In another thread, which went way off-topic ....
The first (fairly recent) of those cases was probably essentially matter of 'fraud' or, at best, of the provision of a 'professional service' that was neither competent nor remotely "fit for purpose". The second (many years old) case was essentially about procedural deficiencies/incompetence - so, again, essentially a case of a 'professional service' that was neither competent nor "fit for purpose".
Courts are certainly unpredictable (particularly if/when juries are involved!). It's 'interesting' to note that the former case you mentioned (which, as far as I can make out, involved no injury, let alone death, nor any damage to property) resulted in a penalty (fine) which was 50% greater (160% greater if one includes costs and the 'Statutory Surcharge") than that in the latter case you mentioned, in which the acts that resulted in conviction had resulted in the death of a young woman.
However, back to 'topic', in neither of those cases was a court asked to rule about the technical interpretation of legislation/regulations, and I seriously doubt that a court will ever be asked to do that, whether the perpetrator is an electrician or a 'DIYer'. Apart from anything else, it is very unlikley that a court would have the technical competence to rule on such matter - so they would probably have to turn to 'expert witnesses', whose opinions would quite probably vary!
I'm not sure what you are saying about transferability of an EICR to a "new home owner". If you literally mean "owner" (i.e. landlord), then I don't see why such an (unusual) change would require a new EICR.
As you have often said, individual issues are only likely to get to court (certainly criminal court) if/when someone is injured (or killed), or perhaps if property (of someone else) significantly damaged/destroyed. However, if negligent/incompetent activities result in such injury, death or property damage, then there is nothing special about electrical matters - the prosecution would be just the same as if the negligence/incompetence resulting in those outcomes had been due to gas, plumbing, structural or whatever matters.
Kind Regards, John
These cases don't really have anything to do with what we were discussing ('the courts' being the only 'people' who could rule on the technical interpretation of unclear legislation/regulations).
The first (fairly recent) of those cases was probably essentially matter of 'fraud' or, at best, of the provision of a 'professional service' that was neither competent nor remotely "fit for purpose". The second (many years old) case was essentially about procedural deficiencies/incompetence - so, again, essentially a case of a 'professional service' that was neither competent nor "fit for purpose".
Courts are certainly unpredictable (particularly if/when juries are involved!). It's 'interesting' to note that the former case you mentioned (which, as far as I can make out, involved no injury, let alone death, nor any damage to property) resulted in a penalty (fine) which was 50% greater (160% greater if one includes costs and the 'Statutory Surcharge") than that in the latter case you mentioned, in which the acts that resulted in conviction had resulted in the death of a young woman.
However, back to 'topic', in neither of those cases was a court asked to rule about the technical interpretation of legislation/regulations, and I seriously doubt that a court will ever be asked to do that, whether the perpetrator is an electrician or a 'DIYer'. Apart from anything else, it is very unlikley that a court would have the technical competence to rule on such matter - so they would probably have to turn to 'expert witnesses', whose opinions would quite probably vary!
The current legislation for rented accommodation obviously says 5 years. It probably would make sense to require an inspection on change of tenant, since that at least gives reassurance to the new tenant (despite what the previous tenant may have done!).
I'm not sure what you are saying about transferability of an EICR to a "new home owner". If you literally mean "owner" (i.e. landlord), then I don't see why such an (unusual) change would require a new EICR.
As above, in terms of asking a court to rule on technical interpretation of legislation/regulations (relating to electrical matters), I doubt that it ever has, or every will, happen, either in relation to a professional electrician or DIYer.
As you have often said, individual issues are only likely to get to court (certainly criminal court) if/when someone is injured (or killed), or perhaps if property (of someone else) significantly damaged/destroyed. However, if negligent/incompetent activities result in such injury, death or property damage, then there is nothing special about electrical matters - the prosecution would be just the same as if the negligence/incompetence resulting in those outcomes had been due to gas, plumbing, structural or whatever matters.
Kind Regards, John
