Regulations on new work

[Stoday]

Perhaps you should also read para 1(2)......

Yeah you got me there BAS. But you're still stuck because the DNOs insist on BS7671; no get-out clause with them.

 

[ebee]

Perhaps you should also read para 1(2)......

Yeah you got me there BAS. But you're still stuck because the DNOs insist on BS7671; no get-out clause with them.

As one way (and only one way) of achieving this.

Which is akin to the point Ban made right at the start

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps you should also read para 1(2)......

Yeah you got me there BAS. But you're still stuck because the DNOs insist on BS7671; no get-out clause with them.

So the ESQCR does not make BS7671 mandatory, and itself explicitly states that the equivalent standards from EEA countries are acceptable.

The Building Regulations do not make BS7671 mandatory, and the Approved Document explicitly states that the equivalent standards from EEA countries are acceptable.

So I wonder if they really would insist, or if they are just using std words in their agreements that nobody has ever needed to challenge. You must admit, it would be interesting to have a conversation with EDF along the lines of "What do you mean the French Wiring Regulations are not acceptable?"

 

[Softus]

But you're still stuck because the DNOs insist on BS7671; no get-out clause with them.

Actually there is.

A court has the jurisdiction to rule on whether or not a given contract term falls under the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (as amended).

If what you say is correct, i.e. that all DNOs insist on evidence (or declaration) of conformance to BS7671, then it could be argued that such a contract term is unreasonable, since there's no legal or competitive basis for such an insistence, and the consumer/contractor has no reasonable option other to use a DNO for the electricity supply.