DIY rewiring and Building control

[Veglen]

One other thing

Even though it is in the householders best interests to get work tested
and that test to be done by a competent person, where is that required by law?

The Building regulations direct you to the BS7671 for direction.

The Building Regulations are "Law" and the fact the BS7671 says we must test all installations before putting them into service means that in a roundabout kinda way the Building Regulations are making this a requirement of the "Law" in a domestic situations under the scope of Part P.

V

 

[pompeygit]

Reading P156 of the Regs. Competency is sort of defined in a roundabout way. Compare Regs 610.3 and 610.5. In a way they are saying if you can do a verification you are competenn. Of course your ability to do an initial verification must hold up in a court of law.

The bottom line is Part P is flouted on a daily basis. Councils do not even read the certs. To them it is double dutch. They are however carefully filed in case they are ever needed for legal purposes.

Do remember this, if you don't know the regs and you want to sell your house more mortgage lenders are beginning to ask to see Certs. They may request a PIR in the abscence of certs. If you just went ahead and did work without due regard to the Regs you could get the most damaging report going. I've seen one and the purchaser was able to push the house price down £5000.

Also if you do the work and don't test (confirm it is safe) you are giving insurance companies a get out clause from their responsibilities. And if heaven help your ineptitude causes an accident you could go to jail for 6 months........this has happened. One guy was fined £16,000 for shoddy workmanship. You pays yer money..........

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One other thing

Even though it is in the householders best interests to get work tested
and that test to be done by a competent person, where is that required by law?

The Building regulations direct you to the BS7671 for direction.

Here are The Building Regulations.

Please show us where it says that.

The Building Regulations are "Law" and the fact the BS7671 says we must test all installations before putting them into service means that in a roundabout kinda way the Building Regulations are making this a requirement of the "Law" in a domestic situations under the scope of Part P.

Absolutely not.

 

[mattylad]

The British standards website (who'm I assume own the BS7671 std) starts off saying that it is not a legal requirement.

Although it does go to say that building standards are & they are requiring works to be in accordance with it (or something like that).

What I think would make aa lot of DIY installations better, safer & more in accordance with the regs is if they were made more readily available to the DIY'r in a format that us lesser mortals can understand.
IMO that would enable those of us that will do DIY to be able to be a lot safer with it & IMO that should be what is the main aim of things like part P etc. (talking DIY & not about getting mr sparks in).

 

[pompeygit]

However ......Part P is an advisory document to help you comply with the building regs.....part p clearly points you in the direction of using BS7671 to comply with the building regs. Compliance with BS7671 also will satisfy a court you acted in a manner likely to satisfy EAWR 1989. Remember this.....failureto comply with EAWR you end up in court........It is the only time in an English court you are effectively guilty and the onus is on you to prove innocence..

Lets not beat about the bush....Comply with Part P and all is well.........Don't and yoy take a gamble.......as 1000's do daily

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What I think would make aa lot of DIY installations better, safer & more in accordance with the regs is if they were made more readily available to the DIY'r in a format that us lesser mortals can understand.

That'll be the On-Site guide then.

The Electrician's Guide to The Building Regulations is a useful companion.

 

[mattylad]

And what if you install everything correctly, test it all correctly to BS apart from being qualified to do it? it is possibly for us diy'rs to sometimes do that you know

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However ......Part P is an advisory document to help you comply with the building regs.....

No - Part P is part of the Building Regulations. You must mean Approved Document P, but I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read The Building Regulations.

part p clearly points you in the direction of using BS7671 to comply with the building regs.

So assuming you do mean Approved Document P, would you care to read the 3rd paragraph on p3, and 0.2(a)?

Compliance with BS7671 also will satisfy a court you acted in a manner likely to satisfy EAWR 1989.

The EAWR do not apply to DIYers in their own homes.

Remember this.....failureto comply with EAWR you end up in court........

Possibly, but not if the EAWR don't apply to you.

It is the only time in an English court you are effectively guilty and the onus is on you to prove innocence..

So I've often heard.

It's complete b****cks - there is no special exemption for the EAWR from the general principle that until proven beyond reasonable doubt as guilty you are presumed to be innocent.

Lets not beat about the bush....Comply with Part P and all is well.........

And nothing I have said suggests that people should not comply with Part P. Although for non-professionals I leave it up to them to decide whether to comply with Part 5....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And what if you install everything correctly, test it all correctly to BS apart from being qualified to do it? it is possibly for us diy'rs to sometimes do that you know

Yes, I do know, being a DIYer myself

Even though now I am a qualified one....

You still have to notify in advance...

But there are no qualifications that you need to be able to install and test to BS 7671.

 

[pompeygit]

Excellent tip BAS.......believe new version out in a couple months. Think if you are a committed DIY'er why not go down to your local college and get a DISQ qualification. Teach you all the basics using books BAS mentioned plus the Regs and how to read them. A good investment if you move house often and want to tinker with domestic electrics. The course is 10 maybe 12 weeks long....1 evening per week

 

[Spark123]

It's complete b****cks - there is no special exemption for the EAWR from the general principle that until proven beyond reasonable doubt as guilty you are presumed to be innocent.

With abosolute regulations, the onus is on you to prove you have taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to not break the regulation, not the other way around. (Regulation 29)
Agreed though, the HASWA and EAWR do not apply to persons conducting DIY in their own dwelling.

 

[mattylad]

It is the only time in an English court you are effectively guilty and the onus is on you to prove innocence..

Er no, AFAIK speeding is also where you are guilty unless you can prove your inocence.
But lets not digress further

And here was I t'other day thinking nasty things about BAS because he was having a rant about something (I know not) & not I'm kinda warming to him... lol

The whole thing appears to all be down to "interpretation" & how policy is defined by the LABC's so for any DIY'r who does not wish to pay oodles for a sparks to install & test and will do their own install, test etc then we are still going to do it outside of the regs because there is obviously no path that we can take otherwise.

DIY = Doing it Yourself so that you can save money.
Compliance = Paying lots of money & possibly getting the same job as DIY (possibly worse!).

I have already said elsewhere that I am rewiring my 1850 house myself because of the state its in, just that I'd rather do it correctly/following the regs etc where DIY possible. It seems that whatever route a DIYr takes to try and conform it is only one that will end up costing lots of dosh (and if we had that we might not be doing DIY in the first place).

FTR, Bro-in-law is a 17th ed electrician so I can at least get him to inspect & test it with me even if he cant sign it off.

 

[mattylad]

BY the way, saying

Compare Regs 610.3 and 610.5

means very little to us DIY'rs because we are not going to fork out £65 for a book of regs that are hard to understand (being lesser mortals).

Although given my previous tip about downloading from the BS website, I'm hoping that I'll be able to replace my 16th book with a PDF pretty soon
(or I may just have to resort to googling for it lol)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

With abosolute regulations, the onus is on you to prove you have taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to not break the regulation, not the other way around. (Regulation 29)

4(4). Any equipment provided under these Regulations for the purpose of protecting persons at work on or near electrical equipment shall be suitable for the use for which it is provided, be maintained in a condition suitable for that use, and be properly used.

If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you provided equipment which was not suitable, or not properly maintained, or not properly used then clearly you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of contravening 4(4). Being able to show that you took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence applies to a great many charges under a great many Acts. The fact that you can use "I did X Y Z" as a defence does not translate to you having to prove your innocence - the prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not provide equipment which was suitable, or properly maintained, or properly used. If you really have complied with the requirements of BS7671 in those regards then they will struggle to prove that.

5. No electrical equipment shall be put into use where its strength and capability may be exceeded in such a way as may give rise to danger.

If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you put into use equipment where its strength and capability was exceeded in such a way that gave rise to danger, or might have given rise to danger, then clearly you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of contravening 5. Being able to show that you took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence applies to a great many charges under a great many Acts. The fact that you can use "I did X Y Z" as a defence does not translate to you having to prove your innocence - the prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you put into use equipment where its strength and capability was exceeded in such a way that gave rise to danger, or might have given rise to danger. If you really have complied with the requirements of BS7671 in those regards then they will struggle to prove that.

And so on and so forth - there's no point me repeating essentially the same thing over and over again for each of those clauses of the EAWR. The same general principle applies to all manner of activities in all walks of life - something within your jurisdiction has gone pear shaped and you end up gripping the rail. There is nothing special about the EAWR, or the HASAWA which mean that you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. If you have responsibilities under the Act or the Regulations then there may be other ways in which you can discharge those responsibilities apart from following BS7671.

Not following BS7671 does not automatically mean that you are guilty of not discharging your responsibilities - that still has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Your lack of any corroboration for your version of events may well make it easier for them to prove that, but there is no special exemption for the EAWR from the general principle that until proven beyond reasonable doubt as guilty you are presumed to be innocent.

Imagine they found a man lying in your house with one of your kitchen knives with your fingerprints all over it embedded in his chest and that that was the cause of death. You might very well need to prove that you weren't there when he was stabbed in order to stop the prosecution from successfully proving beyond reasonable doubt that you did do it.

If you can't corroborate your story that you weren't there then things will be looking pretty grim for you.

And we could all go on almost indefinitely postulating other charges, under other acts, where your inability to prove that what you are saying is true is going to mean it all goes pear shaped for you.

The HASAWA/EAWR are no different in any way. They are not special cases where you are presumed guilty.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Er no, AFAIK speeding is also where you are guilty unless you can prove your inocence.

Don't be ridiculous. Without some kind of tamper-proof certified recording equipment in your vehicle you could never prove that. And there once was a case where a lorry driver was found guilty of speeding despite the fact that his tachograph showed he wasn't, and his tachograph was shown to be working and not tampered with.

If you are charged with speeding there has to be evidence that you were - they can't just assert that you were and have you found guilty unless you can prove you weren't. (Ignoring the possibility that two policemen could collude and lie about what they witnessed from their patrol car, but if you are going to factor in police conspiracies and lies then all bets are off in everything....)

And here was I t'other day thinking nasty things about BAS because he was having a rant about something (I know not) & not I'm kinda warming to him... lol

I only rant about rantworthy things...

The whole thing appears to all be down to "interpretation" & how policy is defined by the LABC's so for any DIY'r who does not wish to pay oodles for a sparks to install & test and will do their own install, test etc then we are still going to do it outside of the regs because there is obviously no path that we can take otherwise.

Absolutely not true. There is no reason why a DIYer cannot follow the regulations in all respects, including testing.

DIY = Doing it Yourself so that you can save money.

And let's not forget the convenience of DIY, and the satisfaction.

Compliance = Paying lots of money & possibly getting the same job as DIY (possibly worse!).

You can DIY and comply.

I have already said elsewhere that I am rewiring my 1850 house myself because of the state its in, just that I'd rather do it correctly/following the regs etc where DIY possible.

DIY is perfectly possible for the whole thing, but you do have to recognise that you require certain competencies, and you require certain specialised tools. But then you (probably) wouldn't try to rebuild your house from ground up with nothing but a typical DIY knowledge and a DIY toolkit at your disposal, would you...?

It seems that whatever route a DIYr takes to try and conform it is only one that will end up costing lots of dosh (and if we had that we might not be doing DIY in the first place).

Sadly the cost of notifying is often out of all proportion to the cost of the work. Maybe a complete rewire doesn't fall into that, but I bet you're not doing it in one fell swoop, are you....

FTR, Bro-in-law is a 17th ed electrician so I can at least get him to inspect & test it with me even if he cant sign it off.

If you get on with him, and you really do know what you are doing, then he should be able to tell that. Speak nicely to him and see if you and he can work out a way where he is personally and professionally happy for you to work under his direction and supervision, and he certifies that he did the work.

This is not dodgy or bent per se - it's the way that many companies operate, where they have qualified supervisors who can read without moving their lips and a herd of knuckle-draggers. (OK - I exaggerate for dramatic effect, but hopefully you see what I mean).