Schedule4-How to rewire most of your house without notifying

[JohnW2]

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

This material contains a statement which I think summarises what I was saying/suggesting, namely ....

It should be noted that statutory interpretation does not extend to reading words into the statute to rectify or change an Act. It is generally held that the courts cannot fill in the gaps. 'If a gap is disclosed the remedy lies in an amending Act' as for a judge to do otherwise is a 'naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation'.(per Lord Simonds, Magor & St Mellons RDC v Newport Corporation (1952))

In other words, if the word of the law is unambiguous, even if incomplete or in some people's eyes 'wrong', it is the place of legislators, not the judiciary, to rectify that. Furthermore, earlier sections of this material indicate that the process of Statutory Interpretation which, as you have indicated, may include consideration of the intentions of the legislators, is only to be resorted to when the words of the law are not clear - otherwise the above applies.

... but I don't understand why we are debating all this, since we know that issues of failure to notify are not, per se, going to get into any court, let alone a higher one!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

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.

I have read the thread and do understand it. I know what the law says and that it's poorly written. I am just trying to say that the general public will probably not notify, but will also not likely give a second thought as to how they can frame an argument that their work is not notifiable.

 

[Paul_C]

In other words, if the word of the law is unambiguous, even if incomplete or in some people's eyes 'wrong', it is the place of legislators, not the judiciary, to rectify that. Furthermore, earlier sections of this material indicate that the process of Statutory Interpretation which, as you have indicated, may include consideration of the intentions of the legislators, is only to be resorted to when the words of the law are not clear - otherwise the above applies.

And as one of the quoted passages says:

There are also a number of presumptions that the court will take into account in ascertaining the intentions of Parliament...

Taking into account a number of certain presumptions is in no way the same thing as a carte blanche to try and guess what parliament intended on every occasion.

Additionally, as noted in the link I posted above, remember that statutory instruments are secondary legislation which is not passed directly by parliament, so can be treated a little differently (not that half of the politicians in parliament read the acts they're voting on anyway, but at least in theory they have a say on the wording of an Act of Parliament, whereas Statutory Instruments are drafted by civil servants under the authority of the Act).

 

[JohnW2]

I have read the thread and do understand it. I know what the law says and that it's poorly written. I am just trying to say that the general public will probably not notify, but will also not likely give a second thought as to how they can frame an argument that their work is not notifiable.

Yes, I agree with that, just as I did the first time you said it - but you also keep talking about people 'ignoring the law' which, as I've said, is not what this thread is about.

There will, of course, be some people who believe that there is a legal requirement for them to notify their work, but will choose to ignore that requirement - but that (akin to knowingly ignoring a speed limit or failing to wear a seatbelt) is not what this thread is about. This thread is about those who would not fail to notify if they believed that their work was notifiable, but who believe that, in terms of the way the law is written, the work is technically not notifiable.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

... 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:
...

Ah, but we've removed the sink/bath/shower and claimed that the electrical work is therefore not notifiable. Putting the sink/bath/showe back in is therefore no longer replacement of, but installation of a new facility which is probably notifiable in itself.

 

[Paul_C]

Putting the sink/bath/showe back in is therefore no longer replacement of, but installation of a new facility which is probably notifiable in itself.

Is it though? Is there a time limit between removing the old sink and fitting the new one for it to be considered a replacement? If I removed the old sink on a Monday, did some other cabinet work, tiling, etc. on Tuesday, then fitted the new sink on Wednesday, would you still consider that to be a replacement and not a newly provided sink?

 

[JohnW2]

Is it though? Is there a time limit between removing the old sink and fitting the new one for it to be considered a replacement? If I removed the old sink on a Monday, did some other cabinet work, tiling, etc. on Tuesday, then fitted the new sink on Wednesday, would you still consider that to be a replacement and not a newly provided sink?

Under 'normal' circumstances, I imagine that there could be a substantial interval (maybe even an unlimited interval) without a sink (or whatever) with the eventual 're-fitting' of a sink still being classed as a replacement. However, I agree that things might possibly change if, during the period without a sink, you 'declared' the room not to be a kitchen (for 'some other reason'). You would then be in a position of installing a sink in a room which you, yourself, has said was not a kitchen, which might kill the 'replacement' concept.

However, as I've said, I think this removing of sink/bath/shower is very extreme and on a different level of 'contriving' from the other matters discussed in this thread.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

However, as I've said, I think this removing of sink/bath/shower is very extreme and on a different level of 'contriving' from the other matters discussed in this thread.

It would be if it was being done just to make some electrical works non-notifiable. But in a "whole house" upgrade, it's quite possible that you'd remove the bath for a while - that's the case in my colleagues house, the shower cubicle came out early on and by the time the new bath goes in it will probably be 3-4 months.

As you say, in the meantime we won't have been declaring it as "not a bathroom" so I don't see any reason it can't count as "replacement".

The kitchen will probably follow a similar process - the old one will get pulled out, and it'll be a "non-kitchen" for a while, but again we (probably) won't be calling it a non-kitchen (though that may happen - haven't decided on the electrics yet).

 

[scousespark]

I have read the thread and do understand it. I know what the law says and that it's poorly written. I am just trying to say that the general public will probably not notify, but will also not likely give a second thought as to how they can frame an argument that their work is not notifiable.

Yes, I agree with that, just as I did the first time you said it - but you also keep talking about people 'ignoring the law' which, as I've said, is not what this thread is about.

There will, of course, be some people who believe that there is a legal requirement for them to notify their work, but will choose to ignore that requirement - but that (akin to knowingly ignoring a speed limit or failing to wear a seatbelt) is not what this thread is about. This thread is about those who would not fail to notify if they believed that their work was notifiable, but who believe that, in terms of the way the law is written, the work is technically not notifiable.

Kind Regards, John.

Putting in the word ignore was a bit strong on my part.
The point I'm making is that Joe Public will not spend their spare time worrying about Part-P. If they believe a job is not notifiable, very few will worry about justifying their decision.

 

[JohnW2]

Putting in the word ignore was a bit strong on my part. The point I'm making is that Joe Public will not spend their spare time worrying about Part-P. If they believe a job is not notifiable, very few will worry about justifying their decision.

I'm sure that's true. Indeed, under virtually all normal circumstances, the same would be true of an electrician.

However, we're not really talking about the average Joe Public - who, if he considers the issue at all, would glance at Part P, make the 'common sense' interpretation and conclude that the sort of major works we've been discussing are notifiable. If any (more 'clued-up') people did ever decide not to notify because of the sort of discussions about the 'word of the law' we've been discussing, then they would, by definition, already have thought about justification of that decision - and all I was suggesting is that, having gone through those thought processes, it might make sense for them to document them.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

The point I'm making is that Joe Public will not spend their spare time worrying about Part-P. If they believe a job is not notifiable, very few will worry about justifying their decision.

At that basic level, Joe Public probably isn't going to worry about it whether he believes the job is actually notifiable or not.

Did everybody always notify and pay the fees for many other trivial (non electrical) jobs which were notifiable prior to 2005? Of course not - Just as those jobs don't get notified now. That's assuming that the person doing the job even realized that it was notifiable work in the first place. None of my friends and neighbors that I know could care less about shelling out money they can ill-afford to the local authority to do a simple job in their own homes. Part P notification just got added to that list in 2005.

But I do sometimes wonder what proportion of those who are so vocal about how supposedly important it is to notify electrical works are equally as scrupulous about notifying for any other sort of minor jobs they do in their own homes - Again, assuming they even realize that what they're doing is notifiable in the first place, given the complexities and ambiguities in the regulations.

In fact I wonder how many of those vocal supporters of notification for Part P works are actually that scrupulous about doing it when it comes to such work in their own home and involves paying out hundreds of pounds of their own hard-earned money.......

 

[scousespark]

It's fine determining a way to frame your interpretation of the regs, so you can justify a decision to not notify. Yes I had take into account that this thread was aimed at a tiny number of people.

However, the scariest possible outcome would be a victory in court, immediately followed by a chnage to the law to make us follow the Australian model.

 

[JohnW2]

It's fine determining a way to frame your interpretation of the regs, so you can justify a decision to not notify. Yes I had take into account that this thread was aimed at a tiny number of people. However, the scariest possible outcome would be a victory in court, immediately followed by a chnage to the law to make us follow the Australian model.

True, but I think it's so unlikley that failure to notify, in itself, is ever going to get into a court that it's probably an unnecessary concern.

Talking of the law, and BAS's views on the extent to which the courts can 'interpret'on the basis of the perceived intent (despite the wording) of the law, by pure co-incidence I stumbled across, and saw the second half of, a fairly relevant TV programme last night. It was about the fairly new Supreme Court (which has replaced the Law Lords) and consisted mainly of Supreme Court judges talking about their work. More than one of them said that, even at this highest level of the law, the judges are sometimes forced by the words of the legislation to hand down judgments which they would have hoped not to have to give, which are contrary to their feelings and belief of the probable intent of those who wrote the law (but didn't use the right words), and which sometimes even offend against their views of the 'justice' of the situation. That is essentially what Paul and I have been saying.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"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. "

And

The Court noted that Mr Beesley intended to deceive the Council from the outset by his statements in the planning application. This was positive deception in matters integral to the planning process and directly intended to undermine that process. His conduct was not identifiably criminal but the principle is not only relevant where there has been the commission of a crime. The Court further considered the rationale of the statutory provision: the four year period in section 171B(2) must have been conceived as a period during which a planning authority would normally be expected to discover an unlawful use and after which the general interest in proper planning control should yield and the status quo prevail. Positive and deliberately misleading false statements by an owner which prevent discovery take a case outside that rationale. It would in fact frustrate the policy of the section if the time limit for enforcement was to apply on the facts of the present case. It would also damage the public’s confidence in planning law: any law-abiding citizen would be astonished to suppose that Mr Beesley’s dishonest scheme, once being discovered, would not be enforced against but rather crowned with success. It is unthinkable that Parliament intended such an outcome. Even if, therefore, Mr Beesley had come within the literal wording of section 171B(2), his conduct took him outside its scope.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm really only the messenger, but ....

I have little doubt that the courts will resist any such wide interpretation as and when the occasion arises ...."

As I said yesterday, other material you cited yesterday indicated that the power of a court to interpret anything other than the words of the law (e.g. by considering the probable intent of those who wrote the law) only arises if the words of the law itself cannot be read/interpreted unambiguously by the court. I personally don't think that Part P of the Building Regs falls into that category.

The Court noted that Mr Beesley intended to deceive the Council from the outset by his statements ... Positive and deliberately misleading false statements by an owner which prevent discovery take a case outside that rationale. It is unthinkable that Parliament intended such an outcome. Even if, therefore, Mr Beesley had come within the literal wording of section 171B(2), his conduct took him outside its scope.

"It is unthinkable that..." can be taken as just a personal view of the judge. However, he goes on to imply ("Even if, therefore ....") that Mr Beesley may have been within the literal wording of the law, but was finding against him because of his 'conduct' ('deliberately misleading false statements' etc.).

That's how I see it, anyway. I'll probably be seeing one of the legal arms of my family at the weekend, so will see if I get get a professional opinion on this issue.

But it's still all moot, so I don't know why you're going on about it - we both know how (un)likely it is that a failure to notify will get to any court.

Kind Regards, John