Time and the building regs.

[empip]

House of commons ... 10 Mar 2006...

New clause 5 extends the time limit within which local authorities may bring prosecutions for breaches of those parts of the building regulations designed to conserve fuel and power. We will be strengthening those regulations—known as part L—from 6 April, so that buildings will be 40 per cent. more energy efficient than in 2002.
......... The new clause will increase the time limit for action, so that if local authorities discover a breach up to two years after it has taken place, they can still take action in the courts, rather than having
only six months, as they now do.

So only for Part L. ( conservation of fuel and power ).
Then a question...

Mr. Forth: Is the Minister not worried that this could cause confusion? If we are
to have two different regimes operating, people might be unaware that only a partial change has been made. They might not know the status of each type of regulation, and whether it had a time limit of six months or two years. Will that not create difficulties?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, it would be better to be able to extend the time limits for all the building regulations at the same time, but that is not within the scope of the Bill. However, we shall seek to extend the provisions to all the other regulations at the earliest opportunity. It is right that we should make the most of this opportunity, given the impact that it could have on improving compliance with the energy efficiency regulations, and the benefits that that could have for addressing climate change.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): Is the Minister aware of my concern that building regulations have driven a lot of good electrical engineers out of business? Will she assure me that the new clauses will not adversely affect such traders?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot see why the new clauses would affect such traders in any way. They are simply about giving local authorities more chance to pursue breaches of compliance, and it is right that they should be able to do so.

Click for Source
I am sure someone here mentioned a 'time limit' regarding building regs at some point, without reference .... Interesting isn't it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I thought the whole thing was governed by the generic time-limit for prosecution of non-indictable offences?

 

[empip]

I missed this part

"35A Time limit for prosecution for contravention of certain building regulations
1) Despite anything in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43), an information relating to a relevant offence may be tried by a magistrates' court if it is laid at any time -

(a) within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed,
and
(b) within the period of six months beginning with the relevant date.

4) In subsection (1)(b) above, "the relevant date" means the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings.

Let's hope the 'and' doesn't become 'or' .... Nah wouldn't make sense then would it.
There was argument concerning an extension of the 'time-limit' regarding the ability to defend an accusation given such a time lapse... Also 'the person commencing the proceedings.'

Chris Chope said.

...The normal principle in a magistrates court is that someone has to receive a summons or similar information within six months of committing an offence, and we know how that process operates with speeding or other motoring offences, for example. Unless someone is charged within a maximum of six months of committing such an offence, it is, in a sense, time-expired. The thinking behind that principle is that such a person cannot possibly recall exactly what they were doing more than six months after laying such information before a court.

That is the background to section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which provides an important safeguard against the abuse of arbitrary power. In essence, it says that anyone who is going to charge somebody with an offence had better get on with it. There is no reason why building inspectors should be unable to have the relevant information at the time......Paragraph (b) is a further affront to those of us who believe that evidence should be assessed by courts rather than on the basis that the evidence is as it is if some official says it is. That is no way in which to bring people to conviction following a prosecution.

Our Govn sure enjoys changing the rules ....