Quick check on part P compliance

[FingRinal]

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.

And you've just mentioned it again

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.

I like a plumber with a sense of humour

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.

That means you too, and your pal BAS. As such, an argument has commenced, which, if it went to its fullest conclusion, would end up in court and the Court of Law would decide. Which is kind of what I've been saying all along. For any individual to start waxing lyrical on the 'Law' as though their word was absolute in every way displays an arrogance or a stupidity the likes of which is indicative of serious mental delusions.

So, in the real world, I advise people to stick to the publications which have been produced to help them - Approved Docs, BS7671, OSG, IEE Guidance Notes etc... they are there to help you without getting all fried up in mumbo jumbo. Leave the legal documents to the professionals )lawyers) and not to DIYing book worm librarians with too much time on their hands.

 

[Softus]

...yet you've mentioned it several times.

And you've just mentioned it again

It's natural to mention the thing that you accuse me of being obsessed about, in the course of replying to that accusation. The fact remains that I mentioned it once, before the point at which you asserted that I'm obsessed about it.

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.

That means you too...

I assure that it means no such thing. And since I wrote it, I'm fully qualified to give that assurance.

So, in the real world, I advise people to stick to the publications which have been produced to help them - Approved Docs, BS7671...

I've truncated that quote because it was getting too comical.

The Approved Document P itself contains errors and ambiguities. Notwithstanding that, it's not the law.

And I challenge your assertion that BS7671 was produced either for anyone other than electricians to read, or to 'be helpful'. Notwithstanding that, it's not the law.

Whatever you regard the Building Regulations to be, even if it's "mumbo jumbo" to you, it doesn't change the fact that it overrides both BS7671:2008 and your own beliefs, in the context of zones and notification, nor the fact that it's perfectly clear to a lot of people.

If you're having difficulty in interpreting its meaning, then so be it. There's nothing you can do, and nothing you can write, that will remove the clarity for those of us who can easily see it.

 

[FingRinal]

The Approved Document P itself contains errors and ambiguities. Notwithstanding that, it's not the law.

Only a Court of Law is the law. However deluded you and BAS are on this, it is a Court of Law that finds a person guilty or not guilty. It's a small consideration in a free and civilised society, but it's one which has obviously slipped your mind.

The definition of a Special Location as defined in the Building Regs is a nonsense. No amount of your silly comments can change that. Now that both you and BAS have understood your long standing misunderstanding on this point, you seem unable to accept the prodigious amounts of egg on your chins.

And I challenge your assertion that BS7671 was produced either for anyone other than electricians to read, or to 'be helpful'. Notwithstanding that, it's not the law.

I'm very sorry that you are unable to find BS7671 helpful. I find it very informative and very helpful as do thousands of other intelligent people.
But here you go again - asserting what is and isn't the law. You can fool some fools some of the time...Here is one example in which BS7671 becomes the Law as you insist on calling it. A contract is signed in which 'activity A' will be installated in strict compliance with Regulation x,y,z of BS7671:2008'. That would be called Contract Law. I've chosen a simple example as to use a more complex example would surely cause your brain to explode.

Whatever you regard the Building Regulations to be, even if it's "mumbo jumbo" to you, it doesn't change the fact that it overrides both BS7671:2008 and your own beliefs, in the context of zones and notification, nor the fact that it's perfectly clear to a lot of people.

Can you provide a legal definition for 'over-rides'? In exactly what way does it over-ride BS7671 - earthing and bonding, Max. Zs? In which legal situations would it over-ride BS7671? Also, it's nice of you to presume to know my beliefs and to specify what over-rides my beliefs. Try and stick to facts and not bring hocus-pocus into your arguments.

You might like to note that it was once perfectly clear to lots of 'educated' people that the Earth was flat. The fact, however, remained unchanged. No matter how much you prattle on, the fact remains that BS7671:2001 does not defines any Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

If in your own fantasy world, you accept the absolute authority of the Building Regs as the 'Law', you must also accept it exactly as it is written. Like BAS, you are guilty of simply ignoring the wording when is suits you and if you presented such an argument in a Court of Law, I'm sure a recess would be callled for fear that laughter would bring the roof down.

If you're having difficulty in interpreting its meaning, then so be it. There's nothing you can do, and nothing you can write, that will remove the clarity for those of us who can easily see it.

I'm afraid it is you who is having difficulty in understanding the written word. And nothing you can write or say or do can change the fact that BS7671:2001 does not define Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'. Whatever the 'intentions' of the definition in the Building Regs, the fact is that as written, they do not make sense because BS7671:2001 does not define Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

Maybe the Zones are actually FOR the purpose of specifying physical areas within a location in order to define which electrical equipment can be selected and erected in them. The reference point may be a bath or a shower, but the Zones are not FOR a bath or shower.

I say 'maybe' because unlike you and BAS I don't presume that I am able to make a ruling on a matter of the 'Law' or offer an an absolute defintion. on a point of Law. I'm afraid I'm not deluded in that way.

Anyway, it's going around in circles. I can accept that we differ on this

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Only a Court of Law is the law. However deluded you and BAS are on this, it is a Court of Law that finds a person guilty or not guilty. It's a small consideration in a free and civilised society, but it's one which has obviously slipped your mind.

And you say you're not obsessed by the idea of a court ruling?

You introduced the issue into this topic in your very first contribution, and so far you've mentioned it 15 times in 7 posts.

The definition of a Special Location as defined in the Building Regs is a nonsense.

It is not a nonsense. The fact that it isn't worded how you think it should be does not make it so.

No amount of your silly comments can change that. Now that both you and BAS have understood your long standing misunderstanding on this point, you seem unable to accept the prodigious amounts of egg on your chins.

I have no long standing misunderstanding.

Here is one example in which BS7671 becomes the Law as you insist on calling it. A contract is signed in which 'activity A' will be installated in strict compliance with Regulation x,y,z of BS7671:2008'. That would be called Contract Law.

For heaven's sake.

That does not make BS 7671 the law any more than it makes silver birch trees the law if a contract for garden landscaping specifies that they shall be planted.

No matter how much you prattle on, the fact remains that BS7671:2001 does not defines any Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

BS 7671 makes it clear that in a location containing a bath or a shower there are spaces called Zones.

For a bath, Zone 0 is the interior of the bath tub.

For a shower, Zone 0 is the interior of the shower basin.

For a bath, Zone 1 is limited by... the vertical plane(s) circumscribing the bath tub...

For a shower, Zone 1 is limited by... the vertical plane(s) circumscribing the shower basin...

If in your own fantasy world, you accept the absolute authority of the Building Regs as the 'Law', you must also accept it exactly as it is written. Like BAS, you are guilty of simply ignoring the wording when is suits you and if you presented such an argument in a Court of Law, I'm sure a recess would be callled for fear that laughter would bring the roof down.

If accepting Regulations exactly as written is such a wrong thing to do, then surely it's perfectly OK to look at the Wiring Regulations, and despite the fact that the exact phrase "the zones for a bath" is not used, to see that they quite clearly do define the zones for a bath?

Whatever the 'intentions' of the definition in the Building Regs, the fact is that as written, they do not make sense because BS7671:2001 does not define Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

They make perfect sense.

I say 'maybe' because unlike you and BAS I don't presume that I am able to make a ruling on a matter of the 'Law' or offer an an absolute defintion. on a point of Law. I'm afraid I'm not deluded in that way.

Are you able to use common sense?

If an avant-garde warehouse conversion resulted in a non-partitioned living space 50m x 30m. and in one corner there was a shower, would you claim that adding a socket in the other corner was notifiable because there was a shower nearly 200' away?

I'm sure you can find the time to type 2 or 3 letters as an answer to that question.

 

[FingRinal]

From GN7:

Zones provide a practical method of specifying requirements for protection against the ingress of water and protection against electric shock, supplementary bonding etc. Equipment is either in a zone or outside a zone and this can be determined by measurement.

It doesn't say that a Zone is specified FOR a bath or FOR a shower.

The law is full of rulings based on minute technicalities - some to do with wording and definitions. I'm sorry that you are unable to accept this fact.

You can assume whatever you want from the wording. Just please don't assume that everyone has to be forced into assuming the same thing.

Softie (bless him) made a valid point about the BCO and before this I made the valid point that Building Regs and Planning are two different things.

Please please please don't assume that your 'opinion' or your 'common sense' have any legal standing in any court in any part of the world. Your opinion would only matter IF a Court of Law decided that it mattered. And that is a completely different thing altogether.

 

[Softus]

Only a Court of Law is the law. However deluded you and BAS are on this, it is a Court of Law that finds a person guilty or not guilty.

It's generally only poor salespeople and weak debaters who use the transparent ploy of asking a question to which the only reasonable answer is "yes", then act as though it proves a point in a completely unrelated argument.

Chocolate swiss rolls are known to taste scrummy, but failing to bring the fact into this topic doesn't equate to being deluded.

Can a court overrule the wording in the Building Regulations? Of course it can. Is this fact relevant to this topic? Of course it isn't.

The definition of a Special Location as defined in the Building Regs is a nonsense.

So you've said, but repeating it doesn't make it true. I happen to be one of the many people who understand it, and the fact that this seems to attract your criticism is both amusing and bemusing.

Here is one example in which BS7671 becomes the Law as you insist on calling it. A contract is signed in which 'activity A' will be installated in strict compliance with Regulation x,y,z of BS7671:2008'. That would be called Contract Law.

Wrong. It would be called a contract, and is not 'the law'.

Breaking the law is a criminal act that is punishable by the state. Breaching a contract is a civil act that is remedied by compensation payable to the wronged party, and can be ordered and enforced by a court. Failure to follow a court order is a criminal act, but the original breach isn't.

Similarly, contravening the BRs is a criminal act, but breaching a contract in a way that contravenes the WRs, as long it's done in a safe way and in all other ways in accordance with the BRs, isn't a crime, and no clause in any contract can make it one.

Whatever you regard the Building Regulations to be, even if it's "mumbo jumbo" to you, it doesn't change the fact that it overrides both BS7671:2008 and your own beliefs, in the context of zones and notification, nor the fact that it's perfectly clear to a lot of people.

Can you provide a legal definition for 'over-rides'?

It's very easy: The Wiring Regulations aren't statutory. The Building Regulations are. If the two documents were to contradict each other, then the latter takes precedent.

BS7671:2001 does not defines any Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

That is not a fact, it's a stupid semantical argument.

You are guilty of simply ignoring the wording when is suits you

Please point out which wording in the Building Regulations I've ignored.

And nothing you can write or say or do can change the fact that BS7671:2001 does not define Zones 'for a bath' or 'for a shower'.

I beg to differ. But since you've said that this won't make any difference to you, I don't see that this can be taken any further.

Anyway, it's going around in circles. I can accept that we differ on this

I completely agree.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From GN7:

Zones provide a practical method of specifying requirements for protection against the ingress of water and protection against electric shock, supplementary bonding etc. Equipment is either in a zone or outside a zone and this can be determined by measurement.

It doesn't say that a Zone is specified FOR a bath or FOR a shower.

No, it doesn't.

But I suppose it will do no good whatsoever to point out to you that the phrase "within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower..." makes perfect sense.

The law is full of rulings based on minute technicalities - some to do with wording and definitions. I'm sorry that you are unable to accept this fact.

I do accept it, but accepting it does not mean that in the absence of a ruling telling me what something means I have to act as if I have no idea what it means.

You can assume whatever you want from the wording. Just please don't assume that everyone has to be forced into assuming the same thing.

I'm not.

I'm saying that the wording in the law makes perfect sense. I know that you don't understand it, but then not everyone is like you.

Please please please don't assume that your 'opinion' or your 'common sense' have any legal standing in any court in any part of the world. Your opinion would only matter IF a Court of Law decided that it mattered.

As would yours.

I am no more assuming that people have to be forced into accepting my opinion than you are assuming they should be forced into accepting yours.

But whereas I am arguing against your conclusions because I consider them to be based on illogical reasoning and a quite staggering lack of common sense, you seem to be arguing that I should not be expressing an opinion at all.

I may be wrong about the lack of logic and common sense you're applying, so to help in that regard can you tell us whether in an avant-garde warehouse conversion resulting in a non-partitioned living space 50m x 30m, with a shower in one corner, you would claim that adding a socket in the other corner was notifiable because there was a shower nearly 200' away?

 

[FingRinal]

It doesn't say that a Zone is specified FOR a bath or FOR a shower.

No, it doesn't.

Thank you.

But I suppose it will do no good whatsoever to point out to you that the phrase "within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower..." makes perfect sense.

There are no Zones specified for a bath or a shower whichever way you try to put it.

The law is full of rulings based on minute technicalities - some to do with wording and definitions. I'm sorry that you are unable to accept this fact.

I do accept it, but accepting it does not mean that in the absence of a ruling telling me what something means I have to act as if I have no idea what it means.

It also doesn't mean that in the absence of a ruling that you have the authority to declare what is and isn't the Law. In fact whether there is a ruling or not, you do not have the authority to declare what it and isn't the Law. You might refer to a case, or a precedent, or a ruling, but that is all. But for you to declare in absolute terms what is and isn't the Law is wishful thinking at best.

You can assume whatever you want from the wording. Just please don't assume that everyone has to be forced into assuming the same thing.

I'm not.

Good. Then you'll have no trouble retracting your statement as to what is 'the LAW'.

I'm saying that the wording in the law makes perfect sense. I know that you don't understand it, but then not everyone is like you.

I'm sorry that people like you can't understand simple English.

Please please please don't assume that your 'opinion' or your 'common sense' have any legal standing in any court in any part of the world. Your opinion would only matter IF a Court of Law decided that it mattered.

As would yours.

I have never argued that my opinion is the Law - unlike you. There is a difference.

I am no more assuming that people have to be forced into accepting my opinion than you are assuming they should be forced into accepting yours.

Yet you've already conceded that my opinion is correct - that it is for a Court of Law to determine the Law and not you.

But whereas I am arguing against your conclusions because I consider them to be based on illogical reasoning and a quite staggering lack of common sense, you seem to be arguing that I should not be expressing an opinion at all.

If you can provide an extract from a Statutory Document or similar that specifically legislates for 'common sense', I might be prepared to consider the point. There is no Law against having an opinion, but that does necessarily make that opinion Law.

I may be wrong about the lack of logic and common sense you're applying, so to help in that regard can you tell us whether in an avant-garde warehouse conversion resulting in a non-partitioned living space 50m x 30m, with a shower in one corner, you would claim that adding a socket in the other corner was notifiable because there was a shower nearly 200' away?

What has this got to do with whether or not you have the authority to declare what is or isn't the 'Law'?

But I would ask which corner and exactly where? I would ask if the socket were to be added to a new circuit. I would ask if the socket were to be added in the kitchen, or an en-suite area, or a sauna. In fact I would do my job properly and ascertain ALL of the facts instead of willy nilly committing my liability to such an open ended scenario. I'm sorry if these questions passed you by, but then you aren't a professional and as such I wouldn't expect it of you.

 

[Softus]

It also doesn't mean that in the absence of a ruling that you have the authority to declare what is and isn't the Law. In fact whether there is a ruling or not, you do not have the authority to declare what it and isn't the Law. You might refer to a case, or a precedent, or a ruling, but that is all. But for you to declare in absolute terms what is and isn't the Law is wishful thinking at best.

It doesn't need to be declared - it's already been done:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 1(1), 35 and 47(4) of, and paragraphs 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 to, the Building Act 1984.

The Building Regs are too The Law, doo-dah, doo-dah,
The Building Regs are too The Law, doo-diddly-ooh-dah-day.

The Wiring Regs are not The Law, doo-dah, doo-dah,, doo-dah,
The Wiring Regs are not The Law...

 

[holmslaw]

Deleted and text put in new post titled "bathrooms", did'ne want to upset their squabbling.

 

[FingRinal]

Softie,

I won't dignify such childish gibberish with a meaningful response. Suffice to say that I am not surprised that being a plumber, you are well-equipped for making nonsensical, over the top, gibberish statements and passing them off to the unsuspecting public as meaningful and factual

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are no Zones specified for a bath or a shower whichever way you try to put it.

No, there aren't, but to say that therefore the phrase "within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower..." is gibberish or makes nonsense is ridiculous.

It also doesn't mean that in the absence of a ruling that you have the authority to declare what is and isn't the Law. In fact whether there is a ruling or not, you do not have the authority to declare what it and isn't the Law. You might refer to a case, or a precedent, or a ruling, but that is all. But for you to declare in absolute terms what is and isn't the Law is wishful thinking at best.

I have full authority to quote the words in the law, and full authority to say what I think they mean.

Good. Then you'll have no trouble retracting your statement as to what is 'the LAW'.

I've stated what the law says. If you believe that I am wrong then please show where I have quoted it incorrectly.

I'm sorry that people like you can't understand simple English.

To me, "a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth
edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards
Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2." is very simple.

I have never argued that my opinion is the Law - unlike you. There is a difference.

You have argued incessantly that your opinion, i.e. that the law does not mean what it says on paper until a court agrees is the only opinion which is valid.

I am no more assuming that people have to be forced into accepting my opinion than you are assuming they should be forced into accepting yours.

Yet you've already conceded that my opinion is correct - that it is for a Court of Law to determine the Law and not you.

So you're not certain that your opinion is correct?

If you can provide an extract from a Statutory Document or similar that specifically legislates for 'common sense', I might be prepared to consider the point. There is no Law against having an opinion, but that does necessarily make that opinion Law.

Can you provide an an extract from a Statutory Document or similar that specifically forbids applying common sense?

What has this got to do with whether or not you have the authority to declare what is or isn't the 'Law'?

Absolutely nothing - stop trying to evade the question.

But I would ask which corner and exactly where?

And you criticise others for what you term "pedantry"??

But OK - if it makes you happier I will rephrase the question so that you are no longer struggling to understand it.

I would ask if the socket were to be added to a new circuit. I would ask if the socket were to be added in the kitchen, or an en-suite area, or a sauna. In fact I would do my job properly and ascertain ALL of the facts instead of willy nilly committing my liability to such an open ended scenario.

There may be all sorts of reasons why it might be notifiable, but my question was only about one of the possible reasons.

So as well as clarifying the part which caused you so much confusion, I'll highlight the part which shows that I am only asking about one possible reason, then you can feel free to stop evading.

If an avant-garde warehouse conversion resulted in a non-partitioned rectangular living space 50m x 30m, and in one corner there was a shower, would you claim that adding a socket in the diagonally opposite corner was notifiable because there was a shower nearly 200' away?

 

[FingRinal]

I don't think anyone can logically argue against bas's interpretation, he is also correct that the building regs are the only applicable statutory standard.

There are plenty of other statutory standards which may or may not be applicable.

I'll give one example - part p approved document says "In large bathrooms, the location containing a bath or shower is defined by the walls of the bathroom". This statement seems to be a direct contradiction of the building regs. In that it defines the "location" as the "bathroom", rather than "location within the zones".

Have you considered that the Approved Document was written after the Building Regs were passed (and then amended)? And that the authors of the Approved Document realised the poor wording of that part of the Building Regs and sought to clarify the matter in a way that is meaningful and practicable. It is easier to re-publish Approved Documents than to attempt to endure the process entailed with Statutory ones. Which is why I repeat the advice to use such documents as they are intended to help and to clarify in every day language the legal language of statutory documents.

If I were doing a bathroom tomorrow I would comply with the dimensioned zones, bonding and provision of rcd's to ALL circuits and I would not install ANY 13Amp sockets. The installation would then comply with the 16th, 17th, partp approved document and the building regs. And if the client has a problem with that, he can get someone else to do the job.

A sensible approach.

I've always thought the 16th and 17th bathroom regs where a load of old b******s and I've never read, seen or heard anything to convince me otherwise.

Other documentation is thus produced to help overcome such ambiguities, as is the guidance offered by the various Electrical Schemes/bodies.

If one wishes to bind all one's arguments to the written word of the Law, one can't expect to then play fast and loose with the wording when it doesn't suit.

My argument isn't limited to the definition of the wording quoted from the Building Regs, but extends to BAS's megalomaniacal declarations of what is and what isn't the Law.

 

[FingRinal]

There are no Zones specified for a bath or a shower whichever way you try to put it.

No, there aren't, but to say that therefore the phrase "within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower..." is gibberish or makes nonsense is ridiculous.

They don't mean anything so choose whichever words you like to describe this fact.

It also doesn't mean that in the absence of a ruling that you have the authority to declare what is and isn't the Law. In fact whether there is a ruling or not, you do not have the authority to declare what it and isn't the Law. You might refer to a case, or a precedent, or a ruling, but that is all. But for you to declare in absolute terms what is and isn't the Law is wishful thinking at best.

I have full authority to quote the words in the law, and full authority to say what I think they mean.

You have no authority unless you can prove that you have. Of course you can express an opinion. You can also think what you like. However, if what you do brings you into a legal situation, the matter will be decided by a Court of Law. It will not be decided by you.

Good. Then you'll have no trouble retracting your statement as to what is 'the LAW'.

I've stated what the law says. If you believe that I am wrong then please show where I have quoted it incorrectly.

You've stated what a Statutory Instrument says. There is a difference. I'm sorry that you continue to fail to see it.

I'm sorry that people like you can't understand simple English.

To me, "a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth
edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards
Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2." is very simple.

I repeat, I'm sorry people like you can't understand simple English. It may mean to you whatever it means. However, that is not the same as saying that it can't mean anything else to anyone else.

I have never argued that my opinion is the Law - unlike you. There is a difference.

You have argued incessantly that your opinion, i.e. that the law does not mean what it says on paper until a court agrees is the only opinion which is valid.

There is a difference between saying what the Law is according to you and saying that the Law can only be decided by a Court of Law.

I am no more assuming that people have to be forced into accepting my opinion than you are assuming they should be forced into accepting yours.

Yet you've already conceded that my opinion is correct - that it is for a Court of Law to determine the Law and not you.

So you're not certain that your opinion is correct?

My opinion is that it is a Court of Law that decides legal matters and not the likes of you. You did agree with this but now you seem to have changed your mind and retracted your agreement.

If you can provide an extract from a Statutory Document or similar that specifically legislates for 'common sense', I might be prepared to consider the point. There is no Law against having an opinion, but that does necessarily make that opinion Law.

Can you provide an an extract from a Statutory Document or similar that specifically forbids applying common sense?

I'm not falling for that one. I asked you first as it is you who asserted that common sense is defined in Law.

What has this got to do with whether or not you have the authority to declare what is or isn't the 'Law'?

Absolutely nothing - stop trying to evade the question.

Then supply all the variables instead of rather clumsily using a loaded gun technique.

But I would ask which corner and exactly where?

And you criticise others for what you term "pedantry"??

I'm sorry that you think doing a proper job is pedantry. I'm sorry that you think location, length of cable run, installation method, design current etc. are the machinations of a pedant.

But OK - if it makes you happier I will rephrase the question so that you are no longer struggling to understand it.

I understood enough to understand that is was gibberish.

I would ask if the socket were to be added to a new circuit. I would ask if the socket were to be added in the kitchen, or an en-suite area, or a sauna. In fact I would do my job properly and ascertain ALL of the facts instead of willy nilly committing my liability to such an open ended scenario.

Alas. I am not a mind reader. I take it from this that your approach is just to steam ahead and make all sorts of assumptions. And when it all goes wrong to blame someone else.

There may be all sorts of reasons why it might be notifiable, but my question was only about one of the possible reasons.

Yet that is not how you phrased your answer. Perhaps if you took the time to be less abrasive and absolute, your opinions might make sense in the real world.

So as well as clarifying the part which caused you so much confusion, I'll highlight the part which shows that I am only asking about one possible reason, then you can feel free to stop evading.

If an avant-garde warehouse conversion resulted in a non-partitioned rectangular living space 50m x 30m, and in one corner there was a shower, would you claim that adding a socket in the diagonally opposite corner was notifiable because there was a shower nearly 200' away?

Again, not enough information. Perhaps in your avant-garde open plan living space, you have an indoor waterfall cascading down the corner in question.

By the way, I thought the Forum had rules on things like shouting. So please refrain from shouting otherwise the Moderators might rebuke you.

 

[holmslaw]

I don't think anyone can logically argue against bas's interpretation, he is also correct that the building regs are the only applicable statutory standard.

There are plenty of other statutory standards which may or may not be applicable.

Name one.