Terminating unused electric cable

[JohnW2]

PBC, you seem to be missing the point about supersession. The fact that a standard has been superseded means that a group of experts has decided it is no longer adequate. By implication, a new installation to the superseded standard is also inadequate.

Firstly, you seem to be assuming that changes in Standards/regulations are always in the same direction - that of 'tightening', whereas, certainly in the case of BS7671, there have been 'relaxations'. Hence, in relation to some matters, the superseded standard is not "inadequate" but, rather "more than adequate"!

Secondly, and I think that this is the main point PBC is making, in order to demonstrate compliance with Part P, one 'merely' has to present a reasoned argument (based on whatever) that one has made "reasonable provision for safety" etc., regardless of the views of any one particular group of experts at any particular point in time. If the legislators had wanted to make compliance with (the current edition of) BS7671 mandatory, they could have done - but (perhaps at least partially for reasons we have discussed) they chose not to do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

PBC, you seem to be missing the point about supersession. The fact that a standard has been superseded means that a group of experts has decided it is no longer adequate. By implication, a new installation to the superseded standard is also inadequate.

Firstly, you seem to be assuming that changes in Standards/regulations are always in the same direction - that of 'tightening', whereas, certainly in the case of BS7671, there have been 'relaxations'. Hence, in relation to some matters, the superseded standard is not "inadequate" but, rather "more than adequate"!

Your interpretation the the standard has been 'relaxed' might be technically correct, but in my experience courts do not look at the detail of standards when those standards are presented as evidence. They will only consider the relative dates.

 

[JohnW2]

Your interpretation the the standard has been 'relaxed' might be technically correct, but in my experience courts do not look at the detail of standards when those standards are presented as evidence. They will only consider the relative dates.

That's very probably true. However, it doesn't alter the fact that a superseded Standard is not necessarily regarded by those who wrote it as "inadequate" (as you suggested) in all respects - since, as I said, it could actually be, in some respects, 'more than adequate' in comparison with the current Standards.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Compliance with a standard demands compliance with all its normative provisions. You cannot cherry-pick and claim that some parts are more or less stringent than parts of another standard.

 

[JohnW2]

Compliance with a standard demands compliance with all its normative provisions. You cannot cherry-pick and claim that some parts are more or less stringent than parts of another standard.

I'm not proposing to cherry pick. Nor am I proposing to refer to a superseded edition of a Standard (that was PBC, not me, who suggested that - I suspect somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

It was you who wrote, of a superseded Standard, that "a group of experts has decided it is no longer adequate" - and I have merely been pointing out that such a generalisation cannot be true in relation to aspects for which the superseded Standard was more demanding than the current one!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course not - why on earth would I want to do that? If any legal action were initiated, it would surely be initiated by the council, against me (for alleged non-compliance with Part P) - although, as I said, even that is, in practice, essentially 'hypothetical'.

Why would you want to?

Simple - you are doing the electrical work for an extension, or a loft conversion etc, and you tell them that you intend to comply with Part P by complying with BS 7671:2001. They say "No, that won't do". So you take them to court because you don't want to comply with :2008 and you believe that they are acting unlawfully by refusing to accept :2001.

 

[stillp]

There you go again! It is not a generalisation, it is a fact. You have to consider the whole standard, not parts of it. The group of experts has decided that it is no longer adequate, perhaps because some of its provisions are too onerous, but that is irrelevant - it is not adequate.

 

[JohnW2]

Why would you want to? ... Simple - you are doing the electrical work for an extension, or a loft conversion etc, and you tell them that you intend to comply with Part P by complying with BS 7671:2001. They say "No, that won't do". So you take them to court because you don't want to comply with :2008 and you believe that they are acting unlawfully by refusing to accept :2001.

For a start, as I've said more than once, I would not refer to a superseded edition of BS7671.

However, if they said "No, that won't do" in relation to whatever (other) I'd said about how I intend to comply with Part P, the ball would be in their court. I would have no interest in taking them to court but, if they wanted to take me to court for alleged non-compliance with Part P, that would be their prerogative.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I pointed out is that there is "no absolute guarantee" and, so long as the law consists a very vague statement, containing the word "reasonable", and hence requiring a subjective judgement (by a court or whoever), there surely cannot be any "absolute guarantee", can there? However, as I said, in practical terms, demonstration of compliance with BS7671 is virtually always going to be adequate.

You are saying that there is a chance that someone could comply with BS 7671, as advised in the guidance on how to comply with Part P, and then be found to have not complied with Part P.

You are saying that there is a chance that an electrical installation which complies with BS 7671 might be unacceptably dangerous. That ought to be something of great concern to anybody doing I&T, and to any insurer writing PLI & PII policies for electricians.

You are saying that nobody who does electrical work can be sure that what they have done complies with Part P, and since the declaration of compliance made by a registered electrician is that it does comply, not that it complies to the best of his knowledge and belief, you are saying that he may not make that declaration.

 

[JohnW2]

There you go again! It is not a generalisation, it is a fact. You have to consider the whole standard, not parts of it. The group of experts has decided that it is no longer adequate, perhaps because some of its provisions are too onerous, but that is irrelevant - it is not adequate.

Hmmm. If parts of it are considered 'inadequate' because they required a higher standard of safety than does the current edition, then I don't think anyone would be saying anything about those parts if/when they were trying to use BS7671-compliance as a means of complying with the requirement of Part P for work to be reasonably safe!

However, I don't understand why I'm being taken to task about this. As I keep saying, I would personally not ever refer to a superseded edition of BS7671 as a means of trying to demonstrate compliance with Part P - it was PBC who suggested that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You are saying that .... You are saying that ... You are saying that ...

[poor formatting of post ignored!]
I am saying that ... when a Court makes a ruling in relation to a law which contains the word "reasonable", there is never any "absolute guarantee" of what that ruling may be (even though you, I and countless others may believe that we know what that ruling should be). That's all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For a start, as I've said more than once, I would not refer to a superseded edition of BS7671.

OK - fair enough - you refer to your own general principles "standard", or you say "I'll comply with BS 7671:2008 except for the bit about RCD protection of buried cables". And they say "No, that won't do.".

However, if they said "No, that won't do" in relation to whatever (other) I'd said about how I intend to comply with Part P, the ball would be in their court. I would have no interest in taking them to court but, if they wanted to take me to court for alleged non-compliance with Part P, that would be their prerogative.

I rather think that if you had said "I'll do A", and they had said "No, A won't do, you have to do B", and you had then replied "Sorry - I don't want to do B, I'm going to go ahead with A", that the ball would be in your court when your extension was finished and they refused to give you a certificate. Unless they prosecute you, they don't have to prove non-compliance, they can just declare it (on the basis of the exchange at the start where you refused to do what they prescribed), decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, and simply walk away from the situation.

 

[JohnW2]

I rather think that if you had said "I'll do A", and they had said "No, A won't do, you have to do B", and you had then replied "Sorry - I don't want to do B, I'm going to go ahead with A", that the ball would be in your court when your extension was finished and they refused to give you a certificate.

Who cares about the absence of a Completion Certificate?

As I said, if they want to pursue the matter, through the Courts or whatever, that's up to them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who cares about the absence of a Completion Certificate?

People who find that no proof of compliance with the Building Regulations has made their property unsaleable, or has significantly devalued it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

[poor formatting of post ignored!]

Apologies - now fixed.

I am saying that ... when a Court makes a ruling in relation to a law which contains the word "reasonable", there is never any "absolute guarantee" of what that ruling may be (even though you, I and countless others may believe that we know what that ruling should be). That's all.

If you are going to apply that to a ruling on whether it was reasonable for someone doing domestic electrical work to comply with BS 7671, then the 3 consequences I pointed out are indeed quite valid.