Is my shed replacement notifiable?

[bernardgreen]

That first draft ( or daft ) also made the installation of telephone wiring notifiable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

whilst a Judge can, as you say, say strong things about/to the legislators, (s)he would have no authority to 'over-ride' what was ('clearly') written.

We've been through this before.

They can, and they have, passed judgements on the basis of what they thought Parliament intended.

 

[PBC_1966]

That first draft ( or daft ) also made the installation of telephone wiring notifiable.

I remember.

I've just found and read through the amendment which changed the rules, and am now wondering if some telecommunications/signaling wiring has become notifiable now.

The statutory instrument which added the new rules under regulation 12 and removed the old requirements from schedule 4 also appears to have completely deleted para. 3 of the latter which is where the exemption for such wiring was to be found:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3119/pdfs/uksi_20123119_en.pdf

So does that mean that any telephone, intercom, bell signaling, TV distribution, Ethernet data etc. wiring is now notifiable if it's a new circuit and not a replacement or alteration of existing?

 

[JohnW2]

whilst a Judge can, as you say, say strong things about/to the legislators, (s)he would have no authority to 'over-ride' what was ('clearly') written.

We've been through this before. They can, and they have, passed judgements on the basis of what they thought Parliament intended.

That's not what my legal contacts tell me. My understanding in that our (unwritten) constitution takes very seriously the 'separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive', such that the former are not allowed to second-guess what the latter should have written (and maybe 'intended to write'), when they actually wrote something which was (clear and) different. My understanding is that only if there is a lack of clarity or ambiguity etc. (or 'silence' about a particular situation) are the Judiciary allowed to 'interpret'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits a course of conduct which causes harassment, alarm or distress. But it was unclear from the wording of the act whether or not it could also be used to protect companies from harassment. In a case before the High Court it was decided that companies could not be protected, as this was not the intention of Parliament when passing the legislation.


http://www.freebeagles.org/caselaw/CL_hs_Curtin (2)_sum.html

 

[EFLImpudence]

The statutory instrument which added the new rules under regulation 12 and removed the old requirements from schedule 4 also appears to have completely deleted para. 3 of the latter which is where the exemption for such wiring was to be found:

In England:

Schedule 4 no longer exists but was a list of work NOT notifiable.

Now there is just a list of three which ARE notifiable.

 

[PBC_1966]

Schedule 4 no longer exists but was a list of work NOT notifiable.

Now there is just a list of three which ARE notifiable.

That's rather my point: The new regulation just says that notifcation is required where the work involves the installation of a new circuit. I don't see anywhere in which it says that such notification is not required if that new circuit is for telephone, data, or some other similar function rather than for supplying power.

 

[JohnW2]

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits a course of conduct which causes harassment, alarm or distress. But it was unclear from the wording of the act whether or not it could also be used to protect companies from harassment. In a case before the High Court it was decided that companies could not be protected, as this was not the intention of Parliament when passing the legislation.

Exactly. If it was "....unclear from the wording of the act whether or not it could also be used to protect companies from harassment...", then a Court has a perfect right (and duty) to make a judgement on the basis of its interpretation of what was intended. However, if the wording of the Act, as written and enacted, had been clear in saying that companies could be protected (even if that had not been the 'intention of Parliament'), then a Court would, as I understand it, have been powerless to give judgement on any other basis, even if they strongly believed that the wording of the Act did not properly reflect "the intention of Parliament". As I said, a Court can (and must) interpret unclear or ambiguous law, but it cannot "re-write the law". Even the Supreme Court cannot do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's rather my point: The new regulation just says that notifcation is required where the work involves the installation of a new circuit. I don't see anywhere in which it says that such notification is not required if that new circuit is for telephone, data, or some other similar function rather than for supplying power.

I see, interesting. I suppose it is an electrical installation.

Schedule 4 stated that work on telephone wiring or extra-low voltage wiring for the purposes of communications, information technology, signalling, control and similar purposes, where the wiring is not in a special location; was NOT notifiable.
It is unlikely that a relaxation in the notification requirements (as drastic as it was) would now make that notifiable - except in a special location.



Another anomaly?

 

[PBC_1966]

Another anomaly?

It sure seems as though somebody didn't really think it through when writing the amendment since, as you say, it seems unlikely with the relaxation of the rules it was really the intent to make communication circuits notifiable. But then that's so often the case with badly drafted regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

It sure seems as though somebody didn't really think it through when writing the amendment since, as you say, it seems unlikely with the relaxation of the rules it was really the intent to make communication circuits notifiable. But then that's so often the case with badly drafted regulations.

Indeed. Dare I suggest that it's quite likely that the person(s) who drafted the amendment didn't even realise that the scope of the regulations included communication circuits etc.?

Kind Regards, John

 

[eveares]

If you put a consumer unit in there, it is notifiable.
If you do not, it is not.

That seems a tad silly John when it's a replacement that I assume is fed of a circuit from the main DB , one could technically wire a CU to a 13A plug what surely would not be notifiable right?

 

[JohnW2]

That seems a tad silly John when it's a replacement that I assume is fed of a circuit from the main DB , one could technically wire a CU to a 13A plug what surely would not be notifiable right?

To my mind a lot of this is pretty silly, but, since you mention the above, FWIW, Approved Doc P says "Installing fixed electrical equipment is within the scope of Part P, even if the final connection is by a standard 13A plug and socket, but is notifiable only if it involves work set out in regulation 12(6A)" ... and, of course, regulation 12(6A) includes "replacement of a consumer unit"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[eveares]

"Installing fixed electrical equipment is within the scope of Part P, even if the final connection is by a standard 13A plug and socket, but is notifiable only if it involves work set out in regulation 12(6A)" ... and, of course, regulation 12(6A) includes "replacement of a consumer unit"!

I have to say it does seem extremely silly when a CU wired to a 13A plug is not doing much more than what a few RCD FCU's could!

That seems a tad silly John

May be I should have said

That seems a tad silly John Ward

(aka Flameport)

 

[PBC_1966]

Dare I suggest that it's quite likely that the person(s) who drafted the amendment didn't even realise that the scope of the regulations included communication circuits etc.?

Though when writing an amendment which deletes a section of schedule 4 and said section refers explicitly to such wiring, you'd think the penny would drop.