Quick check on part P compliance

[ban-all-sheds]

BS7671:2001 (and 2008) is quite clear. The zones do not apply to a 'bath' or a 'shower'. The zones are defined as applying to 'locations containing a bath or shower'.

Yes, but the extents of the Zones are defined relative to the edges of the bath etc.

I'm not sure how anyone can confuse this wording.

Well I'm not sure how anyone can think that

"a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath..."

makes no sense, but there you go - I'm sure people can read it for themselves and see if it makes sense to them.

 

[FingRinal]

We can go around in circles if you like, but what's the point?

The wording of the Building Regulations is not clear cut b/w.

An argument was based on an assumption that 'Part P' notification applied to 'locations' containing a bath or shower. You cut and pasted the wording from the Building Regs as absolute proof of your argument that Part P notification only applied to the zones as defined in BS7671:2001 (16th Edition) and that it was the Law.

One quick read of the actually wording and it's clear that to take your position, certain 'assumptions' must be made.

The law doesn't work on assumptions as regards to legal definitions. If it did everyone would be innocent, (or guilty - even worse).

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying you're right. I'm saying that your assumption of what in your opinion is a legal absolute, is not.

So, you accept that the wording of the Building Regulations is either perfect (in which case the bit about zones doesn't make sense) or is woolly (in which case the bit about zones can't be used as a cast iron, b/w definition of a special location) and further clarification must be provided by a Court of Law or else assumed from other documentation published in relation to the Building Regulations i.e. Approved Document P or electrical work in general i.e. BS7671, OSG, IEE Guide to Building Regs etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We can go around in circles if you like, but what's the point?

None.

The wording of the Building Regulations is not clear cut b/w.

It is to me.

An argument was based on an assumption that 'Part P' notification applied to 'locations' containing a bath or shower. You cut and pasted the wording from the Building Regs as absolute proof of your argument that Part P notification only applied to the zones as defined in BS7671:2001 (16th Edition) and that it was the Law.

Well - the words I copied are from the law, and they say that only work within the zones specified for a bath etc is notifiable.

One quick read of the actually wording and it's clear that to take your position, certain 'assumptions' must be made.

The only assumption I've made is that, in the absence of any precedent to create a different interpretation, the words mean what they say.

Should a local authority ever get someone in court for not notifying work done in a bathroom but beyond the boundaries of Zone 3 then we may get a ruling from a court, but until then...

So, you accept that the wording of the Building Regulations is either perfect (in which case the bit about zones doesn't make sense)

Ah - but what should people do if, like me, the wording in the Statutory Instrument makes perfect sense to them?

Anyway - as you say, no point in worrying this to death - as in all things, even those which are without doubt a contravention (e.g. not notifying a rewire), people must take responsibility for their own decisions.

 

[FingRinal]

Ah - but what should people do if, like me, the wording in the Statutory Instrument makes perfect sense to them?

They should hope that the actual 'Law' would agree with them if ever the actual 'Law' had to make a ruling. I hope you are not assuming to be the absolute authority on all matters pertaining to the Law.

Equally, it could be asked what people should do if, unlike you, the wording in the Statutory Instrument makes a different sense to them, or makes no sense at all and is thus invalid until validated by a Court of Law.

You have your interpretation, so allow others to have theirs. Only a Court of Law can offer a binding definition.

 

[plugwash]

You have your interpretation, so allow others to have theirs. Only a Court of Law can offer a binding definition.

Which of course is unlikely to ever happen because only the really bad cases are ever likely to get prosecuted.

 

[Softus]

Equally, it could be asked what people should do if, unlike you, the wording in the Statutory Instrument makes a different sense to them, or makes no sense at all and is thus invalid until validated by a Court of Law.

They should put down their rusk and ask their mum.

 

[FingRinal]

Equally, it could be asked what people should do if, unlike you, the wording in the Statutory Instrument makes a different sense to them, or makes no sense at all and is thus invalid until validated by a Court of Law.

They should put down their rusk and ask their mum.

I take you you're not weaned then Softie? Either that or you're still struggling with the basics of the English language.

 

[Softus]

They should hope that the actual 'Law' would agree with them if ever the actual 'Law' had to make a ruling.
.
.
.
Only a Court of Law can offer a binding definition.

Pure hogwash.

Back in the real world, the BCO says what complies and what doesn't.

 

[FingRinal]

They should hope that the actual 'Law' would agree with them if ever the actual 'Law' had to make a ruling. Only a Court of Law can offer a binding definition.

Pure hogwash.

Are you really attempting to suggest that a Court of Law would not provide a binding definition if the matter ended up in a Court of Law and the 'definition' were disputed by the opposing QC's? (In the real world that is)

Back in the real world, the BCO says what complies and what doesn't.

I would agree with you on that point. But then the point BAS is attempting to make is not of the real world. It is based purely on the pedantry of accepting the absolute definition as written in the Building Regulations - which makes no sense as nowhere in BS7671:2001 are any zones defined for a bath or shower. If there are, please quote them

 

[Softus]

Are you really attempting to suggest that a Court of Law would not provide a binding definition if the matter ended up in a Court of Law and the 'definition' were disputed by the opposing QC's? (In the real world that is)

You seem obsessed with this idea of a court ruling. It's neither necessary nor relevant.

...the point BAS is attempting to make is not of the real world.

You're wrong.

It is based purely on the pedantry of accepting the absolute definition as written in the Building Regulations

You're wrong.

which makes no sense as nowhere in BS7671:2001 are any zones defined for a bath or shower. If there are, please quote them

You seem hell bent on maintaining a closed mind, and on referring to trumped up conclusions that nobody has drawn.

If you were simply honest about your pathetic and desperate need to prove ban-all-sheds wrong, then at least there would be that one small reason to respect your posts.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would agree with you on that point. But then the point BAS is attempting to make is not of the real world.

It is absolutely of the real world - it is based entirely on the real words written in the real law.

It is based purely on the pedantry of accepting the absolute definition as written in the Building Regulations

If ever you are in court charged with something, try claiming that believing what the law says is just pedantry.

which makes no sense as nowhere in BS7671:2001 are any zones defined for a bath or shower. If there are, please quote them

Zone 0 is the interior of the bath tub or shower basin.

Zone 1 is limited by... the vertical plane(s) circumscribing the bath tub or shower basin...

Maybe the words in the SI don't make sense to you, but they seem to make sense to everybody else, and they are perfectly logical and consistent with the definitions in BS 7671:2001.

We can go around in circles if you like, but what's the point?.

 

[conny]

Just a thought.

If BS76712001) has been superseded by BS76712008) and the Building Regs have not been updated since January 2001 then wouldn't it make sense to work to the latest regs of whatever service you are installing?

E.G. for electrical work you would adhere to BS76712008),
for Plumbing/heating you would adhere to BS (whatever),
for structural work, (lofts etc) you would adhere to BS (whatever)

Seems the sensible thing to do from my point of view.

As I said, just a thought.

 

[FingRinal]

Are you really attempting to suggest that a Court of Law would not provide a binding definition if the matter ended up in a Court of Law and the 'definition' were disputed by the opposing QC's? (In the real world that is)

You seem obsessed with this idea of a court ruling. It's neither necessary nor relevant.

I'm not, but it appears you and BAS are.

You seem hell bent on maintaining a closed mind, and on referring to trumped up conclusions that nobody has drawn.

Mine is always open - unlike, it would appear, yours.

If you were simply honest about your pathetic and desperate need to prove ban-all-sheds wrong, then at least there would be that one small reason to respect your posts.

Facts are facts and if you can't accept that, I rather fancy it's you who is being pathetic.

 

[FingRinal]

I would agree with you on that point. But then the point BAS is attempting to make is not of the real world.

It is absolutely of the real world - it is based entirely on the real words written in the real law.

Then you must accept that the point in law which you are slavishly adhering to is a piece of written nonsense. If you don't think it is, please show me where in BS7671:2001 (or 2008) that zones are defined ' for a bath or shower'. It is you, not I, who is taking the literal word of the law and as such you must accept responsibility for your belief in something which does not make sense.

I know you've repeated this argument across several forums so you stand to have a lot of egg on your chin, but that should not get in the way of fact.

If ever you are in court charged with something, try claiming that believing what the law says is just pedantry.

Here you go again, body swerving and making things up. What I said is that it is you who is arguing points of pedantry based on a wholly flawed understanding of what is actually written in the law that you have quoted. There are no Zones defined 'for a bath or shower' in BS7671:2001. It is a fact. If you can show where the wording exists, I will happily accept your argument.

What you can't do BAS (but which you always do) is slavishly adhere word for word to make one argument and then 'fill in the gaps' to make another when it suits.

Zone 1 is limited by... the vertical plane(s) circumscribing the bath tub or shower basin...

Limited by a vertical plane does not mean the same as 'for a bath'. There are no Zones for a bath or shower. There are Zones defined for a 'location containing a bath or shower' but that is a different thing altogether. A zone FOR a bath means just that - FOR a bath.

Maybe the words in the SI don't make sense to you, but they seem to make sense to everybody else, and they are perfectly logical and consistent with the definitions in BS 7671:2001.

And they shouldn't mean anything to you either as they don't mean anything meaningful at all.

 

[Softus]

You seem obsessed with this idea of a court ruling. It's neither necessary nor relevant.

I'm not, but it appears you and BAS are.

Obsessed? Really? I've mentioned a court ruling once, and merely in reply to your post, and yet you've mentioned it several times.

You seem hell bent on maintaining a closed mind, and on referring to trumped up conclusions that nobody has drawn.

Mine is always open.

You're wrong.

If you were simply honest about your pathetic and desperate need to prove ban-all-sheds wrong, then at least there would be that one small reason to respect your posts.

Facts are facts...

And it's a fact that the Building Regulations are clear and unambiguous wrt zones and notification.

No poster on this topic has succeeded in outlining more than one intepretation that makes sense. If you're able to imagine more than one, then that's exactly where they remain - in your imagination.