dirty tricks

[Paul_C]

1) A customer has chosen to have the work done by a registered electrician.

2) The registered electrician is required by his scheme to comply with BS 7671.

That does not make it acceptable for the registered electrician to lie by telling the customer that compliance with BS7671 is a statutory requirement.

3) If the electrician does not comply with BS 7671 he is not providing his customer with the service the customer contracted for.

It would depend upon the contract terms.

4) If he does not comply with BS 7671 he is no longer entitled to avoid applying for Building Regulations in advance because he is no longer working to the standard required by the organisation which would allow him to avoid it.

Not disputed. But that does not make it acceptable for him to lie about the statutory requirements.

5) For him to provide the service contracted by his customer (surely a legal requirement?) and for him to legally avoid advance notification he has to work to BS 7671.

6) Failing to work to BS 7671 results in breach of contract and contravention of the Building Regulations.

That still does not make it acceptable to lie about the statutory requirements.

And you don't think that for that particular electrician for that particular job the fact that failing to comply with BS 7671 results in both civil and criminal offences makes complying with it a legal requirement?

I'm not talking about a specific case where the work does not comply fully with BS7671 but is not notified etc. I'm talking about the general issue of a registered electrician deliberately giving incorrect information about the nature of the statutory requirements. If he tells a customer that all work must comply with BS7671 by law, then he is misleading that customer, just as the bathroom company earlier telling a customer that a new consumer unit is a legal requirement for the planned work is misleading that customer.

And even if we do consider your specific case quoted above, assuming that the non-BS7671 compliant work was still reasonably safe, then the only offense would be failing to notify the work in advance, not a failure to comply with the provisions of Part P.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That does not make it acceptable for the registered electrician to lie by telling the customer that compliance with BS7671 is a statutory requirement.

He is not lying - the circumstances of this particular situation, his particular professional status and the nature of the work combine to create a situation where if he, moving froward from this stage, does not comply with BS 7671 he will be breaking the law.

That means that at this stage, compliance with BS 7671 has become necessary to avoid breaking the law. It has become a statutory requirement.

No matter that there was originally no compulsion to choose BS 7671, having chosen it as the way to comply with the law you have chosen to make compliance with it legally required.

Not disputed. But that does not make it acceptable for him to lie about the statutory requirements.

It's not a lie.

See the above.

Not that you will accept it, of course, for it is based on logic, and you don't do that.

That still does not make it acceptable to lie about the statutory requirements.

It's not a lie.

I'm talking about the general issue of a registered electrician deliberately giving incorrect information about the nature of the statutory requirements. If he tells a customer that all work must comply with BS7671 by law, then he is misleading that customer, just as the bathroom company earlier telling a customer that a new consumer unit is a legal requirement for the planned work is misleading that customer.

It's not a general issue - it is a specific one.

By the time things have progressed to the point where an electrician has been chosen to do work in accordance with the professional standards of his registration body and in accordance with a particular way to comply with Part 3 of the Building Regulations, failure on his part to comply with BS 7671 will result in unlawful actions.


[/quote]And even if we do consider your specific case quoted above, assuming that the non-BS7671 compliant work was still reasonably safe, then the only offense would be failing to notify the work in advance, not a failure to comply with the provisions of Part P.[/quote]
So failing to comply with BS 7671 results in an offence being committed.

i.e. in order to avoid an offence being committed, i.e. in order to comply with the law, BS 7671 must be complied with.

 

[Paul_C]

He is not lying - the circumstances of this particular situation, his particular professional status and the nature of the work combine to create a situation where if he, moving froward from this stage, does not comply with BS 7671 he will be breaking the law.

Isn't it the householder commissioning the work who would, ultimately, be held responsible? But that aside.....

That means that at this stage, compliance with BS 7671 has become necessary to avoid breaking the law. It has become a statutory requirement.

No it hasn't, because there is still the legal option of the homeowner notifying building control and then having the (non-BS7671) work done later. There is a big difference between an electrician telling a customer that if he does the work right now under the auspices of his registration scheme then he will have to work to BS7671 and telling a customer that "all installations have to comply with BS7671 - it's the law." The latter statement is simply not true.

No matter that there was originally no compulsion to choose BS 7671, having chosen it as the way to comply with the law you have chosen to make compliance with it legally required.

You can't create statutory requirements out of thin air. There is no statutory requirement for electrical installations to comply with BS7671. Any other issues are incidental.

Not disputed. But that does not make it acceptable for him to lie about the statutory requirements.

It's not a lie.

There is no statute which says that all electrical installations must comply with BS7671. Saying that there is such legislation is an untruth, a lie.

Not that you will accept it, of course, for it is based on logic, and you don't do that.

The problem is that I do. Issues surrounding whether an electrician is a scheme member, refuses to do anything which isn't in full compliance with BS7671 etc. cannot change the basic fact that there is no statutory requirement for wiring to follow BS7671. Telling a customer that "it's the law" that the installation must comply is, therefore, a lie.

So failing to comply with BS 7671 results in an offence being committed.

i.e. in order to avoid an offence being committed, i.e. in order to comply with the law, BS 7671 must be complied with.

No, because there is the legal option of notifying and then doing the non-BS7671 work.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm a little confused as to what would NOT comply with 7671 but would be acceptable to an LABC inspector, bearing in mind that the building inspector, who may not be a 'competent' electrician, is likely to rely on 7671 himself.

Apart from specific values (e.g. max. Zs) 7671 does itself appear to be somewhat vague in a lot of its instructions so could not something out of the ordinary be argued to comply with 7671 if it was inherently safe?

Could either of you, or anyone, give an example of something which definitely does NOT comply but would be acceptable when notified to the Local Authority?

 

[Paul_C]

For starters, there could be the case of an installation done to any one of the two dozen European standards mentioned in the Approved Document as being ("in the view of the Secretary of State") acceptable for compliance with Part P.

 

[SimonH2]

Perhaps you should take that complaint to those who falsely accuse me of wanting to upset people, and who steadfastly refuse to recognise the basic principle that choices can have logical consequences.

The complaint was that while you clearly have valuable insight to offer, you generally do so in a manner that is offputting even to those who know what you're like and make allowances for that.

Thus, whatever you rant on about gets taken as "B-A-S ranting again" and the message you are trying to get across is lost. Take the issue of your stupid "IF" images. Only you seem incapable of seeing just how annoying it is when someone posts a wide image on the forum and makes the whole page of other postings hard to read - thus making you seem even more of a ranting loony. Just sticking to an image (say) 400 pixels wide would still get the message across - in fact I think it would actually be more effective.

The end results is that you have actually failed to get your message across, mostly because people are no longer prepared to put the effort in to try and extract the useful information from the rantings.

In other threads I've observed that some of the OPs slink away because instead of sensible comments on how their proposed work may be done safely or why the OP shouldn't be attempting it - they get what they perceive as a torrent of abuse. That may have your desired effect of them not attempting the work, but it may also have the opposite effect - that they go ahead and still do the work but fail to get the benefit of advice on how to do it safely/to standard/legally etc.

I have an interest in another area altogether - that of running vehicles (in my case, nice V8s) on LPG. Not that long ago it was virtually impossible to find information on how the systems work, what standards exist for conversions, how to do things safely etc etc etc. The industry body (then the UK LPG Association) clearly had a policy of it's members not divulging anything and some of the lies I was told would make a BG fitter blush compared to their "spook a granny" standing instructions. They also appear to have had a policy of not allowing it's members to sell any parts/materials to non members.

The result wasn't all more work for them. The result was that people still did their own conversions, but didn't have the benefit of knowledge of the codes of practice or access to proper parts and materials - and yes, there have been some quite frightening examples driving around. The only people prevented from doing stuff were mostly those that were capable of doing a good safe job given access to the right knowledge and materials.

So I suggest that your deliberately zero-tolerance approach, and abrasive attitude, are counterproductive and result in less-safe work being done than if you were a bit more approachable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No it hasn't, because there is still the legal option of the homeowner notifying building control and then having the (non-BS7671) work done later.

That option is not available unless earlier decisions are revisited and different choices made.

Which of course will have a different outcome on whether at a later point in time there is no choice to lawfully do anything except comply with BS 7671.

There is a big difference between an electrician telling a customer that if he does the work right now under the auspices of his registration scheme then he will have to work to BS7671 and telling a customer that "all installations have to comply with BS7671 - it's the law." The latter statement is simply not true.

It may be true within the context of that particular electrician doing that particular job at that particular time due to decisions already made.

You can't create statutory requirements out of thin air. There is no statutory requirement for electrical installations to comply with BS7671. Any other issues are incidental.

There is always an option at the start to choose a path which does not require compliance with BS 7671.

There is also the option to choose one which does.

Having chosen one which does, then unless that path is abandoned then you are legally required to comply with BS 7671.

Of course you may abandon the path, but if you do not then compliance with BS 7671 remains mandatory.

There is no statute which says that all electrical installations must comply with BS7671. Saying that there is such legislation is an untruth, a lie.

There is a statute which requires you to make choices on how to comply with its various provisions.

You have to pick one.

Whichever one you pick becomes mandatory if you proceed.

If you pick BS 7671 it becomes mandatory if you proceed.

The problem is that I do. Issues surrounding whether an electrician is a scheme member, refuses to do anything which isn't in full compliance with BS7671 etc. cannot change the basic fact that there is no statutory requirement for wiring to follow BS7671. Telling a customer that "it's the law" that the installation must comply is, therefore, a lie.

It may be true within the context of that particular electrician doing that particular job at that particular time due to decisions already made.

No, because there is the legal option of notifying and then doing the non-BS7671 work.

If that option has already been discarded then it no longer remains, does it.

 

[Paul_C]

That option is not available unless earlier decisions are revisited and different choices made.

So the option is available. (See how I didn't need gigantic images to make that point?) Therefore to say that you are absolutely, irrevocably committed (in the legal sense) to following BS7671 is false.

It may be true within the context of that particular electrician doing that particular job at that particular time due to decisions already made.

But now you're adding a whole load of conditions. It might be the only legal course open to doing the job based upon actions already taken and the absence of prior notification to LABC, but as you've just acknowledged, another option is available by changing previous choices and acting accordingly. So there is never any absolute statutory requirement to have work done to BS7671 regardless of decisions which have been made and which can then be "unmade."

Having chosen one which does, then unless that path is abandoned then you are legally required to comply with BS 7671.

And there's the same word again: unless you abandon that path and choose another. So there's still an option, therefore compliance with BS7671 cannot be compulsory.

Whichever one you pick becomes mandatory if you proceed.

If you pick BS 7671 it becomes mandatory if you proceed.

And again. If there is an alternate option, then it is not absolute compulsion.

It may be true within the context of that particular electrician doing that particular job at that particular time due to decisions already made.

That in no way alters the fact that if an electrician tells a customer, "All wiring must comply with BS7671 by law" then at best he is giving out false information in the mistaken belief that it is true, and at worst is deliberately lying.

Do you really think that the average customer is going to take a statement such as that above as being implicitly qualified with "Within the context of if I do the job at this precise moment based upon your non-notification of the work and my adherence to scheme membership conditions" as it is worded? Of course not; it's going to be taken as a statement that all work must comply with BS7671, which as you know is utterly false.

No, because there is the legal option of notifying and then doing the non-BS7671 work.

If that option has already been discarded then it no longer remains, does it.

It's not irrevocably discarded, so it still remains an option.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well I'm glad that you have finally recognised the existence of IF, and that consequences arise out of choices made at various stages.

Let's look back at how this all started:

... those acting in a professional capacity and charging money for their services, to comply with the law and to choose working to the current edition of the Wiring Regulations as their method of compliance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Having chosen a way you can, of course, revisit that choice and make a different one.

But if you do not, then you must carry on doing what you originally chose to do.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm a little confused as to what would NOT comply with 7671 but would be acceptable to an LABC inspector, bearing in mind that the building inspector, who may not be a 'competent' electrician, is likely to rely on 7671 himself.

That, of course, is a problem, but one which only really arises if the building inspector is not 'fit for purpose'.

As you know, Part P only requires that "Reasonable provision shall be made .... to protect persons .... from fire or injury", and certainly does not 'require' compliance with BS7671 in order to achieve that. As Paul is always saying, it makes little sense to suggest that an installation which was fully complinat (hence deemed 'safe') on 30th June 2008 suddenly became 'unsafe' the next day - and even BS7671 itself (in its Introduction) acknowledges that work carried out under previous editions of the Wiring Regs 'is not necessarily unsafe'. 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.

It's that word 'reasonable' (so beloved of lawyers!) again. I suppose what is being suggested that the 'reasonable provisions' (for safety) required by Part P may be a less demanding requirement than is full compliance with BS7671. Courts are generally fairly sensible in deciding what constitutes 'reasonable', and tend not to interpret the word too harshly or extremely.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

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.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm a little confused as to what would NOT comply with 7671 but would be acceptable to an LABC inspector, bearing in mind that the building inspector, who may not be a 'competent' electrician, is likely to rely on 7671 himself.

That, of course, is a problem, but one which only really arises if the building inspector is not 'fit for purpose'.

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.
Were he not then he likely would refuse leading to lengthy discussions.

As you know, Part P only requires that "Reasonable provision shall be made .... to protect persons .... from fire or injury", and certainly does not 'require' compliance with BS7671 in order to achieve that. As Paul is always saying, it makes little sense to suggest that an installation which was fully complinat (hence deemed 'safe') on 30th June 2008 suddenly became 'unsafe' the next day - and even BS7671 itself (in its Introduction) acknowledges that work carried out under previous editions of the Wiring Regs 'is not necessarily unsafe'.

Therefore are you saying that work done today under the 16th (or 15th or 14th) would still be accepted?

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.

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

It's that word 'reasonable' (so beloved of lawyers!) again. I suppose what is being suggested that the 'reasonable provisions' (for safety) required by Part P may be a less demanding requirement than is full compliance with BS7671. Courts are generally fairly sensible in deciding what constitutes 'reasonable', and tend not to interpret the word too harshly or extremely.

So, apart from the registering scheme conditions, 17th 7671 means nothing.

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.

 

[ebee]

Is that not what Ban has just said?

I did not know there was an alternative to insurance!

(Replying to Riveralt)

 

[riveralt]

I did not know there was an alternative to insurance!

(Replying to Riveralt)

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

 

[JohnW2]

That, of course, is a problem, but one which only really arises if the building inspector is not 'fit for purpose'.

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.

He does not necessary have to be conversant with any regulations. The law he is enforcing only requires him/her to be able to judge whether 'reasonable provisions' have been made 'to protect persons...' (in everyday English, 'safe'). To be fit for purpose as an enforcer of that law, (s)he should therefore be competent to judge what is 'safe'.

Were he not then he likely would refuse leading to lengthy discussions.

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

Therefore are you saying that work done today under the 16th (or 15th or 14th) would still be accepted?

Of course not (as a generalisation) - but nor am I saying that everything done under previous regulations is necessarily 'unsafe' and hence contrary to Part P. As I said, even BS7671 acknowledges that. Part P could so easily have been written to require compliance with BS7671, but it wasn't. Instead it has been written in a manner which requires a competent person to make a judgment as to whether 'reasonable provisions' for safety have been made. It's a bit like dangerous/careless driving, partricularly in the pre-video days - enforcing the law often required case-by-case judgment by a 'competent' police officer as to whether someone's driving was 'reasonable' or not, not reference to a pile of boxes which needed to be ticked.

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?

So, apart from the registering scheme conditions, 17th 7671 means nothing.

Unless/until some legislation makes compliance with it mandatory, I would have thought that it essentially exists only as a 'guideline' to what is, today, considered by IET/BSI to be 'best practice' (in terms of safety, and other things).

Kind Regards, John.