New Water Connection - advice please...

[ban-all-sheds]

Bringing a water supply pipe into the building is not part of BRegs in itself, but you would have to comply with certain installation criteria set down by the local water company. This includes such things as minimum trench depth, pipe type etc.

But the doing of it may involve work which does have implications of BR compliance. It's not sensible to pretend that there cannot be a need to ensure that what you do complies.

Now the act of bringing that pipe into the building may result in you needing to comply with the Party Wall etc Act, depending on proximity to neighbouring foundations. This too has nothing to do with BRegs.

No, it's wholly separate, but it may well apply.

If you need to come in under the existing footing, technically that is structural work and requires BRegs approval.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognises that fact.

The only bit that leaves out is someone re the PWeA and with that it's best to try and avoid any need to invoke that particularly senseless piece of legislation if at all possible,

I'm not sure it's senseless for there to be legislation to protect the interests of neighbours from unfettered hacking away at shared walls or excavations which could imperil their property.

And if the act applies, it applies - advising people to ignore it and proceed without due regard to it is wrong.

otherwise that will only be someone else's pocket getting lined for this frankly two-bit job.

There's no reason for it to necessarily cost anything to get agreement from neighbours.

 

[Shytalkz]

Ffs Banal, don't start on me with your selective quoting and disingenuous interpretations.

Nowhere did I say anything about avoiding the need to comply, either with BRegs, or PWeA.

I pointed out that, inter alia, the actual act of bringing the pipe in to the building does not of itself require BRegs approval, unless there were some structural works to be undertaken to facilitate the installation of the pipe; and that the PWeA will only apply under the 3m rule, if at all.

Simple rerouting of the pipe may obviate the need for any compliance with this toothless, pointless Act; conversely, if compliance is required, then it is best to try and get the neighbour's consent on an informal basis and as the Act permits, before involving party wall surveyors.

The PWeA is a poorly thought out piece of legislation and the emphasis is completely a*se-about-face with regard to the arising of a dissent.

There are the occasions where it is of use; however, these are in the minority and in the main its existence serves only to rack up costs for a householder and to make neighbours - erroneously - think that this legislation exists to stop work being undertaken that they don't want to happen. It has no direct remedy with regard to non-compliance and, for a two-bit job like this, unless the OP was digging close to, parallel with and deeper than a neighbour's shallow footing, invariably there would be no sensible need for its implementation, whether technically the work falls within its scope or not.

Similarly, if the need for BRegs involvement was limited to a local underpin block to allow the pipe to be brought in lower than the current foundation level, then a BRegs application for that matter alone is pointless and a needless expense, albeit that it is technically required.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ffs Banal, don't start on me with your selective quoting and disingenuous interpretations.

OK - henceforth I shall quote every single letter of your posts in full, padding out the forum in contravention of the rules, even where I don't wish to comment on what you have written.

Nowhere did I say anything about avoiding the need to comply, either with BRegs, or PWeA.

Actually you have talked about avoiding the need to comply with the PWeA, but apologies for misinterpreting that as advice to ignore it.

I pointed out that, inter alia, the actual act of bringing the pipe in to the building does not of itself require BRegs approval, unless there were some structural works to be undertaken to facilitate the installation of the pipe; and that the PWeA will only apply under the 3m rule, if at all.

Simple rerouting of the pipe may obviate the need for any compliance with this toothless, pointless Act;

I agree.

Tell me - do you think people will be better placed to plan work so that it doesn't fall into the scope of the Act if they are aware of it, or if they are ignorant of it?

conversely, if compliance is required, then it is best to try and get the neighbour's consent on an informal basis and as the Act permits, before involving party wall surveyors.

Nowhere did I say that a PWS would be needed. In fact, if you look back you'll see this:

There's no reason for it to necessarily cost anything to get agreement from neighbours.

The PWeA is a poorly thought out piece of legislation and the emphasis is completely a*se-about-face with regard to the arising of a dissent.

There are the occasions where it is of use; however, these are in the minority and in the main its existence serves only to rack up costs for a householder and to make neighbours - erroneously - think that this legislation exists to stop work being undertaken that they don't want to happen. It has no direct remedy with regard to non-compliance and, for a two-bit job like this, unless the OP was digging close to, parallel with and deeper than a neighbour's shallow footing, invariably there would be no sensible need for its implementation, whether technically the work falls within its scope or not.

Whether there is a genuine need or not is, of course, irrelevant. "Technically" is not a qualifier which which affects what people are legally obliged to do. If the work falls within the scope of the Act then it falls within it, and people should not be advised to do anything other than comply.

Given your expressed dislike, verging on contempt, for the PWeA it's likely that people will interpret your use of the term "technically" as meaning "just ignore the fact that it applies because it's daft and pointless".

Similarly, if the need for BRegs involvement was limited to a local underpin block to allow the pipe to be brought in lower than the current foundation level, then a BRegs application for that matter alone is pointless and a needless expense, albeit that it is technically required.

There you go again.

If it's technically required then it is required, end of.

Pointless and needless the expense may well be, but it is also a necessary one, and it would be a criminal offence to ignore it.

However much you dislike certain laws, however pointless, ineffective, ill-thought-out, needless etc you consider them to be, you must not do anything here except tell people that they must comply.

 

[Shytalkz]

However much you dislike certain laws, however pointless, ineffective, ill-thought-out, needless etc you consider them to be, you must not do anything here except tell people that they must comply.

Why must I? Is there a law that says I must? It's up to the OP what he/she does, based on the answers/advice received or not as the case may be: yours as a slavish toe-the-line rule follower; mine as a f*ck that it's pointless and nothing will happen anyhow approach.

For the avoidance of doubt, in this instance, save for the qualifier of being in close proximity to and parallel with neighbour's foundations, then yes, I would ignore the fact that it exists and plead ignorance on the miniscule chance that the neighbour even knew owt about it.

Regarding your other q re knowledge of said Act, in that the vast majority of punters in the country are actually unaware of its existence, I would say don't go complicating things: the world spun quite happily before that crapp came in and will do so regardless. If I'm formally acting for a client then obviously I have a duty to inform them of its existence, but the decision as to whether to comply or not is theirs, not mine. I'm not acting formally in the forum, so I'm not tied by any professional etiquette.

And always remember: rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why must I? Is there a law that says I must?

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was illegal to incite people to commit criminal acts.

But even if not there's the issue of responsible behaviour here, and it is grossly irresponsible to tell people to commit criminal acts.

Maybe you should seek clarification from the site owner - you can email him at [email protected] - ask him if the site policy is that it is OK for you to tell people to break the law.

It's up to the OP what he/she does, based on the answers/advice received or not as the case may be:

Indeed it is.

yours as a slavish toe-the-line rule follower;

No - mine is responsible and professional.

mine as a f*ck that it's pointless and nothing will happen anyhow approach.

And yours is irresponsible and unprofessional.

For the avoidance of doubt, in this instance, save for the qualifier of being in close proximity to and parallel with neighbour's foundations, then yes, I would ignore the fact that it exists and plead ignorance on the miniscule chance that the neighbour even knew owt about it.

I'd hate to have to recite the act, but I have looked through it and I'm sure I didn't see any clauses in it which say that it doesn't apply if you haven't heard of it.

Regarding your other q re knowledge of said Act, in that the vast majority of punters in the country are actually unaware of its existence, I would say don't go complicating things: the world spun quite happily before that crapp came in and will do so regardless.

I'd hate to have to recite the act, but I have looked through it and I'm sure I didn't see any clauses in it which say that it doesn't apply if you haven't heard of it.

If I'm formally acting for a client then obviously I have a duty to inform them of its existence, but the decision as to whether to comply or not is theirs, not mine.

Indeed, and I trust that if they decide to engage in criminal behaviour that you refuse any further association with them. If you don't you're not a professional, you are a cowboy.

I'm not acting formally in the forum, so I'm not tied by any professional etiquette.

If you believe that then you are so reprehensible that you have no business being here giving any advice.

And always remember: rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

If you do ever find yourself in court charged with something - anything at all - please tell that to the judge/magistrate/jury - perhaps they'll be able to drum into you what complete b*lll*cks it is.

 

[Shytalkz]

All hale Mr Prescriptive. Do you work for a local authorit-ah by any chance?

 

[bernardgreen]

And always remember: rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

If you do ever find yourself in court charged with something - anything at all - please tell that to the judge/magistrate/jury - perhaps they'll be able to drum into you what complete b*lll*cks it is

I recall a magistrate saying that that was how the justice system worked. The wise judge using rules to guide him in the management of the court and processes therein.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that a judge in a criminal case would agree with a defendant claiming that a law didn't apply to him because only fools had to obey it.

 

[^woody^]

Move over Dredd, it's Judge Be-an-arse ...... "I am THE law" .... "The sentance is death"

 

[Shytalkz]

Oh, do shut up, Banal. Not complying with PWeA requirements is hardly the most heinous of crimes. Stop trolling.

 

[bernardgreen]

I don't think that a judge in a criminal case would agree with a defendant claiming that a law didn't apply to him because only fools had to obey it.

""because only fools had to obey it"" would not be a reason that I could see a judge using.

But there have been cases where a judge has said that in the circumstances the law as written was not applicable.

But that said it is better to obey the law when ever possible.

 

[Shytalkz]

We're not talking rape or murder here, merely (possibly) circumventing the cack that is the PWeA, either by ignoring it, or arranging rerouting such that the guff does not come into play, ffs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh, do shut up, Banal. Not complying with PWeA requirements is hardly the most heinous of crimes. Stop trolling.

I'm not trolling - I'm trying to get you to grasp the fact that you must not advise people to break the law.

We're not talking rape or murder here, merely (possibly) circumventing the cack that is the PWeA, either by ignoring it, or arranging rerouting such that the guff does not come into play, ffs.

Advising people to do the latter is fine.

Advising them to do the former is unacceptable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that a judge in a criminal case would agree with a defendant claiming that a law didn't apply to him because only fools had to obey it.

""because only fools had to obey it"" would not be a reason that I could see a judge using.

You've got it the wrong way round. I wasn't talking about a judge saying that, I was talking about a defendant telling a court that he wasn't bound by the law which proscribed whatever it was he was on trial for because the law was only to be obeyed by fools.

 

[Shytalkz]

You are trolling. I'm just waiting for the "you're despicable, beneath contempt etc etc" emotive posting a la death sentence thread way back when.

Did you know that, technically, every time I do a site investigation within 6m of a property involving augered boreholes that will cut the imaginary 45 degree line, that I should be serving one month's notice on the neighbour?

Do you understand the - apparent - reasoning behind this pants Act?

If so, you will understand why I and most sane people will, in circumstances where the structural stability or integrity of a neighbouring property will not be affected in any way by the works, not be that bothered about satisfying the requirements of PWeA.

If you don't, then clearly you are incapable of questioning anything and will merely follow slavishly, as "dem's da rools". There are such things as ill-conceived, poorly thought-out laws - and this Act is one such example.

Now I think I, as a structural engineer, am somewhat better placed than most PW surveyors - who, by virtue of the Act, do not actually have to have any professional or relevant qualifications whatsoever - to determine the impact of my structural design on a neighbouring property.

So smack my a*se, I'm apparently breaking a law, woopee doo. And, more than that, I'm suggesting to other people that they could give thought to ignoring said bawlix too.

I have a project on the go at the mo, where a dissent has arisen due to the neighbour refusing to sign the notice within the 14 day period. And their "reason"? Because the extension will "spoil their view". Obviously, this reasoning will have no bearing on the Award, but it doesn't stop the need for two PW surveyors being appointed, the total costs for which will fall to my client.

I had another one only yesterday where the neighbour said he had taken advice from a builder, who'd said that he would not do the foundation in the way that I had designed, as it would put extra load on his (correct, but only of a low order and balanced by the increased bearing width, thus pressure will actually be less than currently exists) and will cause damage to his walls (incorrect). So, he's refusing to sign the notice and wants his own PWS, who won't be an engineer, won't have a clue about the technicalities, won't be qualified to understand the calculations and design rationale. Cue more needless expense and delay for my client.

These kinds of idiotic use/abuse of the Act are precisely why I have no time for it.

You asked earlier about whether I would refuse to work with a client who didn't want to toe the Party Wall line. I think you know the answer to that, really: I've done my statutory duty and advised them of the requirement to comply; it's no skin off my nose if they do or don't and I don't design things that will cause structural damage to shared/adjacent structures, so the PWeA is an irrelevance to me from that pov. Not only that, clearly the clients are not narrow-minded prescriptive knobs incapable of thinking for themselves and, funnily enough, I prefer such more free-thinking kinds of people, not those who suck on their teeth and make tutting noises and wear blinkers.