Schedule4-How to rewire most of your house without notifying

[ban-all-sheds]

So what he decided was that deceitful behaviour meant that in Mr B's case the literal wording of the law should not be applied.

Seems to me that the same principle could well come into play if someone deceitfully damaged their cables in order to be allowed to replace them without notifying, or deceitfully replaced first the enclosure of their CU and then the MCBs within it in order to replace the CU without notifying.

 

[JohnW2]

So what he decided was that deceitful behaviour meant that in Mr B's case the literal wording of the law should not be applied.

You'd have to ask him, but my reading is that the judge believed that by virtue of his deceipt, deliberately misleading statements, etc., he had disqualified himself from being able to take advatange of the words of that law, whatever they might be.

Seems to me that the same principle could well come into play if someone deceitfully damaged their cables in order to be allowed to replace them without notifying, or deceitfully replaced first the enclosure of their CU and then the MCBs within it in order to replace the CU without notifying.

I agree that the first of those may come close (as I've always said, it's too contrived' for me) - but, as I've always said, deliberately damaging cables had never been part of any argument I've produced, not the least because I don't think it's necessary. However, I don't think that replacing a CU enclosure, followed by the contents, is in the same category. there is no deceipt, anything misleading or anything 'underhand' about that, since it appears to be lawful to do that without notification per the word of the law.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

However, I don't think that replacing a CU enclosure, followed by the contents, is in the same category. there is no deceipt, anything misleading or anything 'underhand' about that, since it appears to be lawful to do that without notification per the word of the law.

I'm not sure I really see that much difference. You and I agree that it should not be so, but let's assume for a moment that the two notification scenarios were being examined in court from the point of view of whether somebody was "manipulating" the precise way the work was done to remain within the letter of the regulations while it was believed that the intent of the (badly written) regulations was that the jobs should be notifiable.

In one case the argument would be that replacing a consumer unit as a complete unit is notifiable, therefore replacing the enclosure first then replacing each individual device within it was an attempt to "bypass" the (badly written) regulations, even though what was done was fully within the precise word of those regulations.

In the other case, the argument would be that a complete rewire, including cables in kitchens etc. is notifiable, and that deliberately damaging each and every cable in the house was an attempt to use the replacement-cable clause in order to "bypass" notification, even though what was done was fully within the precise word of the regulations, since they make absolutely no mention about how the cables come to be damaged, and it's certainly not illegal to damage your own cables.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure I really see that much difference.

I understand what you are saying but, 'in my bones', deliberately damaging cables so as to being able to replace them without notification feels more 'wrong' (manipulative, contrived) than merely exploiting a badly-written bit of law.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I understand what you are saying but, 'in my bones', deliberately damaging cables so as to being able to replace them without notification feels more 'wrong' (manipulative, contrived) than merely exploiting a badly-written bit of law.

But isn't deliberately damaging the cables in order to replace them under the appropriate clause also just exploiting those badly written regulations?