Are the bloody Regs statutory or not?

[oracle]

As of 1 January 2005 it is a legal (statutory) requirement for all work on fixed electrical installations in dwellings and associated buildings to comply with relevant standards. The relevant UK standard is BS 7671 2018 (Non statutory)

The EAWR (statutory) says that compliance with BS7671(Non statutory) will mean compliance with it.

The Building Regulations (statutory)

Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

So where does that leave us? Best is stick to the Regs and treat them as statutory (even though they're not) and you can't go wrong. They are the code we live by.

 

[johnduffell]

It is one of the Regulations that mentions BS7671. Any Regulation that has any association with electrics will refer to 7671.

That's the approved document not the building regulation. Approved documents are just suggested ways of complying. Bs7671 is just one way of complying.

 

[Nigel]

That's the approved document not the building regulation. Approved documents are just suggested ways of complying. Bs7671 is just one way of complying.

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

 

[Silly Sausage]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

Make your own mind up: Approved Documents | Planning Portal - https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200135/approved_documents

I think the key word there is: support.

Bit like Guidance Notes.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

I think he’s suggesting that there is no mention of BS7671 in the Building Regulations.

 

[Deuce]

My view is that it's basically irrelevant. If a court has to decide if you caused the deaths, or did not, then they will compare your methods to whatever the closest textbook is for the 'right way'.

So if the regs say do 'a', and you went and did 'b', in the view of the court that's where the error was. We can assume the court will not be able to fully understand the nuances of the situation, so will inevitably resort to the nearest rule book they can find.

working out what is technically a legal requirement isn't very useful. In the end, all that matters is being on the right side of what people will ultimately judge as correct, if you were ever to find yourself in that position.

 

[johnduffell]

Are you suggesting Part P does not form a part of the Building Regulations?

Part P of the building regulations is part of the building regs, and approved document p includes the building regulation on the tinted background, together with non statutory guidanceo onways of complying.
For practical purposes it doesn't really affect what we would do, but given the whole title of the thread is about whether the bs7671 is statutory it's a critical distinction.

 

[Percyprod]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

 

[johnduffell]

We can assume the court will not be able to fully understand the nuances of the situation, so will inevitably resort to the nearest rule book they can find.

The court is not an expert in most things really, that's why they call witnesses who are experts. It's a normal practice. I am guessing we would be in chaos pretty quickly if courts made important judgements based on no professional knowledge.

 

[Nigel]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

I would not say there is a ‘general opinion’ as you put it. I would say that in terms of taking out an ‘insurance policy’ following BS7671 is the safest and most sensible way to protect yourself, your family and your home ‘should’ the worst happen.

 

[Deuce]

Although a keen supporter of working to BS7671, I have to say that a safe installation could be done without referring to it, using that rare thing these days, common sense. I still find it rather strange that there is a general opinion that if BS7671 isn't strictly adhered to them death and a court case will follow

Common sense is not PC apparently. It's far easier to just have a textbook approach. Personally though, I would rather all money spent on regulation of just about everything was instead spent on nurturing common sense in people through school!

Anyway yes, if something is safe, then it doesn't really matter if it complies or not. If it's truly safe, then it will never need to be examined to prove otherwise.

 

[Deuce]

The court is not an expert in most things really, that's why they call witnesses who are experts. It's a normal practice. I am guessing we would be in chaos pretty quickly if courts made important judgements based on no professional knowledge.

Yes but in the end the court makes the decision. It's unlikely that in the time allowed the final decision maker(s) could really understand enough about what was said by any party to really appreciate the technicalities. It's fine if it's an obvious contravention of safe working practice. But many cases will be far more complicated.

 

[johnduffell]

Yes but in the end the court makes the decision. It's unlikely that in the time allowed the final decision maker(s) could really understand enough about what was said by any party to really appreciate the technicalities. It's fine if it's an obvious contravention of safe working practice. But many cases will be far more complicated.

I realise there are time pressures but the judicial system is mostly set up to avoid miscarriages of justice. The legal system gets a bad name due to ambulance chasers getting settlements out of court before hand.
by way of example of the legal process trying harder where things are more complex the Grenfell tower inquiry (part 1 of 2) has been sitting for about 6 months so far, and has heard evidence from academics and other experts on various aspects of the situation.
To be honest you could have a perfectly bs7671 compliant installation and given the number of debates on here there's a good chanch the prosecution could find an electrician to give it codes left right and centre.
And on top of that even the regs allow deviations.

 

[Deuce]

I realise there are time pressures but the judicial system is mostly set up to avoid miscarriages of justice. The legal system gets a bad name due to ambulance chasers getting settlements out of court before hand.
by way of example of the legal process trying harder where things are more complex the Grenfell tower inquiry (part 1 of 2) has been sitting for about 6 months so far, and has heard evidence from academics and other experts on various aspects of the situation.
To be honest you could have a perfectly bs7671 compliant installation and given the number of debates on here there's a good chanch the prosecution could find an electrician to give it codes left right and centre.
And on top of that even the regs allow deviations.

That's prety much my point. I may have worded it badly reading back...

But in essence if it's truly safe, you won't have to argue your case in the first place.

The regs exist so that people without the common sense to work safely have a framework they can simply adhere too. It's in the book = safe.

But I would argue that the safest person of all is the one that respects the books, but is ultimately driven by their own knowledge of what is safe, and why.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Personally, to summarise, I would say that there is 'The Law'. which you have to comply with. Then there are a subset of 'Regulations' and 'Standards' etc. that you have to adhere to, to comply with 'The Law'.

eg, if you left a naked live cable flapping around, you're guilty!
i.e. there is no law, as such, that you can leave a bare live cable for anyone to touch, but you'd be going down if they did!

 

[johnduffell]

Personally, to summarise, I would say that there is 'The Law'. which you have to comply with

Correct

Then there are a subset of 'Regulations' and 'Standards' etc. that you have to adhere to, to comply with 'The Law'.

Depends if the regulations are statutory eg the gas regs are but the electrical regs aren't.

there is no law, as such, that you can leave a bare live cable for anyone to touch

Correct, building regs would be less relevant here, that would come under negligence laws even assuming it wasn't done intentionally to cause a danger.