Extending Ring Main

[CortinaV8]

Depends how short you are, I guess

 

[chapeau]

It's not a question of interpretation, what you have written there is flat-out wrong, and any DIYer who acts on that advice will be on the wrong side of the law and it will be you who has put him there.

Of course it's a matter of interpretation. To say otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the law.

This is getting very silly.

It's a basic premise of law that you are innocent until proven guilty and in a criminal court the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the guilt of the accused. That doesn't mean Probably Did it, it means he broke the law "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

As I said before, if you follow my algorithm "no court in the land will convict you for breaching Part P of the building regs for failure to notify."

Perhaps I should have said "completent court", as you will probably be up in front of the Mags and all bets are off in there, but I digress.

The approved document (which contrary to ill informed opinion in here IS backed by statute - see building act 1984) says that in open-plan kitchens you are OK if > 3m from the sink. That in itself is enough to introduce reasonable doubt, and even worse for your argument, it says in law that if the approved document says something, it tends to prove compliance with the building regulations themselves.

So basically I win and you lose. Have the grace to accept that and stop being so agressive.

Please tell us where the reference is to 3 metres from a sink and we can all then apologise.

Approved Document P. I know you will now say 'it's not law' but you would be wrong there too, ref Building Act 1984 for where it belongs in law.

So, I apologise for shouting earlier. Now over to you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course it's a matter of interpretation. To say otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the law.

It's hardly a matter of interpretation when the distance of 3m, or in fact any concept of a distance being significant, does not appear anywhere in the wording of the law.

This is getting very silly.

Unfortunately yes, and the roots of the silliness can be traced directly back to your assertion that in a kitchen the distance of a socket from the sink is significant.

It's a basic premise of law that you are innocent until proven guilty and in a criminal court the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the guilt of the accused. That doesn't mean Probably Did it, it means he broke the law "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

That does not mean that you should advise people to break the law on the grounds that it isn't actually breaking it until a court says it is.

As I said before, if you follow my algorithm "no court in the land will convict you for breaching Part P of the building regs for failure to notify."

I apologise - I hadn't realised that you have such a good ability to predict the way a court would behave that people can safely follow your advice to clearly contravene the letter of the law because you know that the prosecution would fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a contravention.

The approved document (which contrary to ill informed opinion in here IS backed by statute - see building act 1984)

Please tell us exactly what that "backing" comprises.

says that in open-plan kitchens you are OK if > 3m from the sink.

Actually it says open plan areas, and this is the first time in this whole topic that you have mentioned that - until now you've been telling people that the "3m rule" applies to any kitchen.

That in itself is enough to introduce reasonable doubt,

Please explain how it introduces reasonable doubt over something explicitly different from what it talks about.

and even worse for your argument, it says in law that if the approved document says something, it tends to prove compliance with the building regulations themselves.

Please explain how following, in a kitchen, the guidance for a different type of room tends to prove compliance with the regulations for a kitchen.

So basically I win and you lose.

If you say so.

It doesn't seem that anybody else agrees with you though.

Have the grace to accept that and stop being so agressive.

I'm afraid it is quite impossible for me to accept something as patently false as your assertion that you are correct.

Please tell us where the reference is to 3 metres from a sink and we can all then apologise.

Approved Document P. I know you will now say 'it's not law' but you would be wrong there too, ref Building Act 1984 for where it belongs in law.

1) Please explain to everybody here who may not have read the Building Act 1984 exactly where it belongs in law.

2) Please explain why you think that guidance which refers to open plan areas applies to rooms which are not open plan.

3) I have nothing to apologise for. You on the other hand can now add putting other peoples words into a post in a way which makes it looks as if I wrote them to your list of offences.

 

[ColJack]

7 Compliance or non-compliance with approved documents
(1)A failure on the part of a person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but if, in any proceedings whether civil or criminal, it is alleged that a person has at any time contravened a provision of building regulations—
(a)a failure to comply with a document that at that time was approved for the purposes of that provision may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and
(b)proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

so where is the legal status then?

all it says is that following the approved document will TEND TO mean you have complied with the building regulations.. not that you ABSOLUTELY HAVE done..
it does not say that the approved documents definitions are the law..

it's as stupid as saying that the highway code book is the law.. it's not.. it's a guide on how to comply with that law, but if part of it was wrong then doing it and saying "well the book said so" is not an acceptable deffence.. you still broke the law..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not sure about the latter - if an Approved Document tells you that doing something will comply with the law, and it doesn't, I think you'd have a pretty good chance of avoiding prosecution, provided nobody had suffered injury or loss.

But what we have here is an attempt by chapeau to expand guidance on one particular type of kitchen space to cover all kitchen spaces.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ColJack]

If I first fix a room that will be a kitchen but has no counter tops, cupboards or sinks in it yet.... is it notifiable as the definition of kitchen says it must contain a sink and food prereration area...

 

[Bahco]

I can pop round and have a look and advise if you want Bacho.. it'd be nice to put a face to the name..

Thanks Coljack but I have my cousin coming round on Thursday to check it over. Will bear your offer in mind for the future.

When it is all done I am having a Electrical check and certificate for £80 which will be worth it for peace of mind.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I first fix a room that will be a kitchen but has no counter tops, cupboards or sinks in it yet.... is it notifiable as the definition of kitchen says it must contain a sink and food prereration area...

Clearly it is not.