Approved Doc. P

[JonoPashley]

Do you believe that Approved Document P(and the rest) hold legal status?

 

[Donkmeister]

Isn't the whole point of the building regs that what you build must conform to a minimum standard?

If you refuse to comply with the building regs, they hold powers to rectify whatever you did and send you the bill.

If you refuse to pay that bill, you can end up in prison.

So, yes, I'd say that Part P holds legal status. If I refuse to acknowledge it, it is proven that I refuse to acknowledge it and I refuse to rectify my deviations from it, then refuse to pay for those rectifications, then I could go to prison.

But, you'd have to be pretty silly to go to prison just because you want an electric shower in 1.0mm flex, on a 1 million amp rewirable fuse, in their garden, within reach of a solid copper bathtub full of salt water. Some daft person will, but most would pay the cost to get it certified or remedied way before a magistrate became involved.

However, if you are unlikely to sell your house anytime soon, are electrically competent (but not certified), and plan to meet the regs anyway (in case the house burns down and the insurers find sub-standard wiring in new colours) then I doubt it will really affect you.

 

[JonoPashley]

The issue is that the guidance of an Approved Doc is in some cases not strictly the same as what the building regs say, If and Approved Doc does in fact hold legal status then by following either path as long as the outcome is safe no court could successfully prosecute.

Example would be the building regs saying an outside light on the wall of a house is notifiable yet the approved doc taking a different line.

 

[LiamPope]

The approved docs are not statutory instruments (i.e. The Law), if that's what you mean. They are guidance on how you might comply with the regulations.

The approved docs' legal status is defined in the building regs in clearest legalese. Paraphrasing: Contravening the guidance in an approved document is not in itself an offence, but in a court case where a defendant is charged with non-compliance with the regs, having contravened an approved doc may tend to establish liability.

That's, for example, why the several naughty LABCs can get away with outright refusing to test and inspect notified work carried out by a DIYer despite it saying totally clearly and unambiguously in doc P that they must. They know the householder will have to take it to all the way to court risking the fact they may not even win and could be lumbered with a massive expenses bill.

Liam

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Another issue, as Donkmeister so ably demonstrates, is that there are still people who fail to grasp the difference between Part P of the Building Regulations and Approved Document P.

 

[JonoPashley]

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314116322.html

Seems it is indeed a legally approved guidance sheet.

 

[ColJack]

there's a difference between legaly approved and legaly binding...

 

[JonoPashley]

No one said they were binding....hence the word "guidance". The fact that they hold legal status mearly means they could be used under reg 29 of EAWR as a defense to prove compliance with part p itself.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hard to see how Approved Document P relates to EAWR regulations 4(4), 5, 8, 9 etc etc.

Particularly as Approved Document P is advice relevant to domestic installations, not places of work. Yes, I know that a house becomes a place of work for an employed person there, but that isn't what is mostly envisaged by the EAWR.

 

[ColJack]

don't let the missus hear you say it's not a place of work, she'll go ballistic...