Contradictions

[dextrous]

Why, oh why, are there seemingly glaring contradictions in regs.

For example - BS7671 isn't a legal requirement, but you have to comply with them.

Gas installations can be done DIY (not for profit) providing you're competent - which involves not being a DIYer

Hot water should be stored at 60-65 degrees to prevent legionnaires, but cannot come out of the tap at above 50 to prevent scalding, but has to be at least 50 degrees.

All getting quite confusing and unecessary argument points. Can someone not just make a clear, and unequivocable statement of legal requirements?

 

[Shytalkz]

That's the whole point of rules and regs: make it as complicated and contradictory as possible to snare the most people. Get some money in off them, give to treasury, hand out for expenses.

Can you not see that *every* ill in this land is due to the trough feeders?

I'm sitting here designing a temporary habitat scaffold at the moment. Involves the use of a 2 volume guide to good practice, the wind code, the temporary works code, code for ladders, code for actions on structures, code for weights of materials, imposed loads...

 

[bernardgreen]

All getting quite confusing and unecessary argument points. Can someone not just make a clear, and unequivocable statement of legal requirements?

Or even better, make a clear and sensible judgement on what is going to provide the greatest overall safety result.

And re-instill the need to THINK about the situation and the safety implications. Too many people now forget to think about safety. They assume the regulations will keep them safe so why bother to think about it themselves ? And if there is an accident there are lawyers of the genus "vulture" who will make money out of getting compensation for the victim of the accident.

Rant over

 

[denso13]

Which also makes it difficult to answer the questions...Will I need BC approval?...What do I need to do to comply?

Different Authorities interpret the regs differently, even officers in the same office look for different things. A consistent approach would make things somewhat easier.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For example - BS7671 isn't a legal requirement, but you have to comply with them.

No you don't.

Gas installations can be done DIY (not for profit) providing you're competent - which involves not being a DIYer

No it doesn't.

 

[dextrous]

For example - BS7671 isn't a legal requirement, but you have to comply with them.

No you don't.

From the BSI among other places: "BS 7671, although not a legal requirement, is a set of golden rules for electrical installation work and encourages best practice amongst the profession. The regulations are extensively referred to in health and safety documentation and, after 30 June 2008, all installations in the UK will have to comply with them."

Gas installations can be done DIY (not for profit) providing you're competent - which involves not being a DIYer

No it doesn't.

HSE documents clearly indicate that you have to have demonstrated competence through appropriate approved training and inspection.

Woody has made it clear that you are au-fait with googling for information yourself if you want to check up on this

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From the BSI among other places: "BS 7671, although not a legal requirement, is a set of golden rules for electrical installation work and encourages best practice amongst the profession.

I agree, and I'm not arguing against that.

The regulations are extensively referred to in health and safety documentation and,

I agree - they are extensively referred to.

after 30 June 2008, all installations in the UK will have to comply with them."

Please define "have to".

HSE documents clearly indicate that you have to have demonstrated competence through appropriate approved training and inspection.

Are these HSE documents law?

What do the Gas Regulations say about demonstrating competence through appropriate approved training and inspection?

Woody has made it clear that you are au-fait with googling for information yourself if you want to check up on this

I know that Google exists, and I can spell, so you are just as au fait with googling for information as I am.

Unless you don't know how to find Google and/or you can't spell.

So why don't you Google for proof that there's a legal requirement to comply with BS 7671.

Or see if you can find gas regulations which say that people not working for reward have to say about demonstrate competence through appropriate approved training and inspection.

 

[JonoPashley]

BAS just like to prove his superiority over anyone who he deems below him. Complying with BS7671 isnt the law but in the event you are taken to court you best damn well be able to prove why.

ps stop being such a troll.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Complying with BS7671 isnt the law

I'm glad you agree.

ps stop being such a troll.

Stop trying to deny people the right to correct false statements made here.

 

[mattylad]

BAS does have a point you know.

The law is the law, other stuff is not the law & just because other stuff says it does not mean that the law says it.

I'm on Bas's side.


(You can pay me later... lol)

 

[^woody^]

The contradictions exist, because legislation is passed for specific purposes and subsequently interpreted by the courts based on the facts of individual cases. So events, acts or circumstances are only relevant to the context of the specific legislation that applies to the event, act or circumstance.

Guidance and standards are produced by the various trade associations as a means of "good practice" and are not binding.

Legislation will define what can and can't be done, but will not describe how conformity should be achieved. So it is left up to the individual to decide how applicable law should be met, and the most obvious way (but not not the only way) would be to follow guidance notes from the various institutions or trade bodies. But this in itself is not foolproof.

There is also the law (Tort) of negligence. Which relates to the duty of care which a person will owe to others. Here, it is possible to conform to any applicable statute legislation, but still be liable in negligence if things go wrong.

Negligence claims are the ones which tend to invoke published standards to prove the claim

Taking the IEE regs for example. There is no law to say that you must comply. And it is possible to install electrics in a way so as not to comply with the IEE regs, and all may be fine and there would be no problems. But, if something goes wrong and someone suffers a loss, or injury as a result of the work, then they will use the fact that the installation did not conform to the IEE regs as a basis to prove that the installation was done negligently. However, the installer may have a perfectly legitimate reason as to why the IEE regs were not followed, and so the claim could fail