Building Regulations wording

[ericmark]

BAS makes a good point once you read the bit which says it is exempt you stop reading.

As to what other non scheme member electricians do I don't know but personally I tell the owner:-

This work is likely notifiable I am not interested in contacting the LABC myself that's up to you to do. When you say I can go ahead I will start and if you have been given any stages where they want to inspect I will stop at those stages, and when complete I will issue a minor works or installation certificate in duplicate so you can send one to the LABC, but I am not doing it for you as so often there are other items to be added to the application, as well as electrical.

There is no permit to work system from LABC and where I know it has been registered I rarely see the building inspector so I am unaware if the work has or has not been registered. Although now I do very little so not really a problem any more.

I have only glanced at the new English Regulations only 8 miles away but rarely cross the boarder bus pass will not work. But for non scheme members one does not really want to get involved as I have all too often found during the work extra are requested and one just does not want to have to return and submit another plan. Just too much hassle plus if I pay the LABC I may fail to get money back where if they pay then I have less to worry about.

It says it's the owners responsibility so I leave it to them.

 

[JohnW2]

Whilst I believe that the DCLG are sincere in their desire for Schedule 2 buildings not to be exempt from notification, and in their belief that that's what they've written into law, I'm appalled at how badly they have done it. ... 12(6A) may refer to P1, but there's nothing in P1 which leads you back to 12(6A).

Indeed so - and as I wrote to eric, it's far worse than the 'debates about interpretation' we often have - this is a case of contradiction within the law.

It's a pity that this will probably never be tested in court. If it were, one imagines that the court's decision would probably be in terms of what you and I believe was the intent, and such a decision would hopefully move the legislators to get rid of the anomaly in the law, as written.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

BAS makes a good point once you read the bit which says it is exempt you stop reading. As to what other non scheme member electricians do I don't know but personally I tell the owner:- "This work is likely notifiable I am not interested in contacting the LABC myself that's up to you to do." ... It says it's the owners responsibility so I leave it to them.

That's all very well, and reasonable from your point-of-view, but the houseowner is certainly not (usually) in a position to make a judgement as to whether or not the work (in the scenario we are discussing) is notifiable. If they asked LABC, the odds are that they would be told that it was notifiable - but if that's not actually true in terms of (at least some bits of) the law, then that could be a very expensive question for them to ask!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And if you want to look for it, you'll find more than one topic here where I point out that the regulations are quite clear that it is the person actually carrying out the work who is responsible for notifying, not the person ordering the work. That position is supported by the Govt's own guide to the Building Regulations, and there are a number of places in the Building Regulations where if you were to substitute "homeowner" (or whatever term you choose to represent the person ordering the work) for person carrying it out, they become utterly ridiculous.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

AFAICS, for you, in Wales, you probably don't have the former of those two bits (I don't have the old/Welsh wording to hand).

Regulation 9 was pretty much the same.

The old Regulation 12 is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/regulation/12/made

Less explicit, but the principle of 9(1) not applying when the work is notifiable via various schedules can still be applied.

 

[ericmark]

Approved Document P - Electrical safety - Dwellings
Clearly states owner to notify I realise that this is not the law but a government interpretation of the law but think the LABC would not try to prosecute where the courts are not likely to convict so really it does not matter what the law is if no one is going to enforce it.

There are many mediaeval laws still on the books which no one takes any notice of. The Part P joins those old laws.

 

[JohnW2]

Approved Document P - Electrical safety - Dwellings ... Clearly states owner to notify I realise that this is not the law but a government interpretation of the law ...

Is that just in Wales (I don't have an old/Welsh App Doc P to hand!)? The current App Doc P for England says:

Untitled

• JohnW2
• 24 Aug 2013
• 1

Note that it says 'installer', not 'owner' (or 'householder', or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

But is just that the approved document.

I realise that this is not the law but a government interpretation of the law

Not sure what to say about that.

The Government makes the law and then interprets it ???
If they don't know what they meant then what chance have we?

 

[JohnW2]

But is just that the approved document.

I realise that this is not the law but a government interpretation of the law

Not sure what to say about that. The Government makes the law and then interprets it ??? If they don't know what they meant then what chance have we?

We've discussed this a lot before. Rather than saying that the government is 'interpreting' the law, it would probably be more appropriate to say that the government is (or is attempting to) give guidance on the meaning of the law.

As we've discussed before, although the Approved Documents are not law, the fact that they derive from the government presumably means that acting in accordance with what they say would generally be a very strong defence in court.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But the discussion has been about contradictions.

 

[JohnW2]

But the discussion has been about contradictions.

This thread is, indeed, meant to be about the contradictions within the Building Regs - which do appear to exist.

However, eric introduced a totally different issue (whether it was an installer's or householder's responsibility to notify), and it is in that regard that he mentioned the 'interpretation' in (his version of) Approved Doc P - which seems to differ from what the current App Doc P for England says.

Kind REgards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said - go through the Building Regulations and imagine that they mean "householder" or equivalent when they talk about the "person carrying out the work", or equivalent variation thereof.

You could cut to the chase and just look at #27 and #29.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Approved Document P - Electrical safety - Dwellings
Clearly states owner to notify.

Whereabouts?

I've just searched through the 2006 version, i.e. before the E/W divergence, and the word "owner" does not appear anywhere in it.

The only instance of "householder" is where it says "Building control bodies will carry out the necessary inspection and testing at their expense, not at the householders’ expense"

And if you search for "notif" (which should pick up every variation), or "responsi", you find nothing to support your assertion.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From an email from the DCLG:

provisions in legislation are of universal application (i.e they apply in all cases) except where the legislation states otherwise. In this case regulation 9(3) states that the exemption in Schedule 2 for small detached buildings and sheds does not apply to Part P. Regulation 12(6A) is not qualified by any exemption and therefore applies to all circumstances including those in regulation 9(3). Please note that regulation 9(1) (the general exemption) is subject to regulation 9(3) (the exception to the general exemption.

To which I replied

if you're interested in feedback, I think that the way it is worded is extremely unclear. 9(1) references 9(3) and so clearly makes Part P an exception to the general exemption. But P1 does not make any reference to 12(6A), and I don't think that most people, on reading the regulations, would realise that despite 9(1) they would still have to read every other regulation apart from the ones explicitly excepted by 9(2) and 9(3) to look for exemptions. I think most people would take 9(1) to mean what it says, i.e. that none of the regulations apart from G1, G3(2), G3(3) and P1 apply to Schedule 2 buildings, and would never even encounter 12(6A) as a result.

 

[JohnW2]

From an email from the DCLG:provisions in legislation are of universal application (i.e they apply in all cases) except where the legislation states otherwise. In this case regulation 9(3) states that the exemption in Schedule 2 for small detached buildings and sheds does not apply to Part P. Regulation 12(6A) is not qualified by any exemption and therefore applies to all circumstances including those in regulation 9(3). Please note that regulation 9(1) (the general exemption) is subject to regulation 9(3) (the exception to the general exemption.To which I replied
if you're interested in feedback, I think that the way it is worded is extremely unclear. 9(1) references 9(3) and so clearly makes Part P an exception to the general exemption. But P1 does not make any reference to 12(6A), and I don't think that most people, on reading the regulations, would realise that despite 9(1) they would still have to read every other regulation apart from the ones explicitly excepted by 9(2) and 9(3) to look for exemptions. I think most people would take 9(1) to mean what it says, i.e. that none of the regulations apart from G1, G3(2), G3(3) and P1 apply to Schedule 2 buildings, and would never even encounter 12(6A) as a result.

Interesting. I totally agree with your response. I'm really far from convinced that a court would see it as they do. As you have said, 9(1)-9(3) would appear to be saying that none of the Building Regs other than G1, G3(2), G3(3) and P1 apply to Schedule 2 buildings. That being the case, 12(6A) simply does not apply to such buildings - so, even if people did 'come across' 12(6A), I don't see how anything it said would/could be relevant or applicable.

Kind Regards, John