Interesting times ahead especially as the enforcement regime is still not to be strengthened. For Part P this is not such a problem as the wiring regs have proved pretty robust in ensuring minimum standards. Unfortunately with fire and disabled accessibility and facilities this is not so. Risk Assessment has become synomonous with doing the minimum to suit the client, regardless of any minimum standards set out in the documents. I have been involved in extensive discussions with both the Minister and The Principal Architect of the Dept Comm. & Local Govt, Richard Harral, over this issue but the view is that they do not want enforcement legislation or requirements. I fear that both areas will suffer as BR persons certify matters as compliant in order to ensure continuing commercial relationships with the designer and client. Once constructed change is very difficult if not impossible to enforce. Bob

Paul Sad to read that even part P is not being applied as I had expected. Then I have heard second hand stories of some strange Approvals being made under Part P. The whole sorry issue goes back to the point when Building Regs Control was devolved from Local Authorities and every Approval Organisation, whether commercial or LA had to tender in the market for work. This effectively made them a subcontractor to the design team. The designers were also permitted to write a compliance statement that described just how they complied with the requirements. If this was accepted and certified by the BR approval body then the design complies with BR EVEN if the solution is of a lower standard than that set out in an approved document as the MINIMUM solution. The result is a lowering of standards over time as commercial pressures to approve a solution increases. Add to this a poor standard of enforcement, deliberately so by Central Govt, this is a recipe for disaster. A "train crash" will occurr on day and then perhaps we will see Building Regs Approvel being a respected standard once more. Wonder who will be left with the baby? Bob

Part P is a licence to kill. Simple as that! Point one If the circuit had an RCD fitted (although in this case it was not a requirement) and the rcd was tested etc things may have been different. In my view just because it complies with regs does not mean we cannot go further and install a SAFE installation. Always the same, do just enough to cover ones backside) Second point. An electrical TEST would have not picked the problem up but an INSPECTION of the method of installation would have. i.e. The wiring should have not have been in a position for a screw to have been in contact with the wiring. (This in itself is a contravention of both BS7671 and EWR so whoever inspected and tested the installation made a false declaration on the test certificate. ) As ever, some trained Pratt playing at electrical work. If anyone has a problem with this view point sue me! Third point. How long was the screw that secured to wall covering to the frame work? If too long then how far did it actually penetrate into the cavity? Was it of the size specified? If not was a specification detailed and if not why not? Fourth point. The person installing the wall covering should have noticed that the warning was in line with the fixing line and could possibly be damaged. Was this flagged to the electrician (the word 'electrician' is used here as I cannot find the right word at this time) fifth point. Where was the supervision? And electrical inspection and test is carried out during and upon completion of the installation by (NICEIC definition) someone who has above average knowledge and experience of electrical matters I wonder why I get upset Rob (Happy new year all)

zimmy Pleased to see you did not get worked up about it. The BR are fast moving from a basic protection/standard to an active farce it seems. The Emma case really is astounding

Among my papers I have a letter from Richard Harral stating thet there is an offence under S157, I think, of the Building Act 1984 to claim something as compliant when it is not so. I will dig it out. The Enforcement power seemed to be LA and is aimed at the designer and approval body. The PI insurers have to be a port of call by the family and a successful prosecution of any kind will improve the prospects of a successful claim against the extinct company and its insurers. Whoever came up with the idea that self regulation alone will stop people breaking the intentions/requirements of legislation Bob

It seems that very rapidly now all direct means of enforcing any standards in these areas is unravelling. We will soon have new buildings with Building Regs compliance that will never reach any sort of compliance with the Workplace regulations and no one will be responsible. Environment, while important, does not injure people directly - unlike poor access, poor fire resistance and poor electrics. I do not know if Richard Jones will pick this thread up at the Grange but perhaps he can pick up some of his contacts - after all this is a Section 3 issue on the way people conduct their business. Under our public benefit umbrella, via our charitable status, one can see a role for IOSH here to remind central government that there are real safety issues involved that can and do kill people at work and at home. Bob

Yes I have read it - was given an advance copy and my comment is the same - nothing here acts to strengthen enforcement of a position whereby Approved Persons can relax even the minimum standards set out in ANY approved document should they so wish. The Compliance notice virtually eliminates any claim that the building does not comply. Dug out my letter and Richard Harral was pointing to Section 57 of the Building Act 1984, not 157 as I had said. The enforcement is the LA - but I do not know how LAs will deal with it when it is their own Building Control Inspectors doing these things as well I have a current situation of a church with a brand new church hall attached - the new entrance porch fails to meet dimensional standards to allow room for wheelchair and pushchair/pram manoeuvring - It will never be altered as it is now not reasonable to do so- The words of the LA Building Control who did the approval. Worst thing was he kept referring to pre 1996 standards and thought minimum effective door width on a public accessed building to be 725mm. I cannot even track that figure to a date!!!! Just imagine if fire standards were reduced to any significant extent. Will we see some of the awful fires again in old folks homes and factories and shops? As I say - I cringe at where this will end. Bob