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.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Oh, how does this one go again?!
BS7671 isn't a statutory instrument, but it can used in evidence against you if things go pear shaped.

Just treat it as 'The Law'.

 

[Rpa07]

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

You answered your own question/statement Oracle.

 

[oracle]

No BS 7671 is NOT a statutory Document

Pete, get a grip and lay off the Mogadon
I stated 3 times that they are not statutory, it's just that the EAWR and Part P think they are.

 

[Ian1981]

If you stick to the relevant British standards in whatever work you undertake be it fire alarms,emergency lighting and electrical installations then you can’t go wrong.

 

[Ian1981]

No BS 7671 is NOT a statutory Document

I think he knows this pete

 

[Wilko]

I sometimes think they left it like this to ensure IET retain copyright and revenue for these regs - if they were l-a-w they'd need to be freely available I think (?).

 

[Silly Sausage]

I sometimes think they left it like this to ensure IET retain copyright and revenue for these regs - if they were l-a-w they'd need to be freely available I think (?).

Ah, I remember these discussions now.
I came to the conclusion that if the Regs were 'Law', they would be at least 10 times bigger. They'd have to be total water tight without a single loophole in them. You'd need to be a trained lawyer to understand them. No 30 hour training course to get your 18th

 

[Deleted member 105166]

It's comparable to the ISITEE position, where people often ask "Do you have to have portable appliance testing by law?" Of course, you don't, however you do have to comply with EAWR. Following the Code of Practice 4th Edition is the recognised and established way to maintain equipment and as far as is reasonably practicable, prevent danger.

There may be other ways to achieve the same end result, however (a) why try to reinvent the wheel? and, (b) there is a likelihood that said reinvention would appear wheel-like and closely resemble the existing CoP...

 

[Pete999]

Pete, get a grip and lay off the Mogadon
I stated 3 times that they are not statutory, it's just that the EAWR and Part P think they are.

Just adding my pennies worth no need for derogatory replies Mate, Oh sorry forgot you are the oracle after all didn't mean to spoil your thunder.

 

[johnduffell]

This is the old logic chestnut.
A implies B is a known fact.
From that it does Not follow that B implies A
In this case compliance with bs7671 implies compliance with part p. But compliance with part p doesn't imply compliance with bs7671.

 

[Toneyz]

Pete, get a grip and lay off the Mogadon
I stated 3 times that they are not statutory, it's just that the EAWR and Part P think they are.

Why does everyone think Pete is ----ed when he gives an incoherent reply?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Part P does not think BS7671 is Statutory.
Compliance with BS7671 is just one method of compliance with Part P.

 

[Pete999]

Why does everyone think Pete is ****ed when he gives an incoherent reply?

Don't think he is thinking I'm P//sed Ant just taken a sleeping tablet. Maybe he just needs to take stock of what he is saying, thanks for your support anyway.

 

[oracle]

Just adding my pennies worth no need for derogatory replies Mate, Oh sorry forgot you are the oracle after all didn't mean to spoil your thunder.

What derogative? You're the one who said you use Mogadon as a recreational drugiin another post after all.
Lighten up, it's just one old Fart taking the pi$$ out of another.

 

[Pete999]

What derogative? You're the one who said you use Mogadon as a recreational drugiin another post after all.
Lighten up, it's just one old Fart taking the pi$$ out of another.

Deleted

 

[telectrix]

mornin' pete.

 

[Pete999]

mornin' pete.

Mornin Tel You OK?

 

[telectrix]

fine mate. just woke up for a smoke and a brew. letting dogs out for wee wees.

 

[Pete999]

fine mate. just woke up for a smoke and a brew. letting dogs out for wee wees.

How are the Dogs doing, everything OK with the new Mother?

 

[telectrix]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

 

[Pete999]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

Nice family shot there Mate

 

[Octopus]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

Something useful has come of this rather pointless thread

 

[chrisdungan]

Ask yourself 2 questions
" Is it electrically UNSAFE?"
" What would you say if you had to stand up in the coroner's court?"

That's always my bottom line.

 

[Nigel]

BS 7671 is not statutory as a stand alone document.

However; Building Tegulation state BS 7671 in terms of what to follow and they are law so in effect not following BS 7671 will lead to non-compliance to Building Regulations and possible legal consequences.

Also if a customer states to install to BS 7671 and you agree to take on the work this then becomes a binding contract and you are legally obliged to deliver on it or you could be sued.

In conclusion, BS7671 is indirectly a legal document.

 

[johnduffell]

Building Tegulation state BS 7671 in terms of what to follow and they are law so in effect not following BS 7671 will lead to non-compliance to Building Regulations

This is incorrect. The approved documents refer to bs7671 as a possible way to comply but nowhere in the regulations themselves does it mention them.
Part p the actual part on the statute is very simple:
"Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury."

Also a contract with a company or customer adding for bs7671 is not in statute that's just a contract and comes under different law

 

[Nigel]

This is incorrect. The approved documents refer to bs7671 as a possible way to comply but nowhere in the regulations themselves does it mention them.
Part p the actual part on the statute is very simple:
"Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury."

Also a contract with a company or customer adding for bs7671 is not in statute that's just a contract and comes under different law

I never mentioned Part P and your last paragraph is exactly what I said.

 

[Rpa07]

mother is fine.4 healthy pups, all putting weight on day by day.

View attachment 45512

That picture reminds me, I need to change my duvet!

 

[johnduffell]

I never mentioned Part P and your last paragraph is exactly what I said.

Oh sorry assumed you meant part p, which building regulation were you referring to?

 

[Nigel]

Oh sorry assumed you meant part p, which building regulation were you referring to?

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

 

[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.

 

[oracle]

Memorandum of Guidance on the Electricity at Work Regulation is also supportive. Why don't they make the whole lot Statutory

 

[oracle]

Memorandum of Guidance on the Electricity at Work Regulation is also supportive. Why don't they make the whole lot Statutory, included in the main body of text ?