dirty tricks

[Paul_C]

All along I have been talking about the situation where someone is acting in a professional capacity, i.e. is being employed as, and because he is, a registered electrician, and therefore is being employed to work to the standards advertised by the registration body, and has chosen BS 7671 as his route to compliance with Part P and is using his registration status to determine his compliance with Part 3.

And all along I have been talking about the absolute legal requirement of Part P, which does not impose any compulsion to follow BS7671. I'm not talking about following conditions of working under one of registration schemes, I'm talking about an electrician falsely telling a customer that wiring in his home must, by law comply with BS7671. That simply is not true.

All along I have been talking about how, having arrived at that position, compliance with BS 7671 is no longer an option, it is no longer merely advisable, it is no longer only a way, it is the only way left.

But it's not a one-way street, and one can back up from that position. So there is another way out.

All along I have been talking about how, having arrived at that position, it is true to say that compliance with BS 7671 is required by law.

And if there is another legal way out which does not require such compliance, then that statement is clearly in error.

That truth can be expressed in a way which is misleading, it can be expressed imperfectly, it can be embellished with additions which are untruths, but none of those things alter the underlying truth.

Isn't that what I said several posts back? Nothing can alter the underlying truth there there is nothing in legislation which says wiring in homes must be to BS7671. Nothing else in the debate changes that underlying truth.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So in other words, all along, you have been choosing to ignore everything I said about what happens IF someone opts for BS 7671, and all along you have been trying to say that I am wrong about what happens IF because the IF is not the only way to go.

Dear God just how pathetic and pointless do you intend to become?

 

[Paul_C]

There is, but only us electricians can afford it. (£500K) on permanent deposit.

It used to be £15,000, which is the original amount set when compulsory insurance/security came into effect with Road Traffic Act in 1930. It shot up to £500,000 in one big jump sometime in the 1990's.

I would therefore think it is encumbent upon any authority administering/ enforcing the Building Regs to employ inspectors competent to judge whether 'reasonable provision had been made to protect persons...', even if the installation was not fully compliant with the current edition of BS7671.

That's how it should be. If the inspector is not competent to judge whether the installation meets the somewhat broad requirements of Part P of being "reasonably safe" then surely we should be asking why he is doing a job for which he clearly has insufficient knowledge? Merely being conversant with whether something complies with BS7671 or not is clearly not anywhere near enough when Part P does not require such compliance. He has to have a thorough understanding of electrical matters to be able to judge whether something is satisfactory or not.

If an installation was fitted to another standard (as per Paul) then surely acceptance would only be granted if the inspector was more than usually conversant with the different standard.

Well, it should be accepted so long as it meets the somewhat broad requirements of Part P, i.e. that it is "reasonably safe." Again, if the LABC inspector is not sufficiently knowledgeable to judge that, then I would suggest that he is not fit for the position.

So you think we can do what we like as long as it's safe?

That's what Part P says, in effect, isn't it? There is no requirement to work to BS7671, or any other specific standard. The only requirement is to make "reasonable provision" for safety. If what we do is safe, then that requirement is satisfied.

Returning to Paul's reply to my post.
I presume you mean that I could complete an installation to (say) French or Italian standards (as long as notified) but not just take the less onerous parts from several or numerous various standards.

There's nothing to stop you picking and choosing whatever parts you like, so long as the end result is an installation which is "reasonably safe."

The Approved Document mentions those couple of dozen European standards as being considered (by the Secretary of State) to meet the "reasonable provision" requirements of Part P, but that doesn't mean that one has to follow every detail of any one of those standards, just as one does not have to follow every detail of BS7671 to end up with a "reasonably safe" installation.

Very probably - but his/her lack of competence to judge what satisfies the law is hardly an excuse for refusal.

Indeed. And this, of course, is where my "anti-government" hackles start to rise when we hear of an LABC inspector trying to refuse something simply because he doesn't understand it or because it's a little different from the generally BS7671 (give or take the odd detail) installations with which he's familiar.

So you think we can do what we like as long as it's safe?

It's not really a question of what I think - is that not precisely what the law (Part P) says?

I made my comment above before reading John's reply, but clearly we are in agreement.

 

[Paul_C]

So in other words, all along, you have been choosing to ignore everything I said about what happens IF someone opts for BS 7671, and all along you have been trying to say that I am wrong about what happens IF because the IF is not the only way to go.

You have been saying that there are times when one can end up in the position where compliance with BS7671 is a legal requirement. I've just been saying that is not so because there is always an alternative.

 

[SimonH2]

If you want to drive a car on the public highway it is not compulsory to have insurance - having insurance is a way to comply.

Incorrect and a poor analogy, since it is use or keep, as per Section 143 RTA 1988, unless you use or keep a vehicle on behalf of one a list of agencies or you comply with section 144.

It is not compulsory to deposit a bond with the Government - depositing a bond is a way to comply.

Wrong again. If you do not comply with section 143 (or drive a vehicle on behalf of one of a list of agencies) then this section 144 is compulsory.

It is compulsory that you comply with 143 or 144 - there is no other option if you wish to drive or keep a vehicle on a public road or private road unless exempted by SORN.

I really must get some more popcorn in, this is getting quite entertaining

In this case you are both arguing the same thing from different angles.
You both agree that S143 is not technically compulsory as there is an alternative (S144) method of compliance.
Similarly, S144 is not compulsory for the same reason.

But a means of compliance is compulsory - it can be either of the methods.

So it is actually a reasonable analogy. Building regs require certain things, one way of meeting those requirements is to work to BS7671, but there are other options.
In the context of the discussion, a statement to a (potential) customer that the only route to compliance is a new consumer unit meeting current version of BS7671 is inaccurate. It may be the only method the trader is prepared to use, it may be the only route allowed by his scheme membership, but it is not the only route legally available. Similarly with car insurance - one could say "I am required to have insurance because the other options aren't applicable/available to me" which is a true statement, but that does not make "I am legally required to have insurance" (without the qualification) valid.

Dear God just how pathetic and pointless do you intend to become?

He has a loooong way to go before he reaches your standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have been saying that there are times when one can end up in the position where compliance with BS7671 is a legal requirement. I've just been saying that is not so because there is always an alternative.

Yes, but you are completely wrong, and clearly unable to understand very simple things, even when you write the words.

".... there are times when one can end up in the position ..."

And you say that's not so because there is always an alternative?

There is always an alternative to walking over the rocks at low tide, but if you don't take that alternative there are times when one can end up cut off by the tide.

There is always an alternative to sailing your boat in the Arabian Sea, but if you don't take that alternative there are times when one can end up seized by pirates.

There is always an alternative to driving your car in central London, but if you don't take that alternative there are times when one can end up liable to pay the congestion charge.

There is always an alternative to using a registered electrician who will self-certify compliance the Building Records, but if you don't take that alternative there are times when one can end up with the work needing to comply with BS 7671.

 

[Paul_C]

In the context of the discussion, a statement to a (potential) customer that the only route to compliance is a new consumer unit meeting current version of BS7671 is inaccurate. It may be the only method the trader is prepared to use, it may be the only route allowed by his scheme membership, but it is not the only route legally available.

Precisely. Thank you, Simon.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of the discussion, a statement to a (potential) customer that the only route to compliance is a new consumer unit meeting current version of BS7671 is inaccurate. It may be the only method the trader is prepared to use, it may be the only route allowed by his scheme membership, but it is not the only route legally available.

It might be once you have not taken the alternative of not using a registered electrician because you want the assurance of using a Competent Person scheme member and you want the exemption from submitting a Building Regulations application.

 

[hotrod]

Does anyone know where I can get my ego massaged?

 

[SimonH2]

In the context of the discussion, a statement to a (potential) customer that the only route to compliance is a new consumer unit meeting current version of BS7671 is inaccurate. It may be the only method the trader is prepared to use, it may be the only route allowed by his scheme membership, but it is not the only route legally available.

It might be once you have not taken the alternative of not using a registered electrician because you want the assurance of using a Competent Person scheme member and you want the exemption from submitting a Building Regulations application.

In the original context, if a bathroom fitter tells a customer that they cannot have the work done without fitting a new consumer unit (or separate RCD since that was an option they mentioned) because that's the law.

Are they correct ?

Answer, no, because the law does not require that. The sparks registration scheme rules (for example) may make it the only option for that company - but it is not the law requiring it then.

 

[seasickstevie]

Looking at the essence of BAS's comments and the essence of Paul_C's comments, I reckon I might be able to just about get a cigarette paper between them.


..... but only just.