Like for Like??

[Paul_C]

in particular exploiting the differences between the Statutory Instrument and Approved Document.

Which in some instances contradict each other. Given that one is supposed to be "clarifying" the statutory provisions in the other, that's one big inconsistency that runs through the whole system.

Only a court can determine if an excuse is invalid and no one is going to pay the cost of getting the court to do so.

Precisely. And as so far there does not seem to have been one single case of a homeowner being taken to court even for work upon which everybody is agreed most definitely is notifiable, what does it matter whether strictly speaking it's legal or illegal to do the job without notifying anyway?

So long as the work is done safely, the worst that's ever likely to happen is that a potential new owner of the property wants the installation inspected - Just the same as can happen with any other installation to which nothing has been done since 2005.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, I just read what is written. It's not my fault if it says something you don't agree with, or indeed something I don't agree with. It's not my fault if it's so poorly written that it creates glaring inconsistencies that anyone else can see but that you try to eliminate by applying further inconsistencies such as making up your own definition of a term ("fused spur" for example).

Yawn yawn yawn.

You've tried this before you fool, and it is never going to work.

And you're really not in a good position to argue about inconsistency when you came to the conclusion that of two identical installations one could comply with Part P while the other does not.

And you've tried, with great success on many occasions, to show that you either have a serious learning difficulty level of understanding what the word "reasonable" means, or you are being deliberately obtuse as part of your attempt to deal with your fear of the Building Regulations by making them out to be ridiculous.

There is no need for you to have another try.

 

[Paul_C]

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=209324&start=0

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=266017&start=0

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=268236&start=60

 

[UKMICKY]

And you've tried, with great success on many occasions, to show that you either have a serious learning difficulty level of understanding what the word "reasonable" means, or you are being deliberately obtuse as part of your attempt to deal with your fear of the Building Regulations by making them out to be ridiculous.

There is no need for you to have another try.

Having an interest in the law beyond that of an average man but not to the degree of a professional i know that the word 'reasonable' has no precise legal definition and can mean different things under different circumstances and situations.

I am therefore interested in understanding what it is understood to mean in the circumstances represented by this thread and subject.

Can anyone enlighten me,is there a written legal standard or is their any case law that has set any guidelines.

 

[JohnW2]

Having an interest in the law beyond that of an average man but not to the degree of a professional i know that the word 'reasonable' has no precise legal definition and can mean different things under different circumstances and situations.
I am therefore interested in understanding what it is understood to mean in the circumstances represented by this thread and subject.
Can anyone enlighten me,is there a written legal standard or is their any case law that has set any guidelines.

I think you have hit several nails on the head. As you say, despite the attempts at some here to suggest that it somehow has a 'precise' meaning, in law the world 'reasonable' always implies the need for judgements to be made in individual cases. To the best of my knowldege, there is no (and probably never will be any **) case law relating to the issues being discussed here - which leaves the field open for people to speculate, disagree and bicker about how a court might interpret 'reasonable' in this context, if they were ever given an opportunity.

** As things are, I think that those involved probably realise how iffy the legislation in question is, and therefore are unlikely to ever take the 'risk' (quite apart from hassle, effort and cost) of prosecuting anyone.

That's how I see it, anyway!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

In other words, the whole of schedule 4 (which sets out the jobs which are not notifiable) is a completely inconsistent mish-mash of badly written rules which make practically no sense.

They may make practically no sense to you, but not everybody suffers from the same handicaps as you do.

Browsing those links to old threads at the bottom of the page, I happened upon a couple of old threads. Ladies & gentlemen of the DIYnot jury, I present the following evidence.

Exhibit A
On October 14, 2003, B-A-S wrote a quite sensible critique of the then-proposed Part P rules, and included the statement that:

Some of this makes no sense

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15096

I submit that while there were changes in the final version, and later amendments, many of the things which were acknowledged as making no sense then are still in the current rules and still make no sense. Perhaps we could get an explanation as to why somebody who acknowledged that nonsensical nature of some of those rules almost 8 years ago now appears to think that they make perfect sense.

Exhibit B
On May 23, 2005, B-A-S wrote:

I'm hardly likely to have a problem with DIYers not notifying LABC, am I?

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=165037

Perhaps we could also get an explanation as to why a little over 6 years later somebody who's "hardly likely to have a problem" with jobs not being notified seems to put an inordinate amount of effort into asking newcomers to the forum accusatory questions such as "How did you tell building control you would comply with Part P?" at every opportunity.

Exhibit C
A little earlier in this thread when pointing out that certain things regarding the arrangements I make in my own house I was told that my "anti-government opinions" are irrelevant if the government has decided that something is, supposedly, in my best interest (or the best interest of the country, which apparently, owns the house to which I have a title deed).

In a thread about socket heights, on March 9, 2004, B-A-S came up with this idea:

OK - here's the plan.

Above every switch and below every socket, install boxes at the heights you want, and have the cables run through them on their way to the "correct" ones, and plaster over them.

After Mr Building Control has done his final inspection, and before you do the final decoration, knock away the plaster, cut the cables, pull the discarded ends out, install the accessories where you want and plaster over the other set of boxes. Bit of a fag, but it might be the only way to get what you want.

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35380

Perhaps we could get an explanation as to why somebody who was advocating such a pragmatic approach to such things just over 7 years ago now seems to take the view that if some government bureaucrat has decreed that something shall be so, then we should all be good little Socialists and just accept it without question and do what we're told.

 

[RF Lighting]

I doubt that anyone really cares to be honest.

 

[Space cat]

Well I found one little bit rather interesting. Changing something to what you really want after the inspector has done his rounds has always been an option but this goes one better:

Above every switch and below every socket, install boxes at the heights you want, and have the cables run through them on their way to the "correct" ones, and plaster over them.

Genius!