Terminating unused electric cable

[ban-all-sheds]

Does something which just about everybody considers reasonably safe today suddenly become unsafe tomorrow just because a new edition of some standard has been published?

No, and I don't think anybody has suggested that.

It's just that you refuse to accept that complying with the current version of the standard is so much the most sensible thing to do that you'd have to be perverse to the point of deranged not to do it.

But then you, and JohnW2, do seem to have immense problems with the concept of new versions of standards and regulations coming out and introducing new requirements.

Isn't this what many of the changes in BS7671 are saying, in effect? Do this from now on for increased safety, but don't consider existing wiring without it to be unsafe in any way.

Yes, that's what they say.

What they do not say is "actually you don't even have to bother with the new requirements if you've got old stuff which only complies with the old ones".

But as I said before, speaking for myself I wouldn't have been involving them in such a thing in the first place, so it's all hypothetical.

So to save yourself a few £'00 and in order to indulge your aversion to complying with the Wiring Regulations you would risk more inconvenience than complying would, and a larger cost than complying would.

That is not sane.

Precisely. If one were worried about it that much, they couldn't "do" you for failure to notify that way, not that I ever heard of such a case based purely upon non-notification (only where in combination with extremely dangerous work).

The issue is not being prosecuted for non-notification - it's being without documentation, the lack of which could easily cost you more, in straight financial terms, than getting it would have done, and all because you simply do not want to comply with the current version of the Wiring Regulations.

Indeed. A potential buyer can always get a survey done if he's that worried about it. Or when it comes time to sell, the person who had the non-certified work carried out could pay for one so as to provide prospective buyers with some reassurance.

And the cost of a full structural survey plus one of those indemnity policies is going to be what?

The same goes on here, by the way. Before settling on our present house, my wife and I looked at many homes which had all sorts of work done on them without a building permit, in some cases extensions of up to about 500 sq. ft. It's not a big deal (and in fact here it could be financially beneficial, since the county won't have a record of some addition in order to increase property taxes!).

I don't know what the equivalent of a "building permit" is over here, but if it's like Planning Permission then here they can simply send in demolition contractors to pull the place down if it was built without permission. Note - I'm not suggesting that the same applies to Building Regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm getting a bit confused

Yes, I think you are! I'm taking about the inadmissibility of a defence.

Yes, I know you are - but, yet again, I think you are talking to the wrong person (I recommend PBC ). As I have now said umpteen times, I personally would NOT attempt to use compliance with a superseded edition of BS7671 as a defence, so there's no point/need to talk to me about inadmissibility of such evidence!

Indeed, as I've been saying, I'm not sure that I would have to present much, if any, of a defence at all - since the onus would be on the prosecution to somehow prove (to the degree of certainty required by a criminal court) that what I had done was not reasonably safe. I'm not sure how they would set about trying to do that - they certainly could not use lack of full compliance with the current edition of BS7671 since, as even BAS has agreed, it is possible for work to be 'reasonably safe' without fully complying with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

But then you, and JohnW2, do seem to have immense problems with the concept of new versions of standards and regulations coming out and introducing new requirements.

Not at all, but that's not the point. The point is that the law does not demand that the standard be followed, only that the installation be reasonably safe. Often when the term "reasonable" appears in British legislation we hear about the "Man on The Clapham Omnibus" test. Did Mr. X, in the view of the average man on said omnibus, exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety of somebody? Did Mr. Y, in the view of the same average man, use force against an intruder which was reasonable given the circumstances? And so on.

Obviously in this case it might be a little difficult since we need somebody with above-average electrical knowledge to be able to judge what is reasonably safe. But if it was explained to the man on that bus that something was considered not just reasonably safe but as meeting the general accepted electrical standard for wiring in the U.K. less than 10 years ago, do you really think he would say that it is not still reasonably safe today?

What they do not say is "actually you don't even have to bother with the new requirements if you've got old stuff which only complies with the old ones".

True. But if you're not working to the rules within a specific edition of a standard, it doesn't matter what those rules within that edition say.

So to save yourself a few £'00 and in order to indulge your aversion to complying with the Wiring Regulations you would risk more inconvenience than complying would, and a larger cost than complying would.

Are you referring to what I would do (or have done), personally? What extra inconvenience and what larger cost would I incur by adding a few feet of cable to a new socket and not adding RCD protection?

The issue is not being prosecuted for non-notification - it's being without documentation, the lack of which could easily cost you more, in straight financial terms, than getting it would have done

But would it? Realistically, how many people have that much of a problem by not having a certificate from the local authority just because of some electrical work?

Here I can speak from personal experience of selling my home in England to move here, which was after Part P was introduced. If I recall correctly, there was a question in the legal pack about whether I had carried out any notifiable electrical work, to which I answered yes. Nobody asked for any paperwork related to it.

And the cost of a full structural survey plus one of those indemnity policies is going to be what?

Who's talking about a full structural survey? Besides, just because somebody can produce a certificate from a few years ago showing that certain works carried out at that time got official approval doesn't mean that something bad couldn't have been done since.

I don't know what the equivalent of a "building permit" is over here, but if it's like Planning Permission then here they can simply send in demolition contractors to pull the place down if it was built without permission. Note - I'm not suggesting that the same applies to Building Regulations.

Building permits here are more like building regulations rather than planning permission. Any property will be zoned for type of use (residential, light commercial/office, industrial etc.) and the zoning plus any covenants on the property might place specific restrictions on what may be done (nothing built closer than 20 ft. from sidewalk, nothing over two stories etc.) but so long as you observe those conditions there will be no issues as with planning permission in Britain.

 

[stillp]

I don't know what the equivalent of a "building permit" is over here, but if it's like Planning Permission then here they can simply send in demolition contractors to pull the place down if it was built without permission. Note - I'm not suggesting that the same applies to Building Regulations.

Building permits here are more like building regulations rather than planning permission. Any property will be zoned for type of use (residential, light commercial/office, industrial etc.) and the zoning plus any covenants on the property might place specific restrictions on what may be done (nothing built closer than 20 ft. from sidewalk, nothing over two stories etc.) but so long as you observe those conditions there will be no issues as with planning permission in Britain.

Don't you have HOAs to cope with over there?

 

[stillp]

I'm getting a bit confused

Yes, I think you are! I'm taking about the inadmissibility of a defence.

Yes, I know you are - but, yet again, I think you are talking to the wrong person (I recommend PBC ). As I have now said umpteen times, I personally would NOT attempt to use compliance with a superseded edition of BS7671 as a defence, so there's no point/need to talk to me about inadmissibility of such evidence!

Indeed, as I've been saying, I'm not sure that I would have to present much, if any, of a defence at all - since the onus would be on the prosecution to somehow prove (to the degree of certainty required by a criminal court) that what I had done was not reasonably safe. I'm not sure how they would set about trying to do that - they certainly could not use lack of full compliance with the current edition of BS7671 since, as even BAS has agreed, it is possible for work to be 'reasonably safe' without fully complying with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

It might not be a criminal court, with the associated standards of proof. While acting as an expert witness at an inquest, I have witnessed a barrister asking another witness what standards had been used in the design of his products, and the questioning his awareness of other and more recent standards. Coroner's Courts do not seek to apportion blame, as you probably know, but the jury took notice of the answers.

 

[JohnW2]

It might not be a criminal court, with the associated standards of proof. While acting as an expert witness at an inquest, I have witnessed a barrister asking another witness what standards had been used in the design of his products, and the questioning his awareness of other and more recent standards. Coroner's Courts do not seek to apportion blame, as you probably know, but the jury took notice of the answers.

That's all true. However, as you say, a Coroner's Court cannot (should not, although some try!) apportion blame, let alone 'convict', and witnesses in Coroner's Courts are obviously not in any sense 'on trial'. Any 'blame' actions by authorities (e.g. councils) would have to subsequently be taken in Criminal Courts, so that the criminal, rather than civil, standards of proof would apply - and the prosecution would (in the context we are discussing) then to have prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the work was not "reasonably safe", even if no defence was offered.

By bringing Coroner's Courts into the discussion you are obviously talking about situations in which something has clearly gone very wrong, which would inevitably have a bearing on views as to whether the work/product/whatever was reasonably/acceptably safe. That is very different from the situations we've been talking about, of non-compliance with technical details of a Standard (with no consequences). Since such situations are virtually never going to get into a Court of any sort, we will probably never know what view/attitude a Court would take.

Of course, IF there has been injury, death or property damage, interested parties might then take civil actions for damages, in which case we would be back to the civil standards of proof ('balance of probabilities'). Defending that could be more difficult, and would certainly require presentation of some sort of defence - not only is there a lesser standard of proof required, but there is no concept comparable with the "innocent until proved guilty" of a Criminal Court, so 'not defending' is not really an option in a civil Court.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Agreed, but the purpose of a Coroner's Court is to establish the facts that lead to a fatality, and in the case I was referring to, one of the facts was a failure to comply with relevant standards. I can't say much as I'm expecting a civil action.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So to save yourself a few £'00 and in order to indulge your aversion to complying with the Wiring Regulations you would risk more inconvenience than complying would, and a larger cost than complying would.

Are you referring to what I would do (or have done), personally? What extra inconvenience and what larger cost would I incur by adding a few feet of cable to a new socket and not adding RCD protection?

You would risk the inconvenience and costs associated with difficulties in selling.

Realistically, how many people have that much of a problem by not having a certificate from the local authority just because of some electrical work?

Standalone electrical work? Unlikely to be a problem. No BR completion certificate at all, for an extension or loft conversion or new house, so not one shred of evidence that the structure, drainage, glazing, fire-resistance, ventilation, insulation etc comply? I can see that being a PITA orders of magnitude greater than complying with BS 7671:2008 for the electrical work, and I can see it easily costing more than complying with BS 7671:2008 would have cost. And all because you simply don't want to comply with it.

Who's talking about a full structural survey?

I am.

Depending on what you were doing you might have no choice, unless for example you wanted to end up with an extension, or a loft conversion, or even an entire house with no Building Regulations certificate.

So if you're trying to sell a house with a recent loft conversion and no BR approval, you might find someone daft enough to buy it without a full structural survey, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[PBC_1966]

Don't you have HOAs to cope with over there?

In some places, yes. They seem to be becoming more common in modern estate developments. and there are some real horror stories out there about some of them. It beats me why anyone in his right mind would agree to invest a six-figure sum in a house which comes with a whole load of highly restrictive conditions (we're talking down to details such as the style of curtains in the windows in some cases!) which can be made even more restrictive at any time by the vote of a committee, and said committee can then impose ever-escalating fines for non-compliance and even end up putting a lien on the property and force its sale. I would never even consider such an option, no matter how nice the home.

It might not be a criminal court, with the associated standards of proof. While acting as an expert witness at an inquest, {.....}

But that's going off onto a rather different issue than simply dealing with a job which is notified to the local authority and what that authority considers to be "reasonable provision for safety." As John said earlier, ultimately if you believe it's reasonably safe and they claim that it is not, and you couldn't care less about whether they give you a certificate or not, the ball would be in their court to prosecute for failure to comply with the Bulding Regulations if they saw fit to do so. And that would be in a criminal court in which the burden of proof rests (or should rest) firmly with the prosecution to prove its case "beyond any reasonable doubt." (Not that I am so naive to believe that some courts might not be biased toward the authority's point of view from the outset.)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Agreed, but the purpose of a Coroner's Court is to establish the facts that lead to a fatality, and in the case I was referring to, one of the facts was a failure to comply with relevant standards. I can't say much as I'm expecting a civil action.

Without saying much, can you tell us if the fatality would not have occurred if the previous edition of that standard had been used?

 

[PBC_1966]

Standalone electrical work? Unlikely to be a problem.

At least we agree on that. And in the case of electrical work we're also talking about something which didn't even come under the controls until 2005, so somebody could have done plenty of electrical work prior to that anyway.

Fair enough if we're talking about a major extension or something like that. Although a certificate from the local authority from some years earlier still doesn't mean that somebody couldn't have come along later and made changes.

 

[stillp]

Agreed, but the purpose of a Coroner's Court is to establish the facts that lead to a fatality, and in the case I was referring to, one of the facts was a failure to comply with relevant standards. I can't say much as I'm expecting a civil action.

Without saying much, can you tell us if the fatality would not have occurred if the previous edition of that standard had been used?

It was more a case of failure to use any relevant standards correctly.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah - une autre paire de manches

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed, but the purpose of a Coroner's Court is to establish the facts that lead to a fatality, and in the case I was referring to, one of the facts was a failure to comply with relevant standards.

That's what I assumed from what you had said. Given that you have raised this in the context of the discussion here, are you saying that the witness was claiming that his products were 'safe' because they complied with some superseded Standard(s)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, just pointing out that it is not only criminal courts that might have an interest in failure to follow a current standard.