BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[ban-all-sheds]

Tut Tut BAS misquoting me

Where did I do that?

Section 17 are the consequences for not following the codes of practice.

Shall we see what Section 17 says?

Oh look:

17. — (1) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of an approved code of practice shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings

So if failing to observe any provision of an approved code of practice doesn't make you liable to criminal proceedings then failing to observe any provision of an approved code of practice cannot be a criminal offence.

If not complying with BS 7671 is not a criminal offence then clearly there is no legal requirement to comply with it.

 

[deejaybee101]

that is an excellent suggestion LiamPope, however, given the the sparks in queestion is an ex-sparks (but not in the ex-parrot sense) and no longer a member of any professional body, and neither trained in the 2008 regs, I'm not sure he is legally able to do that.

However, from what I have read here, it looks like we could honestly claim that to the best of our knowledge it does meet 2008 regs.

The question is, is an honest belief sufficient? (if one has not studied the regs in detail)

 

[Paul_C]

However, from what I have read here, it looks like we could honestly claim that to the best of our knowledge it does meet 2008 regs.

There is no legal requirement whatsoever to have passed any course in order to issue a certificate stating that to the best of your knowledge the installation complies with BS7671 (of any year/edition).

Really, this would come down to whether he would be willing to sign his name to a certificate indicating compliance with BS7671:2008.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ah, ok, i was looking in the introduction, which is what i first referred to.

It's only a few lines above that.

You really are spectacularly ignorant of the document, considering you advised the OP to read it, aren't you.

Its not that i found anything impossible to spot, more that i didn't bother to review it thinking it would be just as easy to ask you. Saved me some time, thanks.

I trust you will understand if, to any future request from you to explain something which really should be very easy for you to understand, or find out, I reply with something along the lines of "**** off and look it up yourself you time-wasting and lazy little ****"

er, whatever.

Well it was what you wrote.

I guess you just couldn't be bothered to go back and review whatever you chose to write at that time, and were unable to remember it because you don't actually mean any of it. As with the business of explaining why you referred the OP to p4 of the Wiring Regs - this is all just a game to you, you little child, isn't it.

Tell you what, why don't you just give your opinion of why it was written in the way it was? Would probably be easier to work out if we agree or not.

**** off and look it up yourself you time-wasting and lazy little ****.

the start of what? I don't believe that you looked through some 20000+ posts in that short space of time.

To the start of this topic, of course.

Why? Surely you weren't attempting to compound your childish irrelevance by trying to introduce something I wrote in other topics, in the past, which have nothing to do with this one?

You were complaining about the suggestion that a negative could be proved.

no i wasn't

No, of course you weren't.

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

I understand that you have a fondness of boolean expressions and how they relate to lawnmowing, but why not simplify your diction in order to simplify your meaning?

nope, im asking you whether you could ask your questions with less negatives within them?.
.
.
I personally have no problem in understanding what you have written, i just think it could be improved to give a greater degree of clarity by not asking to prove negatives.

I see

hhmmm, are you sure?

Oh yes, quite sure now.

aww, gwan, it was the most entertaining pile of nit picking i've read for a while.

It would be utterly pointless for me to add any more to that thread for your benefit - the fact that you used that term shows that you don't have a clue what it was about.

Goodbye, child. Come back when you've grown up.

 

[LoveRocket]

Give it a rest, please Banal.

The OP has had some excellent advice (including from your good self), but he has had to pick through endless multi-quoted OT pedantic arguments to pick it out. Please don't continue to make this thread any more difficult to follow and helpful to no-one.

Cheers.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

ah, ok, i was looking in the introduction, which is what i first referred to.

It's only a few lines above that.

so what. Is it what i invitied the OP to look at? er, no, it isn't.

You really are spectacularly ignorant of the document, considering you advised the OP to read it, aren't you.

no

Its not that i found anything impossible to spot, more that i didn't bother to review it thinking it would be just as easy to ask you. Saved me some time, thanks.

I trust you will understand if, to any future request from you to explain something which really should be very easy for you to understand, or find out, I reply with something along the lines of "**** off and look it up yourself you time-wasting and lazy little ****"

aww, losing your cool and getting upset again i see

er, whatever.

Well it was what you wrote.

er, whatever

I guess you just couldn't be bothered to go back and review whatever you chose to write at that time, and were unable to remember it because you don't actually mean any of it.

you guess wrong, again

As with the business of explaining why you referred the OP to p4 of the Wiring Regs - this is all just a game to you, you little child, isn't it.

the regs are not a game, however, you are (or is it 'joke'?)

Tell you what, why don't you just give your opinion of why it was written in the way it was? Would probably be easier to work out if we agree or not.

**** off and look it up yourself you time-wasting and lazy little ****.

so your are incapable of offering an opinion based on your experience. Thats ok, but there no need to get soooo upset about your inabilities

the start of what? I don't believe that you looked through some 20000+ posts in that short space of time.

To the start of this topic, of course.

but thats not what i said, is it?

Why? Surely you weren't attempting to compound your childish irrelevance by trying to introduce something I wrote in other topics, in the past, which have nothing to do with this one?

you seem to be hard of learning.

You were complaining about the suggestion that a negative could be proved.

no i wasn't

No, of course you weren't.

thats right, i wasn't, try reading just whats there and not get all emotional and upset again.

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

I understand that you have a fondness of boolean expressions and how they relate to lawnmowing, but why not simplify your diction in order to simplify your meaning?

nope, im asking you whether you could ask your questions with less negatives within them?.
.
.
I personally have no problem in understanding what you have written, i just think it could be improved to give a greater degree of clarity by not asking to prove negatives.

What part of that do you think is a complaint?

I see

hhmmm, are you sure?

Oh yes, quite sure now.

are you really?

aww, gwan, it was the most entertaining pile of nit picking i've read for a while.

It would be utterly pointless for me to add any more to that thread

it took you way too long to realise the pointlessness of it all. You're a bit slow on the uptake sometimes, arn't you

for your benefit - the fact that you used that term shows that you don't have a clue what it was about.

wrong again. You seem to be making a habit of getting it wrong lately. Are you waiting for a new prescription?

Goodbye, child. Come back when you've grown up.

oooh, sos dad. I feel thoroughly told off now

 

[ban-all-sheds]

aww, losing your cool and getting upset again i see

Strange that I should do that after you stated with amusement that you'd wasted my time in asking me to explain something because you couldn't be bothered to read the paragraph being discussed in the document being discussed, isn't it.

you seem to be hard of learning.

I do admit that it took me longer than it perhaps should have done to realise that you were one of that pathetic group of people who believe that dragging irrelevant arguments from one topic to another is the right way to behave.

it took you way too long to realise the pointlessness of it all.

As the point of it was to explain to ColJack how the wording of Schedule 2B of the Building Regulations worked, and as he did in the end get it it was far from pointless.

But since you seem to regard this forum as a vehicle for practising your solipsism you were unable to understand that.

Anyway - congratulations on making it into the Softus club of tedious little wasters whose opinions and beliefs I consider to be utterly worthless and irrelevant. I no longer care if you live or die, and you might as well howl at the moon as expect to ever get a response from me again, because I'm going to click now. You've been an annoying and bandwidth-wasting noise, but not to me any more.

 

[riveralt]

Tut Tut BAS misquoting me

Where did I do that?

Section 17 are the consequences for not following the codes of practice.

Shall we see what Section 17 says?

Oh look:

17. — (1) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of an approved code of practice shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings

So if failing to observe any provision of an approved code of practice doesn't make you liable to criminal proceedings then failing to observe any provision of an approved code of practice cannot be a criminal offence.

If not complying with BS 7671 is not a criminal offence then clearly there is no legal requirement to comply with it.

Now Now BAS - first of all misquoting me and now being selective about the legislation - more Tut Tuts!!!

I invite readers to consider the whole of Section 17 and compare it with BAS interpretation.

Section 17 states:
"17. (1) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of an approved code of practice shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but where in any criminal proceedings a party is alleged to have committed an offence by reason of a contravention of any requirement or prohibition imposed by or under any such provision as is mentioned in section 16(1) being a provision for which there was an approved code of practice at the time of the alleged contravention, the following subsection shall have effect with respect to that code in relation to those proceedings.

(2) Any provision of the code of practice which appears to the court to be relevant to the requirement or prohibition alleged to have been contravened shall be admissible in evidence in the proceedings; and if it is proved that there was at any material time a failure to observe any provision of the code which appears to the court to be relevant to any matter which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove in order to establish a contravention of that requirement or prohibition, that matter shall be taken as proved unless the court is satisfied that the requirement or prohibition was in respect of that mattet complied with otherwise than by way of observance of that provision of the code.

(3) In any criminal proceedings—
(a)a document purporting to be a notice issued by the Commission under section 16 shall be taken to be such a notice unless the contrary is proved; and
(b)a code of practice which appears to the court to be the subject of such a notice shall be taken to be the subject of that notice unless the contrary is proved.

BAS why don't you just accept that the 17th edition is the current standard - nothing to be ashamed of there - it includes all the good bits from the 16th edition and adds quite a few extra good bits.

At the end of the day whether its under Part P, EAWR or H&S it prime purpose is to make all electrical work safe - even you must recognise the importance of that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Now Now BAS - first of all misquoting me

I'm still waiting for you to prove the truth of that allegation.

BAS why don't you just accept that the 17th edition is the current standard - nothing to be ashamed of there - it includes all the good bits from the 16th edition and adds quite a few extra good bits.

It is the current standard, and nowhere have I said that it is not.

At the end of the day whether its under Part P, EAWR or H&S it prime purpose is to make all electrical work safe - even you must recognise the importance of that.

Of course I recognise that.

But I also recognise that there are other ways to achieve safety than complying with BS 7671:2008, and that no matter how much of a good idea that is it is not legally mandated.

And that is of crucial importance to the situation faced by the OP, because with no such mandatory compliance his LABC cannot legally reject the work simply because it does not comply.

I only quoted that first sentence from Section 17 because that was the only one of relevance - it was no more "selective" than was your quoting of only part of the entire Act.

If you read the second part of that Section you will see that it says that not complying with the current Code of Practice might well make the charge of another offence proven, but that still does not make non-compliance with the Code of Practice an offence in itself.

If you read the second part of that Section you will see that it says that it is perfectly permissible to find other ways to comply with the provisions of the HASAWA - the key thing to do is to comply with those.

How you do it is up to you, and BS 7671:2008 is the most sensible way, but it is not the only way, and that is exactly the same as the situation with the Building Regulations.

If you're in court charged with a H&S related offence then that will be because something unsafe has happened and you are being held responsible. It's hard to see how if you had truly complied with the relevant parts of the Code of Practice that you could be guilty of any failing related to that which would have resulted in something happening which got you into court.

If you have chosen an alternative to BS 7671:2008 then you would need to be just as sure that you knew what you were doing, and just as sure that you'd done it properly, as you would be if you complied with BS 7671.

If you screwed up and didn't do it properly then even if you had intended to comply with BS 7671 in reality you would not have done, so even if you starting out thinking that you were following the Code of Practice you would find that you had not, and you would deserve to be in court. But you'd be charged with an offence under the HASAWA, not with failing to comply with BS 7671.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

aww, losing your cool and getting upset again i see

Strange that I should do that after you stated with amusement that you'd wasted my time in asking me to explain something because you couldn't be bothered to read the paragraph being discussed in the document being discussed, isn't it.

i never said i wasted your time, more that you saved me time, thanks again.

you seem to be hard of learning.

I do admit that it took me longer than it perhaps should have done to realise that you were one of that pathetic group of people who believe that dragging irrelevant arguments from one topic to another is the right way to behave.

ah, but was I? Are you sure you have never done the same thing?

it took you way too long to realise the pointlessness of it all.

As the point of it was to explain to ColJack how the wording of Schedule 2B of the Building Regulations worked, and as he did in the end get it it was far from pointless.

so it continues.....

But since you seem to regard this forum as a vehicle for practising your solipsism you were unable to understand that.

wrong again, but never mind. BTW, nice word, i imagine employing that has done wonders for your current smug-factor

Anyway - congratulations

aww, thanks. Being congratulated by you gives me a nice warm feeling inside, lovely.

on making it into the Softus club of tedious little wasters whose opinions and beliefs I consider to be utterly worthless and irrelevant.

Ah, a new word for the day 'solipsism' then to find that it is being used in a hypocrictical manner. The gift that keeps on giving.

I no longer care if you live or die,

aawww, i think somebody needs a hug.

and you might as well howl at the moon as expect to ever get a response from me again,

yippee! whoop whoop

because I'm going to click now. You've been an annoying and bandwidth-wasting noise, but not to me any more.

roughly equals - 'get out of my sandpit and its my ball and im not going to let you play with it anymore' - You sound like Cartman

 

[Paul_C]

All of the stuff about the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 is totally irrelevant as far as The Building Regulations are concerned - And it's those which are the original poster's concern.

 

[LiamPope]

All of the stuff about the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 is totally irrelevant as far as The Building Regulations are concerned - And it's those which are the original poster's concern.

Yeah, but BAS, mikhail and riveralt stopped being interested in the original poster's concerns by about page 2 or 3

 

[riveralt]

All of the stuff about the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 is totally irrelevant as far as The Building Regulations are concerned - And it's those which are the original poster's concern.

The revelance is that they are all there to ensure that the design, installation and inspection of an electrical installation results in a safe environment for everyone.

It doesn't really matter how much you shout and bawl and stamp your feet at the LABC over which edition of BS7671 is relevant or has a legal standing, they will simply say all electrical installations completed after 30th June 2008 must comply with the current BS7671, which is the 17th edition.

No-one has challenged this fact in court, unless you know of someone.
And I repeat I know of no LABC that will accept anything other than the current edition of BS7671 as the required standard, do you?

While the OP has every right to feel short changed - and I believe the brief note/letter he received from his LABC is totally inadequate - he should complain about that rather than pointlessly try to argue that his installation meets the BS7671(2001/04/06) standard.

 

[Paul_C]

The revelance is that they are all there to ensure that the design, installation and inspection of an electrical installation results in a safe environment for everyone.

But they having nothing whatever to do with whether the final installation meets the requirements of Part P of the Building Regulations.

It doesn't really matter how much you shout and bawl and stamp your feet at the LABC over which edition of BS7671 is relevant or has a legal standing, they will simply say all electrical installations completed after 30th June 2008 must comply with the current BS7671, which is the 17th edition.

And as we've been pointing out throughout this thread, they are wrong. They have no legal authority to demand that the work complies with any edition of BS7671, never mind the latest one.

No-one has challenged this fact in court, unless you know of someone. And I repeat I know of no LABC that will accept anything other than the current edition of BS7671 as the required standard, do you?

There was a thread here a few weeks ago about somebody getting his LABC to accept a VDE German standard installation. Given that the same Approved Document which mentions BS7671 as one way of meeting the requirements of Part P also says that two dozen other standards including the German one are equally acceptable, they'd have a job to argue otherwise.

While the OP has every right to feel short changed - and I believe the brief note/letter he received from his LABC is totally inadequate - he should complain about that rather than pointlessly try to argue that his installation meets the BS7671(2001/04/06) standard.

I think the approach he has indicated he will take is the correct one. Simply point out that the wiring as installed and certified to the 16th edition meets the legal requirements of the building regs. If LABC believes otherwise, let them try and prove it.

 

[holmslaw]

..