Slim ceiling joist - where to get shallow downlights for bathroom?

[JohnW2]

Anyone can read the document as well as I can, but I think that the "special legal status" is probably a misnomer, and that they really are just stating the obvious - which is essentially the same as with Part P and BS 7671. In other words, one could tweak their statement to say:

However, BS 7671 has a special legal status. If you are prosecuted for breach of Part P of the Building Regulations, and it is proved that you did not follow the relevant provisions of BS 7671, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way or a Court will find you at fault.

 

[aptsys]

1. Gas work should only be undertaken:

...


Looking at it again I'm not sure if this is actually law or recommendation.

They've written "should". If something is mandatory, it would be worded "Gas work shall only be undertaken".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Anyone can read the document as well as I can

It looked like you had already done that though.

I think that the "special legal status" is probably a misnomer, and that they really are just stating the obvious - which is essentially the same as with Part P and BS 7671. In other words, one could tweak their statement to say:

Plus, given the circumstances likely to give rise to a prosecution, it would almost certainly be self-evident that you had not complied with Part B(5) or B(6) etc of The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, so competence, or lack of it, would be incidental - someone could be competent but by negligence or design still carry out unsafe work.

There is no direct equivalence with electrical work and the Building Regulations - there the issues around being "officially" competent relate to notifying, but in the same way that (as far as we all know) nobody has ever been prosecuted for a notification contravention when the electrical work they did was perfectly OK, I wonder if anybody not working for reward has ever been prosecuted for not being competent to do gas work when the work that they did was competently done.

The more one thinks about that "sting in the tail" you cite, the less sense it makes - it seems to be admitting the possibility that someone could comply with the law, i.e. comply with The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and be in breach of Health & Safety legislation.

 

[JohnW2]

They've written "should". If something is mandatory, it would be worded "Gas work shall only be undertaken".

That would be true if it were legislation, but it is 'only' guidance in a Code of Practice. The clause of the Gas Regs (i.e. 'the law') it is giving guidance about does use the word "shall" ...

... No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so...

Kind Regards, John