Part P amendments

[ban-all-sheds]

Is that your interpretation of 1.27?

No, that's what P1 now says.

 

[ebee]

Ban I agree that the provision for inspect & test seems to have been dropped, and even the reference to a stadard of any EU state that includes inspect and test.
But if BS7671 is employed (at their "suggestion" only) then BS7671 does state that the regs must be sited in th eir entirity, which I took to imply that if you say you comply with it then you test.
Minefield init? LOL
I still say some awkward wizzard should work to Australian or American regs then have a battle when LABC quote the regs, it would be very interesting to see such a legal arguement

 

[Pensdown]

I'm not sure I would want to represent you in court on that one but I can see your point.

By dropping P2 sufficient Information shall be provided it's wide open to interpretation.

 

[BOB NUTS]

How so?

"look into my SI's, not around the SI's....your under"

PART L CONSERVATION OF FUEL AND POWER
L1 Reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings by—

...(b) providing and commissioning energy efficient fixed building services with effective controls;

this is the regulation - previously it specifically mentioned lamps and now it doesnt state lamps leaving the interpretation of reasonable open. The approved document goes on to state what the ODPM thinks is a reasonable minimum - do something less and the onus is on the person doing the work to justify why their level of resonable is lower than the minimum reasonable standard identified by the odpm.

But the Building Regulations do not require working to BS7671

true - but the approved document says the requirement can be satisfied by installing to BS7671. The alternative is to find another way/standard to satisfy the requirement and provide that info to building control - might be interesting if it didnt need testing - BS7671 is the easy route until a suitable alternative is found

 

[ban-all-sheds]

do something less and the onus is on the person doing the work to justify why their level of resonable is lower than the minimum reasonable standard identified by the odpm.

Actually, I think you'll find that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what you have done is unlawful.

but the approved document says the requirement can be satisfied by installing to BS7671. The alternative is to find another way/standard to satisfy the requirement

But the only requirement is:

Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

No statement of proof is requested.

No declaration of having worked to any particular standard which would guarantee that is required.

LABC are responsible for checking that you have made reasonable provision etc, and any inspections or tests that they wish to carry out are to be done at their expense.

 

[BOB NUTS]

Actually, I think you'll find that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what you have done is unlawful.

im not a law guy but i imagine the prosecution would probably cite the approved document guidance/BS761 - then the defence would be asked to show they have alternatively satisfied the requirement.

But i dont really have prosecutions by the council in mind, rather i was thinking about obtaining the completion certificates from the council to say that whatever building works have been carried out comply with the regulations - to do that the installer would need to provide justification (eg "i followed the approved document" or "i followed this alternative standard" etc)- not vice versa

 

[Softus]

court cases and determinations - what do you base your opinions on - the beano?

It's curious that you seem so defensive in response to a reasonable question about the basis of your opinions. Since you say that your opinion is based on court cases and rulings, it would apposite for you to provide an example of such.

Attempting, and, by the way, failing miserably, to belittle my opinion does nothing to strengthen the credibility of yours. In answer to your question, I can reference specific cases that are the cornerstone of my own opinion, where necessary, but I rarely commit the folly of predicting the determination of a court, since so often they're quite surprising. In my experience, if you ask an advocate, they are very reticent about making such predictions, for the same reason.

im not a law guy but i imagine the prosecution would probably cite the approved document guidance/BS761 - then the defence would be asked to show they have alternatively satisfied the requirement.

The parts in bold are the most convincing parts of your opinion so far.

 

[BOB NUTS]

It's curious that you seem so defensive in response to a reasonable question about the basis of your opinions.

fair point, to satisfy your unquenchable curiosity i quote

if i needed to be defensive i'd use something more substantial than the beano

Attempting, and, by the way, failing miserably, to belittle my opinion does nothing to strengthen the credibility of yours

Easy tiger, it was only an enquiry as to where you form your opinion from.......but you havent provided a miserable or otherwise opinion to belittle . Whats documents do you think a court would refer to if they were looking to determine compliance with part p of the building regs.

My pudding contains the recent Mitchell and Drinkwater cases specific to part p and other building regs deteminations regarding the satisfying of various requirements - yummy . I'd be interested to see the specific cases which have helped you form your opinion.

In answer to your question, I can reference specific cases that are the cornerstone of my own opinion, where necessary, but I rarely commit the folly of predicting the determination of a court, since so often they're quite surprising.

Its my opinion, nothing more. We are talking generally rather than specific details - courts may be surprising but i think approved documents and british standards are good benchmark documents - there are probably others.

im not a law guy but i imagine the prosecution would probably cite the approved document guidance/BS761 - then the defence would be asked to show they have alternatively satisfied the requirement.

The parts in bold are the most convincing parts of your opinion so far.

I found them the best ppart of your post too

 

[Softus]

...to satisfy your unquenchable curiosity i quote

You quote what?

Er, no I didn't - you wrote that.

if i needed to be defensive i'd use something more substantial than the beano

I didn't say that you needed to be defensive, just observed that you seemed to be. I observe that you continue to be.

Easy tiger, it was only an enquiry as to where you form your opinion from.......but you havent provided a miserable or otherwise opinion to belittle

Quite so - I was enquiring about your opinion, since you expressed it on a public forum. Is that an unreasonable thing to do? Or did I do it in an unreasonable way?

Whats documents do you think a court would refer to if they were looking to determine compliance with part p of the building regs.

Since you ask, I would expect that both prosecution and defense would focus on the relevant legislation. I would also expect expert testimony to be used. The rest depends on the circumstances of the case. Any prediction of other documents would be mere conjecture.

My pudding contains the recent Mitchell and Drinkwater cases specific to part p and other building regs deteminations regarding the satisfying of various requirements - yummy .

I look forward to reading about those cases, and would be grateful for any Hyperlinks that you can provide.

I'd be interested to see the specific cases which have helped you form your opinion.

You've already observed, correctly, that I haven't given you my opinion. Your interest gives the impression of being a thinly disguised attempt to deflect attention from your opinons, which, BTW, seem to be a bit flaky.

i think approved documents and british standards are good benchmark documents - there are probably others.

What on Earth does the term "benchmark" mean in this context?

Ditto "probably" - this being one of your most commonly used words.

The parts in bold are the most convincing parts of your opinion so far.

I found them the best ppart of your post too

Er, OK. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

 

[BOB NUTS]

...to satisfy your unquenchable curiosity i quote

You quote what?

Er, no I didn't - you wrote that.

Errr. no I didn't - you did write that or maybe you have a ghost writer?

I didn't say that you needed to be defensive, just observed that you seemed to be. I observe that you continue to be.

I observe that this topic seems to be steering away from the subject of part p amendments.

Quite so - I was enquiring about your opinion, since you expressed it on a public forum. Is that an unreasonable thing to do? Or did I do it in an unreasonable way?

I've not taken it as being unreasonable, it seems that you believe i have - why so?

Since you ask, I would expect that both prosecution and defense would focus on the relevant legislation. I would also expect expert testimony to be used. The rest depends on the circumstances of the case. Any prediction of other documents would be mere conjecture.

Sure, that sounds like a court case. I thought the documents refered to would be quite relevant - i think BS7671 and part p would be likely to be used but there are probably others. The topic iirc is/was the significance of the guidance in the approved documents and british standards - i think they are important enough to be refered to in a court for contravention of building regulations.

You've already observed, correctly, that I haven't given you my opinion. Your interest gives the impression of being a thinly disguised attempt to deflect attention from your opinons, which, BTW, seem to be a bit flaky.

I'm happy with my opinion on the information i've encountered - i asked about the cases you've based you're opinion on to open my eyes to your/others opinions. Theres no disguises nor deflection here. Why do you think its a flaky opinion? I'm interested in your opinion, it may spin mine on its head but you don't appear to want to divulge it. Your guarding of it implies that it may be, er 'flaky'.

What on Earth does the term "benchmark" mean in this context?
Ditto "probably" - this being one of your most commonly used words.

"benchmark" means benchmark on earth - what does it mean where you are?.

Ditto "probably".

Er, OK. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

No you really don't. I'm in a similar position to you. What point are you trying to make? You asked a question and got an answer (and an as yet unanswered question) - but you seem to want more - please tell me what it is - then we can return to topic maybe

 

[Softus]

the approved documents may not be law but they are as good as.

No - you are incorrect. They are not as good as the law. You haven't substantiated this statement.

Imo they are what would be refered to as the minimum standards if any case arrived in court - unless demonstrated otherwise.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is that there already exists a precedent for basing a point of law on the BS 7671. IMO you're wrong.

...again the imo BS would be the benchmark guidance in court unless demonstrated otherwise.

I take it that when you say "benchmark" you mean "legal precedent". If so, I don't why you don't use the correct term. If not, I don't know what you mean by "benchmark" in a legal context.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

im not a law guy but i imagine the prosecution would probably cite the approved document guidance/BS761 - then the defence would be asked to show they have alternatively satisfied the requirement.

Failing to follow advice in an Approved Document does not mean that you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations.

Failing to comply with BS7671 is not an offence per se, nor does it mean that you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations.

For a prosecution to succeed, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had not made reasonable provision in the design and installation of the electrical installation in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury.

They would have to do that by citing examples of unsafe work, backed up by expert testimony.

For them to attempt to simply say "it must be unsafe because the defendant cannot prove he worked to BS7671" would be doomed to failure.

But i dont really have prosecutions by the council in mind, rather i was thinking about obtaining the completion certificates from the council to say that whatever building works have been carried out comply with the regulations - to do that the installer would need to provide justification (eg "i followed the approved document" or "i followed this alternative standard" etc)- not vice versa

I won't quote P1 again - it's in here enough times. P1 is the only requirement that has to be met. It can be met by working to BS7671. It can be met by working to the NEC. It can also be met by having an understanding of what makes BS7671-compliant installations safe and broadly following the principles to a sufficient extent that what you do meets P1.

The crucial thing to avoid is claiming blanket compliance with BS7671, since that would require you to do your own testing.

I guess you could claim that you had complied with P1 by meeting the relevant requirements in Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6 of BS7671.

 

[Pensdown]

It quite possible that P2 has been removed to allow building control to sign off works.

Section 1.27 clearly states that if BC have to sign off works carried out by a non PP installer they will not issue a BS-7671 certificate as they didn't carry out the works. This would not meet the old P2

I'm tending to agree these ammedments give the self installer much more scope to do their own works if they wish. Without going silly on the legal stuff so long as the new installation is seen to meet P1 by what ever means the installer chooses then BC will happy. A test cert would be the simplest way but it would apear it's no longer the only way.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

P2 was "Sufficient information shall be provided so that persons wishing to operate, maintain or alter an electrical installation can do so with reasonable safety", which I never took to mean testing, but providing a schedule of circuits, labelling of protective devices and isolators etc....

 

[Pensdown]

If P2 was left in place within the new amendments and for example you did some work via the notifiable route, when BC came to do their bit (section 1.26) I'm sure that like me you would have expected a test cert to be issued to meet P2 and not just some O&M type stuff. BC would have a very weak case in trying to prove they have meet P2 without testing and issuing one.

The first question I would ask - give me some information so that I can see the RCCD for the garden trips within the defined time and at the correct current level.

I'm sure you may have even more and the poor inspector would run all the way back to his nest with his tail between his legs