BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[mikhailfaradayski]

All of the stuff about the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 is totally irrelevant as far as The Building Regulations are concerned - And it's those which are the original poster's concern.

Yeah, but BAS, mikhail and riveralt stopped being interested in the original poster's concerns by about page 2 or 3

I made it to page five before the cut/paste extravanganza started building up a head of steam Then it became a bit too tedious to bother.

BTW, due to that, i overlooked your suggestion which i happen to think is worthy of consideration by the OP.

As i've already written, the connection between wiring regs and building regs leaves something to be desired, but im not holding my breath waiting for it to be sorted.
You may have seen that i was only really throwing comments in as 'food for thought' for the OP as opposed to having a clear and unmoving policy. I don't try to pretend to be the all seeing oracle. Its seems as there is only one gay in this village

There doesn't appear to be an obligation to follow BS7671(200nwhatever), but if you don't, i think it may bring problems that you don't really need when trying to convince others that all is well.

If you want to stand on principle, brilliant, i would offer my support to those who try, but at the same time, there would always be a thought in the back of my mind that there could be an easier route.
(Cue blinkered, mono-thought council jobsworths)

 

[riveralt]

The revelance is that they are all there to ensure that the design, installation and inspection of an electrical installation results in a safe environment for everyone.

I think the approach he has indicated he will take is the correct one. Simply point out that the wiring as installed and certified to the 16th edition meets the legal requirements of the building regs. If LABC believes otherwise, let them try and prove it.

Since the LABC are the aribiters they do not have to prove anything. It will be up to the OP to challenge them. I have outlined below how this process works:

What happens if you disagree with a local authority's enforcement notice?

Normally a local authority's enforcement notice will give you 28 days to rectify the building work.

If you wish to contest the notice on the grounds that you believe your building work does comply with the Building Regulations, you can advise your local authority that you would like to commission a written report from a suitably qualified person about the compliance of your work with a view to persuading the authority to withdraw the notice. In this event the 28 day period to rectify the building work is extended to 70 days.

Alternatively, you can appeal against the notice in the magistrates' court and demonstrate that your building work complies. This option can be used either as an alternative to the above, or if proceedings under that option have been unsuccessful. You should make your appeal within 28 days of receiving the notice or within 70 days if you have used above option first.

If you are successful with either option, your local authority may have to pay your costs.

If on the other hand you believe that your work can't be expected to comply with one or more of the requirements in the Building Regulations because they are too onerous or inapplicable, you do have the right to apply to your local authority for a relaxation or dispensation of the requirement(s) in question in order for your completed building work to be considered to achieve compliance.

Your application should be made within 28 days of receiving the enforcement notice from your authority. If they refuse your application you have a right of appeal (in England) to the Department for Communities and Local Government or (in Wales) to the Welsh Assembly Government against that refusal, providing you do so within one month of that decision

Whether the letter from the OP's LABC qualifies as an enforcement notice is open to debate - but not here p l e a s e.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yeah, but BAS, mikhail and riveralt stopped being interested in the original poster's concerns by about page 2 or 3

Untrue. You can judge for yourself what their motives might have been, given the way they repeatedly changed tack to find something else to argue about, but I argued with them because I genuinely believed that the advice they were giving DJB was wrong, or misleading, or inappropriate.

The most inapropriate case of pot calling kettle black since the beginning of time.

Untrue - I never ever, ever argue with someone just for the sake of it - it is always because I genuinely believe that they are wrong, and need to be corrected, or ignorant and need to be informed.

 

[Paul_C]

Since the LABC are the aribiters they do not have to prove anything.

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offense, so ultimately if the LABC takes it to court, it is for the prosecution to prove its case.

 

[riveralt]

Since the LABC are the aribiters they do not have to prove anything.

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offense, so ultimately if the LABC takes it to court, it is for the prosecution to prove its case.

Yes I agree that it is a criminal offence - but that would be as a last resort.

Under the normal LABC process they will advise the applicant (OP) that installation/certification does not meet with their required standard (lets not go there) and offer him the opportunity to correct the matter.

This is what has happened here. The OP has been asked to have the 'electrician' simply change the '2006' on page one of the EIC to '2008' and to provide them with evidence of the electricians qualifications. If his qualifications are to BS 7671 (200?) or he can prove he is a competent person then they will probably issue the Building Regulation compliance notice without any delay. Issue over!!!

If the applicant declines to comply with their request then the LABC will issue a Local Authority Enforcement Notice and the process outlined above could take place.

 

[Paul_C]

Surely in order for a local authority to issue an enforcement notice they must have some reason to believe that the works do not comply with the Building Regulations? Of course, we know that in many cases they operate like a little dictatorship and don't follow the law themselves, even though they demand that their "subjects" do.

However, even if an enforcement notice is issued, what can they do about it without taking you to court? It then becomes a criminal case whereupon the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Yes, we know that there is some completely unconstitutional legislation (health & safety, employment laws etc.) which contains wording which explicitly reverses that burden of proof, but I've not seen anything like that within the applicable legislation for this matter.

Does anyone know of any cases in which an LABC has taken somebody to court for the alleged offense of failing to comply with the building regs. on such a flimsy case as the work not being to the latest version of BS7671? (Remembering that there is no statutory obligation to follow BS7671 at all.)

If they are going to try and argue that the requirements of Part P have not been met, how are they going to do that if they haven't even inspected the work, as in this case?

 

[riveralt]

There are a few cases outlined here, but they mainly concern breaches of Part P by not being part of the competent persons scheme.

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/find/page-1-10-1/collec-vltsearch/part-p-prosecution.html

If the applicant does not respond to the enforcement notice the next stage is up to the LABC - they can, apparantely, get someone to physically check the installation and report back to them. - Though how you can gain access to property without some sort of warrant I do not know.

I don't think either the applicant or the LABC need that hassle. I would assume after the enforcement notice stage they would still seek some kind of mediation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are a few cases outlined here, but they mainly concern breaches of Part P by not being part of the competent persons scheme.

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/find/page-1-10-1/collec-vltsearch/part-p-prosecution.html[/QUOTE]
Are any of them where the work done was in compliance with the 16th, but the person who did it was successfully prosecuted for not working to the 17th?