That is true.
I base my comment on the use of the word 'Should' [as defined BS7671]. I base it on what I learnt from an old VOSA Inspector many years ago on his position that applied when perhaps taking a HGV off the road and the implications such would create.
He would say if I am confident in my position I should be able to support it. That way, he would say, if challanged they are not challanging me but they are challanging the regulation and the statute that enables them.
I worked for a time in a legal role and I have taken such forward into the importance of wording within any documentation presented to a client as a position open to challange with potentialy serious consequences should such be incorrect. Indemnity is always a consideration of a report presented.
Last edited:
