Broken cables in a wall

[EFLImpudence]

Its a criminal offence not to comply with the building regs or any requirements under them,

Yes.

that must include Part P

It does but Part P consists only of what I showed; there is no more.

and BS7671, simples.

No, not simples BS7671 is NOT statutory.

The onus is on the sparky to prove how his/her work otherwise complies, it seems to me.

Why, then, is B7671 NOT statutory?

They are fire fighters and have been for a long time

Do you mean it should not be up to them to dictate what materials are used?

What about wooden staircases.

 

[blup]

Yes.


It does but Part P consists only of what I showed; there is no more.

Approved document P

No, not simples BS7671 is NOT statutory.

But it is a requirement under the building regs

Why, then, is B7671 NOT statutory?

As above

Do you mean it should not be up to them to dictate what materials are used?

What about wooden staircases.

I was making a practical point as you had wrongly called them firemen, they are fire fighters.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Approved document P

The approved documents are just a guide on how building regulations can be complied with. Suggest you look at the document and read and understand the first couple of pages. It tells you exactly what an approved document is for.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a802da7ed915d74e622ceed/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf

You could comply with the LAW - Statutory Instrument P1 - in several ways. The easy, defendable route is to comply with BS7671.

 

[blup]

The approved documents are just a guide on how building regulations can be complied with. Suggest you look at the document and read and understand the first couple of pages. It tells you exactly what an approved document is for.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a802da7ed915d74e622ceed/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf

You could comply with the LAW - Statutory Instrument P1 - in several ways. The easy, defendable route is to comply with BS7671.

My point is that it is a criminal offence not to comply with the building regulations and anything done under them, it which brings in part p and the british standard, otherwise no one could ever be prosecuted.

 

[ebee]

Yes Part P is a part of the building regulations so it is the law.
BS 7671 is NOT mandated in Part P.
BS7671 is mentioned in the part p approved document, the approved document is guidance only, it is not the defining law. It also used to suggested that any similar national standard by an EU member country will suffice. It does not preclude the standards of any civilised country either.
BS7671 is not a legal requirement (unless part of a contract).

 

[blup]

Yes Part P is a part of the building regulations so it is the law.
BS 7671 is NOT mandated in Part P.
BS7671 is mentioned in the part p approved document, the approved document is guidance only, it is not the defining law. It also used to suggested that any similar national standard by an EU member country will suffice. It does not preclude the standards of any civilised country either.
BS7671 is not a legal requirement (unless part of a contract).

It might be impractical to bury cable 50mm deep in plaster for the complete run, or unavoidable to fit an mf box in every installation, there a myriad of examples that sparkies come across like this everyday. But that is very different from designing and installing in accordance with say Italian or Latvian codes.

 

[ebee]

Well I never (almost very near never ever ever) go against the regs and take great endeavours to actually comply , when some others try to take short cuts siting It can`t be done!" then they get told and I take no prisoners, they do not get away with excuses, there are none.

I didn`t say I would design to Italian or Latvian codes, I never would do, except if I was doing a job in that country.
What I said in effect was that Part P (the law) and even The Part P approved doc (not the law just guidance) does not disallow you from using another (civilised) country`s standards if you so desire and have sufficient confidence that is going to be "safe" ish, that is your judgement call so providing that you actually have the skill and expertise to do so then fair enough but you might one day be asked in court to explain how it is no less safe.

So unless contract law applies (one example being a competent person scheme member) then you are free to do it.
In reality, most of us would not do it, even though we might actually be allowed to legally.

Simply put "No it is not the law, but treat it as if it actually is!"

 

[JohnW2]

It might be impractical to bury cable 50mm deep in plaster for the complete run ....

If you mean what you wrote ("in plaster"), I would think that it would be impossible (not just 'impractical') to bury any part of the run of a cable(let alone "the complete run") 50mm deep - since I don't recall ever having seen plaster that thick!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

...and one can't bury it that deep in brick as that IS against building regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

Simply put "No it is not the law, but treat it as if it actually is!"

That's certainly a sensible, as well as simple ('most painless') and pragmatic, approach.

However, just to make sure everyone understands, although BS7671 is not law, it would seem that the 'landlord legislation' does impose a legal obligation to comply with BS7671:2018, at least to the extent that an inspector does not consider any non-conformity (with BS7671:2018) to bee 'potentially dangerous' (hence at least a C2 on an EICR).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

...and one can't bury it that deep in brick as that IS against building regulations.

That would probably be true if there were no plaster. However, on a plastered wall, one probably would not have to cut into the brick (or whatever) to the extent of falling foul of the Building Regs.

 

[blup]

If you mean what you wrote ("in plaster"), I would think that it would be impossible (not just 'impractical') to bury any part of the run of a cable(let alone "the complete run") 50mm deep - since I don't recall ever having seen plaster that thick!

Kind Regards, John

With respect that is being pedantic, I was making a point about the nature and extent of departures from the building regs

 

[blup]

...and one can't bury it that deep in brick as that IS against building regulations.

That would depend on the thickness/depth of the brick if you are referring to the structural aspects of cutting chases in walls.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That would probably be true if there were no plaster. However, on a plastered wall, one probably would not have to cut into the brick (or whatever) to the extent of falling foul of the Building Regs.

The horizontal limit in a 100mm. brick is 16.7mm. so one would need 33.3mm. of plaster

 

[opps]

...and one can't bury it that deep in brick as that IS against building regulations.

I should have mentioned that the distance to brick is 45mm. I would guess that the cable was about 35m deep. They didn't cut through the brick.

What are the regs with regarding depth the depth in plaster?