Are the bloody Regs statutory or not?

[telectrix]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

 

[Pete999]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

Nice family shot there Mate

 

[Octopus]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

Something useful has come of this rather pointless thread

 

[chrisdungan]

Ask yourself 2 questions
" Is it electrically UNSAFE?"
" What would you say if you had to stand up in the coroner's court?"

That's always my bottom line.

 

[Nigel]

BS 7671 is not statutory as a stand alone document.

However; Building Tegulation state BS 7671 in terms of what to follow and they are law so in effect not following BS 7671 will lead to non-compliance to Building Regulations and possible legal consequences.

Also if a customer states to install to BS 7671 and you agree to take on the work this then becomes a binding contract and you are legally obliged to deliver on it or you could be sued.

In conclusion, BS7671 is indirectly a legal document.

 

[johnduffell]

Building Tegulation state BS 7671 in terms of what to follow and they are law so in effect not following BS 7671 will lead to non-compliance to Building Regulations

This is incorrect. The approved documents refer to bs7671 as a possible way to comply but nowhere in the regulations themselves does it mention them.
Part p the actual part on the statute is very simple:
"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."

Also a contract with a company or customer adding for bs7671 is not in statute that's just a contract and comes under different law

 

[Nigel]

This is incorrect. The approved documents refer to bs7671 as a possible way to comply but nowhere in the regulations themselves does it mention them.
Part p the actual part on the statute is very simple:
"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."

Also a contract with a company or customer adding for bs7671 is not in statute that's just a contract and comes under different law

I never mentioned Part P and your last paragraph is exactly what I said.

 

[Rpa07]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

That picture reminds me, I need to change my duvet!

 

[johnduffell]

I never mentioned Part P and your last paragraph is exactly what I said.

Oh sorry assumed you meant part p, which building regulation were you referring to?

 

[Nigel]

Oh sorry assumed you meant part p, which building regulation were you referring to?

It is one of the Regulations that mentions BS7671. Any Regulation that has any association with electrics will refer to 7671.

 

[johnduffell]

It is one of the Regulations that mentions BS7671. Any Regulation that has any association with electrics will refer to 7671.

That's the approved document not the building regulation. Approved documents are just suggested ways of complying. Bs7671 is just one way of complying.

 

[Nigel]

That's the approved document not the building regulation. Approved documents are just suggested ways of complying. Bs7671 is just one way of complying.

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

 

[Silly Sausage]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

Make your own mind up: Approved Documents | Planning Portal - https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200135/approved_documents

I think the key word there is: support.

Bit like Guidance Notes.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

I think he’s suggesting that there is no mention of BS7671 in the Building Regulations.

 

[Deuce]

My view is that it's basically irrelevant. If a court has to decide if you caused the deaths, or did not, then they will compare your methods to whatever the closest textbook is for the 'right way'.

So if the regs say do 'a', and you went and did 'b', in the view of the court that's where the error was. We can assume the court will not be able to fully understand the nuances of the situation, so will inevitably resort to the nearest rule book they can find.

working out what is technically a legal requirement isn't very useful. In the end, all that matters is being on the right side of what people will ultimately judge as correct, if you were ever to find yourself in that position.

 

[johnduffell]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

Part P of the building regulations is part of the building regs, and approved document p includes the building regulation on the tinted background, together with non statutory guidanceo onways of complying.
For practical purposes it doesn't really affect what we would do, but given the whole title of the thread is about whether the bs7671 is statutory it's a critical distinction.

 

[Percyprod]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

 

[johnduffell]

We can assume the court will not be able to fully understand the nuances of the situation, so will inevitably resort to the nearest rule book they can find.

The court is not an expert in most things really, that's why they call witnesses who are experts. It's a normal practice. I am guessing we would be in chaos pretty quickly if courts made important judgements based on no professional knowledge.

 

[Nigel]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

I would not say there is a ‘general opinion’ as you put it. I would say that in terms of taking out an ‘insurance policy’ following BS7671 is the safest and most sensible way to protect yourself, your family and your home ‘should’ the worst happen.

 

[Deuce]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

Common sense is not PC apparently. It's far easier to just have a textbook approach. Personally though, I would rather all money spent on regulation of just about everything was instead spent on nurturing common sense in people through school!

Anyway yes, if something is safe, then it doesn't really matter if it complies or not. If it's truly safe, then it will never need to be examined to prove otherwise.