Schedule4-How to rewire most of your house without notifying

[Paul_C]

I think if I was the prospective buyer of a house owned by someone who documented the fact that over a week he did so much accidental damage to his existing cables that he needed to replace them all I'd walk away...

Who said anything about accidental damage?

Notification of notifiable works is a legal requirement. Nobody has the right to ignore this and use 'I think it is a stupid requirement and I am ignoring it' as their defence.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, a man has every right to ignore an unjust law, and in fact has a certain duty to do so. But that aside, I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that such an argument would be accepted by the legal system as a valid defense.

The point is that as demonstrated above, there are plenty of ways in which work can be done without notification which is perfectly legal by simply making the situation fit the precise letter of the regulations, such as the replacement cable example where absolutely nothing in the regulations stipulates how the cable comes to be damaged.

 

[JohnW2]

I think if I was the prospective buyer of a house owned by someone who documented the fact that over a week he did so much accidental damage to his existing cables that he needed to replace them all I'd walk away...

You're forgetting my argument. I would not suggest deliberately damaging any cables. Instead, I would present the (surely correct?) argument that by the time cables had been in place for me to be contemplating their replacement, they would inevitably have suffered some damage (Schedule 4 does not mention the degree of required damage) as a result of natural deterioration and exposure to environmental and operational influences. If you want an extreme case to think about, what if I were replacing 60 year-old VIR-insulated cable - time and environmental factors would have done all the 'damaging' work for me!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

That's crap. Notification of notifiable works is a legal requirement. Nobody has the right to ignore this and use 'I think it is a stupid requirement and I am ignoring it' as their defence.

Have you read all of this (very tongue-in-cheek) thread? It's nothing to do with what you, I or anyone else may think is a stupid requirement - it's about what can theoretically be done without notification without breaking the law - facilitated by the very incompetent drafting of the legislation. Schedule 4 exempts various works from the legal requirement for notification and, as has been illuistrated, it's written so badly that it can be taken to indicate that virtually all works are exempt.

I would dare to suggest that you are guilty of the very same thing that you suggest above, just the other way around - you are assuming that things which you feel should be notifiable are notifiable, even if the words of the law say something different.

Kind Regards, John.

I don't think anybody in the industry (or looking to do any DIY electrics) thinks it's anywhere near a well framed law and nor do I think there is any logic as to what is notifiable. I just doubt anybody who is going to undertake work, without notifying, is going to get a defence ready.

With Part P and boilers that don't work when it gets cold, Prezza has left a laughable legacy.

 

[SimonH2]

I had some more thought about this "bathroom/kitchen that isn't a bathroom/kitchen at the time of the works" bit.

If there is no kitchen sink (as was given as an example) and so the "kitchen" ceases to be a room where additions would be notifyable, and you use that argument ...

... is there then a risk that you'd need to notify for building regs to convert the non-kitchen (or non-bathroom) into a kitchen (or bathroom) later ?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think anybody in the industry (or looking to do any DIY electrics) thinks it's anywhere near a well framed law and nor do I think there is any logic as to what is notifiable. I just doubt anybody who is going to undertake work, without notifying, is going to get a defence ready.

That's probably true of many people, but it seems very different from what you were saying in your previous post about people ignoring a legal requirement because they felt it was a stupid requirement.

It's probably also worth pointing out that some people feel the need to remain 'law abiding'. They therefore would not undertake work without notification if they believed that by so doing they were ignoring a legal requirement - but they might be prepared to do it if they believed that they at least had an argument that the work was not notifiable and that they therfore did not believe they were breaking the law (even if they were wrong in that belief).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

... is there then a risk that you'd need to notify for building regs to convert the non-kitchen (or non-bathroom) into a kitchen (or bathroom) later ?

Now that could open up another whole load of issues of interpretation and what exactly the regulations are supposed to mean!

Replacement of a kitchen sink, shower, or bath is exempt from notification by 1(j), subject to conditions:

(j) replacing—

(i) a sanitary convenience with one that uses no more water than the one it replaces,

(ii) a washbasin, sink or bidet,

(iii) a fixed bath,

(iv) a shower,

(v) a rainwater gutter, or

(vi) a rainwater downpipe,

where the work does not include any work to underground drainage, and includes no work to the hot or cold water system or above ground drainage, which may prejudice the health or safety of any person on completion of the work

What precisely is that last clause doing there?

If the work is all done properly, then clearly health & safety is not considered prejudiced. If the work does compromise health in some way, as by the general requirements of the applicable part of schedule 1, then surely that work cannot meet the building regulations in any case?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it's about what can theoretically be done without notification without breaking the law

But if it ever got to the point where you needed it to work, i.e. you needed to actually have not broken the law there's a very real risk that the court would see through your series of supposedly unrelated series of 1a exempted replacements and, reworded in judgement-speak, say "B*****ks it wasn't notifiable, take him down."

Remember the guy who couldn't get planning permission for a house on Green Belt land he owned? He built it anyway, inside an existing barn. 7 years later he demolished the barn. He argued that even though he had built without permission, because the law said that if 7 years had gone by and the council had done nothing then they were too late.

The courts disagreed, ruled that building inside the barn was an artificial device to gain exemption from a planning regulation, and his house was demolished.

As I said, there's no point to any of the above - if you want to avoid notification you might as well evade it.

 

[Paul_C]

The courts disagreed, ruled that building inside the barn was an artificial device to gain exemption from a planning regulation, and his house was demolished.

So apparently the judicial system is now quite happy to ignore its own legislation when it feels like it and make up regulations as it goes along. And people wonder why I say that this country is becoming a dictatorship?

 

[JohnW2]

But if it ever got to the point where you needed it to work, i.e. you needed to actually have not broken the law there's a very real risk that the court would see through your series of supposedly unrelated series of 1a exempted replacements and, reworded in judgement-speak, say "B*****ks it wasn't notifiable, take him down."

Possibly, although there is a definite limit to how far a court can apply common sense 'despite the word of the law' without risking their judgment being overturned by a higher court - it risks turning into just a "lawyers'debating society" game. However, as we're always saying, I think we all believe that the probability of failure to notify, per se, ever getting into court is vanishingly small. Hence my comment that it's probably reasons other than potential legal challenges which might make some people want to 'have a story' as to why they believe the work to have been technically non-notifiable - for the satisfaction of their own consciences, to wave at potential buyers or whatever.

Although it's not an issue probably appropriate for too much public discussion, even with the anonymity of this medium, I think we each have our own considered personal attitude to notification - and I think we should accept that the same is true of those who come to this forum to ask questions.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So apparently the judicial system is now quite happy to ignore its own legislation when it feels like it and make up regulations as it goes along.

No - what courts do, and have done, is to rule on what they believed the will of Parliament really was.

And people wonder why I say that this country is becoming a dictatorship?

WILL YOU PLEASE STFU!

 

[scousespark]

I don't think anybody in the industry (or looking to do any DIY electrics) thinks it's anywhere near a well framed law and nor do I think there is any logic as to what is notifiable. I just doubt anybody who is going to undertake work, without notifying, is going to get a defence ready.

That's probably true of many people, but it seems very different from what you were saying in your previous post about people ignoring a legal requirement because they felt it was a stupid requirement.

It's probably also worth pointing out that some people feel the need to remain 'law abiding'. They therefore would not undertake work without notification if they believed that by so doing they were ignoring a legal requirement - but they might be prepared to do it if they believed that they at least had an argument that the work was not notifiable and that they therfore did not believe they were breaking the law (even if they were wrong in that belief).

Kind Regards, John.

I haven't changed my argument John. The law is in place, regardless of it lacking logic. People who choose to ignore it won't do so thinking of their justification.

 

[Paul_C]

No - what courts do, and have done, is to rule on what they believed the will of Parliament really was.

If the wording of a statute is unclear, then what the court is supposed to do is rule on what the words actually mean. If a court can just discard what the legislation says, or at least what it believes the interpretation of ambiguous legislation says, and instead decide that something is illegal because it thinks that what parliament intended to say, then how is any normal person ever supposed to know what the statutory requirement actually is?

It means that a court can pretty much arbitrarily decide that he is guilty of something which he could not possibly have known about merely from reading the applicable legislation. That's not to say that this doesn't seem to happen on occasions; here's a piece about comparative methods of "interpreting" statutes:

http://www.richinstyle.com/masterclass/smallerblack/interpretation.html

 

[JohnW2]

I haven't changed my argument John. The law is in place, regardless of it lacking logic. People who choose to ignore it won't do so thinking of their justification.

It still doesn't seem that you have read and understood the thread. It is nothing to do with ignoring the law - it is to do with ways of obeying the law as it is (badly) written - whereas you seem to be talking about a hypothetical law which you feel it should have been written.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

No - what courts do, and have done, is to rule on what they believed the will of Parliament really was.

If the wording of a statute is unclear, then what the court is supposed to do is rule on what the words actually mean. If a court can just discard what the legislation says, or at least what it believes the interpretation of ambiguous legislation says, and instead decide that something is illegal because it thinks that what parliament intended to say, then how is any normal person ever supposed to know what the statutory requirement actually is?

I think you can be reassured, because I believe that BAS is wrong. As you say, all a court can do is rule on what the words of legislation mean, not on the intent of the legislators really was (if that differs from what the words say). The separation between the Judiciary and the Legislature/Executive is one of the most fundamental concepts of our (unwritten) constitution. There are countless examples of legislation that has been enacted which, contrary to the intent/will of the legislators, contains 'loopholes' - and the courts have been helpless to do anything about that until the legislation itself has been modified.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

With some emphases of mine -

http://statutelaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/6.html : ..court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations.


http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_09.htm :

In fulfilling their task of applying the law to the facts before them, the courts frequently have to interpret (i.e. decide the meaning of) statutes....
.
.
Whilst Parliament may make laws, judges interpret them.
.
.
There are also a number of presumptions that the court will take into account in ascertaining the intentions of Parliament...


Even though is is on the website of an organisation which is not disinterested, it's an actual transcript, not their own summary which could be biased or misleading

http://www.freebeagles.org/caselaw/CL_hs_Curtin (2)_full.html :

"Mr Lawson-Cruttenden has several times referred to the 1997 Act as a "victims' charter". The legislators who passed that Act would no doubt be surprised to see how widely its terms are perceived to extend by some people. It was clearly not intended by Parliament to be used to clamp down on the discussion of matters of public interest or upon the rights of political protest and public demonstration which are so much part of our democratic tradition. I have little doubt that the courts will resist any such wide interpretation as and when the occasion arises, but it is unfortunate that the terms in which the provisions are couched should be thought to sanction any such restrictions. "

The last one not only shows that courts do make decisions on what they believe Parliament intended, but also in this case the judge said that he thought other courts would make the same decision.