Scottish judge says bs7671 not Viewed as a means of compliance

[m4tty]

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/14124/infopro.speakerscorner.overview/British-Standards-IEE-Regulations-and-the-Judicial-System---Letter-to-the-Editor.html&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VoltiNEWS-3-280610

thought some may be interested!

Cheers

 

[sellers]

I would love to re-wire that judges house!

 

[ianmacd]

Or just his chair in chambers

 

[NozSpark]

IMO the judge was absolutley correct in what he said.

BS7671 is not a statutory instrument... it has no standing in the eyes of the law. There is only 1 document which does and that's the EWAR.

When buying a house it's "buyer beware".. i.e. it's up to the buyer to satisfy themselves that the house is safe; now that may be by having the appropriate paperwork to backup any work done or it may be buy commissioning appropriate surveys and inspections, the results of which can be used as a bargaining chip to reduce to price or to withdraw the offer. But once the house has been sold then it any problems become the new owners problems and not the sellers.. (unless it's got a NHBC or equivalent warranty - which aren't worth much!)

TBH it doesn't sound like these people took any legal advise

 

[sellers]

Yes but if an inspection has been carried out and the installation is as said to be 'A1' then the inspection is a whole load of balls. It means I could go around giving out satisfactory PIR's on all installations without even going to look at them. With my excuse being BS7671 isn't law.

 

[ianmacd]

Agreed. The recourse should be on the people doing the inspections. A claim off their PI should be all that is needed here.

 

[ProDave]

The small claims court was perhaps not the best route to try and win compensation, but may have been the only option open to them. From personal experience it is very hard to win a case in the small claims court.

Regardless of whether BS7671 was a statutory instrument or not, the fact remains the house was sold in an unsafe condition, and THAT fact is what the judge should have taken notice of, not the detail of which particular regulation it fell foul of.

If you bought a tv and it was unsafe, you would be entitled to a refund under the sale of goods act as "not fit for purpose" surely something similar should apply to property?

I fully agree that the burden here should fall on the shoulder of the surveyors (or their PL insurance) as they are the ones that declared it safe. They charge enough for a survey, the very least you should expect for the amount you pay for a home report, is that they get the report right, and if not have some liability for their mistakes.

Definitely a case of one law for them, and one law for us.

 

[mcknightp]

I am the electrician in question who was in court in front of the judge. This was our only action left open to us. The NICEIC and SELECT could not help because the persons carrying out the works were not registered. The councill could not help because the works had no building warrants, and they could not prove "after the fact" who carried the works out. (They just were not interested). The amount of monies claimed deems the small claims court for the compensation. I tried to go down the route of taking the Solicitors who carried out the Survey to court, for grading the electrics as A1.

I recieved a letter stating:-

"The Surveyors are not equipped or qualified to test the services and therefore no comment can be interpreted as implying that the design, installation and function of the services are in accordance/compliance of the regulations, safety and effiency expectations. However, comment is made where there is cause to suspect significant defects or shortcomings with installations. No tests are made of any services or appliances"

My argument was, if they were not equipped or qualified, and they are not carrying out any tests whatsoever, WHY? are they making any comment AT ALL??!!

Especially one that gives the impression that there are no problems with the electrics for the prospective buyer. You are lucky in England they are seemingly fading out the Home Reports. I am sorry to say we will still have this HUGE HOLE in the safety of the prospective buyer of any property in Scotland for a little while longer!

 

[ProDave]

Thanks mcknightp.

That raises all sorts of questions and implications.

Firstly, There is no part P in Scotland, so unless there was an extension or other modification to the building, then building control would not be involved, and so would not be interested.

Of course NICEIC and SELECT etc would not be interested if the "electrician" who did the work was not registered with them, why should they be?

But the attitude of the surveyors is appalling. I share your view, if they are not qualified to be responsible for what they say, then they should not say it. It costs at least

 

[Doc Hudson]

Maybe one of the reasons why Part-P was introduces in England, you can be prosecuted under the Building Regs, you cannot under the Wiring Regs. Also it is perfectly legal for anyone to sell a property that is completely run down, unsafe, such that a purchaser can redevelop or rebuild the said property as they desire.

Doc H.

 

[mcknightp]

I am sorry to say we tried every angle, but even with trading standards, the Law states that you have to prove "Duty of Care". This has been a contention in the Law for years,, and there was just one case this year where a Judge ruled that anybody who carried out building works of any sort, be he professional or non professional, should be held responsible for the works he carries out. This is the one and only case, and I wish I had a Judge who had the balls to say the same. I have been told that his ruling will probably be over-ruled by the high court when the appeal is heard. At this moment in time you can wire a house to burn down once you have sold it, and you have no come back with the law. You can also kill anyone who may be in there, it does not matter, as the law stands you have no "duty of care" to the prospective buyers. I was reliably informed by the Solicitors in court, when you by a house, its called "buyers beware" and that is how it is seen. Thats why I keep trying to change the QS's idea on the survey. It is the QS who decide on the initial inspection, and I believe the initial inspection should include a full electrical and gas inspection report by qualified electrical and gas engineers. BUT as it stands, its as you described it so eloquently. You can f***k it up completely and there is no come back whatsoever.

The court case is completely closed on the 8th of July, when I can then take the whole story to the tabloids. The more people aware of this travesty the better!

 

[green-hornet]

I think from members of this forum you would have full support.

 

[green-hornet]

Letters responding to this have been published by Volti on their webpage My letter is amongs them.

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/14124/infopro.speakerscorner.overview.speakers/British-Standards-IEE-Regulations-and-the-Judicial-System---Letter-to-the-Editor.html&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VoltiNEWS-1-050710

 

[steptoe]

IMO the judge was absolutley correct in what he said.BS7671 is not a statutory instrument... it has no standing in the eyes of the law. There is only 1 document which does and that's the EWAR.

When buying a house it's "buyer beware".. i.e. it's up to the buyer to satisfy themselves that the house is safe; now that may be by having the appropriate paperwork to backup any work done or it may be buy commissioning appropriate surveys and inspections, the results of which can be used as a bargaining chip to reduce to price or to withdraw the offer. But once the house has been sold then it any problems become the new owners problems and not the sellers.. (unless it's got a NHBC or equivalent warranty - which aren't worth much!)

TBH it doesn't sound like these people took any legal advise

sorry folks,

but I fully agree in it being the buyers fault in NOT employing the services of a qualified/proper electrician to do a PIR,

did they have a gas inspection done.?

it simply proves the point that all these inspections and surveys are simply a legalised way of taking our(home buyers) money.

I was warned(!) 3 years ago on trying to buy a property that it was in dire need of a rewire, (simply because house was built in 1977)

the electrics were/are fine,

replaced and moved the old 3036 board and am rewiring each room as I go along simply as a matter of course and because I can. NOT because I need to.

UNEDUCATED advice can go both ways.

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, seek professional advice,

would the same untrained buyers have bought a 2nd hand car without (for example) AA approval.?

 

[green-hornet]

I think the most devastating rule in this judgement is not about the blame of who is or not at fault, its the fact that BS7671 can not be used to justify right from wrong.

So if I wire a radial in 1.5mm and place a 63amp type c breaker on it, then sell the house I am never going to be brought to book, or ever have to account for my actions.

Yes I do agree the home owner has ultimate responsibility, but they require expert guidance and those experts are not experts just cowboys who think they are.

 

[steptoe]

I think the most devastating rule in this judgement is not about the blame of who is or not at fault, its the fact that BS7671 can not be used to justify right from wrong.So if I wire a radial in 1.5mm and place a 63amp type c breaker on it, then sell the house I am never going to be brought to book, or ever have to account for my actions.

Yes I do agree the home owner has ultimate responsibility, but they require expert guidance and those experts are not experts just cowboys who think they are.

+1

and that is the problem,

until somewhere in law it is mandatory for ALL homes for sale to be supplied with a PIR or some such notice then we are all just simply robbing Alan's for asking

 

[a1]

When I did my studying - I was told that in the case of the Spark and BS7671... That .... It was the only acception where a person is guilty untily proven innocent (No matter how much I said it was bull).

And that I would have to prove that I complied with the BRB. That has been proved a load of carp, hasn't it?