Electrical matters in UK Courts

[JohnW2]

One question I would ask is. ... Does what is considered "reasonable" change over time, even if the law itself stays the same? Are there any precedents on this question from fields other than electrics?

Interesting question. "Reasonable" is, of course, a word beloved of those who draft legislation - and I suppose it reflects the fact that it's very often impossible to be 'comprehensively prescriptive', so they deliberately leave it for judges and juries to exercise discretion (hopefully 'common sense'!) in deciding what is 'reasonable' in a particular sitution

Specifically, when part P was introduced everyone would have agreed that the then-current (16th with some ammendments IIRC) edition of BS7671 satisfied the “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.”

Indeed. In fact, Approved Doc P (the 'guide as to how to comply with Part P') essentially says that.

However since then new versions of BS7671 has been published introducing a bunch of new requirements (RCD protection, resistance to premature collapse) and the "approved documents" have been updated to point to newer versions (though at the time of writing not the newest version). Does that mean that what was considered reasonable when Part P was introduced is no longer considered reasonable.

That's how it seems. They appear to take the view that what is "reasonable" is compliance with the current version of BS7671 at any point in time.

There's obviously scope for a fair bit of discussion of individual views about that! Some would undoubtedly say that if something were "reasonable" (in terms of safety) in 2005 or 2007, then it must still be 'reasonable' today. However, there are clearly limits to how far one can extend that argument back in time since, in almost all walks of life, there are things which would have been regarded as 'reasonable'/'acceptable' a few decades ago that would definitely not be so regarded today!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Does what is considered "reasonable" change over time

I agree interesting question, and note the version of BS 7671 is different in Wales and England.

The problem is although BS 7671 is not retrospective, HSE requirements often are, in the main BS 7671 is updated to comply with other documents like CENELEC harmonization documents.

I seem to remember some problems with St Fagans where the old methods were demonstrated, so not possible to follow old methods and comply with new H&S regulations. Can't remember the outcome. I also know a dentist in Chester could not install a chair lift, as Royal Commission would not permit it. Seems they can over ride what the disability acts require.

However in the main courts only get involved when some one is injured.

Can you see being allowed to have no door or even chain to stop one falling out of a train today? Not only the railway I work at doors were rare. But the argument is people know it is a Heritage railway and should behave accordingly.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree interesting question, and note the version of BS 7671 is different in Wales and England.

That's an interesting one, but I don't think (if I were in Wales) I would be too confident that I could rely on it!

I presume that you are referring the fact that the 'current' (2006) version of Approved Document P applicable in Wales says that satisfaction of the 'fundamental principles of Part P' can be achieved by satisfying the requirements of BS7671:2001, whereas the corresponding statement in the 'current' (2013) version applicable to England refers to BS7671:2008 (but obviously not BS7671:2018, which it pre-dated).

However, Approved Doc P is not law and, although its guidance (in the Welsh version) was that, at the time it was written, complying with the requirements of BS7671:2001 would 'satisfy the fundamental principles of Part P', I don't think that guarantees that the guidance will remain correct indefinitely. Knowing your love of "letting a court decide", it would not surprise me at all if a court ruled that the Approved Doc "clearly meant" the version of BS7671 current at any particular time, and that 'happened to be' BS7671:2001 at the time the Welsh App Doc P was written!

I would say the same to someone in England who, in the same fashion, argued (in 2022) that Part P was 'satisfied' by compliance with BS7671:2008, even if not compliant with BS7671:2018.

The problem is although BS 7671 is not retrospective, HSE requirements often are ...

I think you'll find that, in the world at large, a fairly high proportion of safety-related laws/rules/regulations are 'retrospective' in the sense that they specify requirements which become immediately applicable to everything (albeit often with some 'advanced warning' and/or a transition period', which sometimes may be lengthy).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As you know asbestosis was found to not be the wonder material it was first thought to be, and has been removed in many cases, the same applies with ELCB-v devices, which have been replaced with ELCB-c and the BS7671 relaxed the earthing rules in bathrooms on condition 30 mA RCD's are used, so there will be cases where complying with an earlier edition of wiring or any other regulations would not be deemed safe today.

However when Part P was written we were still members of the common market, and we were forced to accept non British regulations in some cases, so it was permitted for example to build a home to German spec to house people from Germany even though it would not comply with British regulations, not seen a house to German spec but have seen them to USA spec specially built for USA armed forces, but still used by the British.

So it is suggested that following BS 7671 would mean the building complied, but other regulations could be used, not sure how the LABC would be able to ensure it was compliant, when written in German, maybe that's why they issue a completion certificate not a compliance certificate?

What I find of interest is how long after doing work is one still considered libel for errors? My son kept up his insurance cover for some time after stopping being a sole trader, and he was not sure if insurance would still pay out when he had stopped paying for old jobs should they prove to be defective.

The way we have read BS 7671 in the past has been corrected with subsequent editions, it is not the regulation which has changed as such, just how it should be read has be clarified, questions have been raised as to use of twin RCD's and RCD's rated at just 63 amp with a 100 amp supply.

So could some one take one to court because a home built in 2003 was in some way unsafe when built? Personally I would say unless the fault was hidden, no. We are suppose to get a PIR/EICR done every 10 years, so any fault which would have been picked up on with an EICR should have already been dealt with. Although some things like not following safe routes would not likely been found.

However on selling mothers house I had mislaid the paperwork, and tried to get replacements, and the local council were unable to provide them in under 4 months, I found originals, but unless one can show who did the work, it becomes pointless, and I realised looking at the paperwork that there were around 4 sets and nothing to really show what had been re-done. I know the wet room wiring was not renewed when the house was rewired, it was reasonably new anyway, but looking at paperwork that was not clear.

I know we had planned to renew the ring final up-stairs and had installed cables ready before the wet room was tiled, and the guys who re-wired the house were informed they existed, but not a clue if used.

So theory may be one is responsible for ones actions from some early age until death, I would have said 21 year old, but there have been cases of 8 year old's being denied their freedom due to their actions.

I can remember of times where I started a job with every intention of returning next day, and for some reason I have not, and I have often wondered if the work was completed. Threaded earth cables, but not connected was one, I ended up in hospital next day, and while off sick the firm stopped trading, so really no idea if every completed and since not local never returned.

 

[JohnW2]

As you know asbestosis was found to not be the wonder material it was first thought to be ...

["asbestosis" is actually one of the nasty diseases that can result from exposure to asbestos, not the material itself ]

Yes, I very nearly gave asbestos (or lead in paint) as an example of new safety-related laws/regulations being 'retrospective' (applying to the present, regardless of the historical situation) - i.e. if you had been hoarding asbestosis-containing products for decades in a warehouse, you could not sell them now, even though their sale would have been legal when they were manufactured!

So it is suggested that following BS 7671 would mean the building complied, but other regulations could be used ...

It has always theoretically been possible to demonstrate compliance with parts of the Building Regulations (including Part P) without reference to any regulations/Standards (such as BS7671, or other EU equivalents) - but to do so would requires an ability (and inclination, and time) to argue "from first principles" that what has been done is adequately safe - and very few people would have the ability and/or inclination to try that.

What I find of interest is how long after doing work is one still considered libel for errors? My son kept up his insurance cover for some time after stopping being a sole trader, and he was not sure if insurance would still pay out when he had stopped paying for old jobs should they prove to be defective.

You would need a lawyer to answer the first part of that question but, as for the insurance, that would surely depend upon the terms of the particular policy?

So could some one take one to court because a home built in 2003 was in some way unsafe when built?

Again, you would have to ask a lawyer, and I suspect the answer mat differ according to whether you are talking about a Civil or Criminal Court. I don't know the answer in either case but, in terms of the latter, we have certainly seen cases in which people have been prosecuted and convicted of murder decades after the event (often thanks to DNA evidence)

However on selling mothers house I had mislaid the paperwork, and tried to get replacements, and the local council were unable to provide them in under 4 months, ...

As I've said to you before, I think your effort may well have been wasted. I very regularly see properties being sold for which none of the 'paperwork' (relating to the electrical installation or whatever) is available (often because previous owner has died or the property repossessed), and one simply tells that to the prospective buyer - whereupon it becomes their problem to respond to that as they wish.

Kind Regards, John