly have meant anything other than what was written (very specifically), even if it appears to contradict Schedule 4 of the SI.

That is obviously all speculation. However, in the face of the apparent contradiction, I still reckon that 'compliance with Approved Document P' would be regarded as a pretty good defence - or, in the words of the 1984 Act, "proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability".

You'll probably be pleased to hear that I'm going to be away for a few days, so will probably be conspicuous by my absence from this discussion for a bit

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then a document, intended to 'offer practical guidance' for the situation states that the outdoor lighting installation is not notifiable if there are no exposed outdoor connections. The situation is clearly nonsensical.
When are there ever any exposed outdoor connections?

Well, unless you're going to postulate that AD P would regard something like this as being OK, but just notifiable because the connections are "exposed":

then it's got to mean either an exposed outdoor cable connecting the light to a power source or an exposed outdoor junction box where cables are connected, even if perfectly chosen and executed.

 

[nigelnorris]

By the way, horses very rarely die on this forum.

haha I see what you mean.

I've decided to take all of these posts as a resounding yes. No idea what the question was any more but I'm enjoying trying to decipher the answers

 

[JohnW2]

By the way, horses very rarely die on this forum.

haha I see what you mean. I've decided to take all of these posts as a resounding yes. No idea what the question was any more but I'm enjoying trying to decipher the answers

Just to be clear, the very last thing I would wish would be for any of what I've written to be taken as suggesting a 'resounding yes' (or 'resounding no').

What I initially said was that it is 'a grey area' - and now you can see why! Given the apparent conflicts between Schedule 4 of the Building Regs and Approved Document P, the very poor writing of both those documents and the variety of opinions as to the answer, I can't see how one can regard it as anything but 'grey' - even if some try to argue that it is 'black and white'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[nigelnorris]

By the way, horses very rarely die on this forum.

haha I see what you mean. I've decided to take all of these posts as a resounding yes. No idea what the question was any more but I'm enjoying trying to decipher the answers

Just to be clear, the very last thing I would wish would be for any of what I've written to be taken as suggesting a 'resounding yes' (or 'resounding no').

What I initially said was that it is 'a grey area' - and now you can see why! Given the apparent conflicts between Schedule 4 of the Building Regs and Approved Document P, the very poor writing of both those documents and the variety of opinions as to the answer, I can't see how one can regard it as anything but 'grey' - even if some try to argue that it is 'black and white'.

Kind Regards, John

I'm really sorry John, seeing the obvious and vocal disagreement here led me to make a tongue in cheek response which was never intended to be taken seriously. Although some of the detail is over my head I do think that I've understood most of what's been said, I'm very grateful for your advice and that of everyone else who has contributed.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm really sorry John, seeing the obvious and vocal disagreement here led me to make a tongue in cheek response which was never intended to be taken seriously. Although some of the detail is over my head I do think that I've understood most of what's been said, I'm very grateful for your advice and that of everyone else who has contributed.

No need to apologise - I realised that! I really just wanted to highlight the irony that people who argue with my statement that it is a 'grey area' are, effectively, merely illustrating that it is a grey area

A simple/obvious' interpretation of 'the law' is that installation of any outside light is notifiable. However, a guidance document issued by the same member of the government who created the law describes a situation in which such work is not notifiable. That sounds pretty 'grey' to me - and certainly suggests to me that no-one is going to go to prison for 'complying' with the Approved Document

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

A simple/obvious' interpretation of 'the law' is that installation of any outside light is notifiable. However, a guidance document issued by the same member of the government who created the law describes a situation in which such work is not notifiable. That sounds pretty 'grey' to me - and certainly suggests to me that no-one is going to go to prison for 'complying' with the Approved Document

Or - in this case, not so much a grey area as one black area and one white area.

So, in the highly improbable situation that someone confronts nigel for not notifying (should he choose that option) then, obviously, he can quote the approved document.

If he chooses to notify and the Building Control Officer tells him he need not then he can quote Schedule 4 and insist that his notification fee is taken and put to good use.