Online/Digital version of the 18th Edition od BS7671

[ban-all-sheds]

As previously said, if BS 7671 (or whatever) were "incorporated into UK law", then it would probably be available/accessible free-of-charge. ... but it isn't, so it isn't

PRO is American.

The case they are fighting is to do with standards incorporated into US Federal legislation.

If they win it would not make BS 7671 available, even if that were incorporated into any UK laws. We already have standards incorporated into our laws which are not available FOC.....

 

[JohnW2]

No-one has suggested that the decision of a US court will affect the availability of BS 7671. I suppose that it depends upon how one interprets "incorporated into", but if BS 7671, or an equivalent, were constituted as UK legislation (or, I imagine, if it were included as an 'annexe'/whatever of UK legislation), it would become available without charge.
The grey area seems to relate to situations (if they arise) in which UK legislation requires compliance with a specified Standard, without actually including that Standard in the legislation. However, as I've said, UK government seem reticent to do that, probably at least partially because they do not want to mandate compliance with something over which they have no direct control (and which could change overnight) - so I'm not sure how often, if at all, that happens

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The grey area seems to relate to situations (if they arise) in which UK legislation requires compliance with a specified Standard, without actually including that Standard in the legislation. However, as I've said, UK government seem reticent to do that, probably at least partially because they do not want to mandate compliance with something over which they have no direct control (and which could change overnight) - so I'm not sure how often, if at all, that happens

I give you the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994.

 

[SimonH2]

Interesting. I imagine that the crucial point is ...

... These include rules created and copyrighted by private standards organizations that get incorporated into federal law.

As previously said, if BS 7671 (or whatever) were "incorporated into UK law", then it would probably be available/accessible free-of-charge. ... but it isn't, so it isn't

Without looking it up, IIRC the specific case is about a law that says "X must be done in accordance with standard Y" - where Y is a on-free proprietary standard. And yes I do realise that that case is about US law, not UK ...
It's arguable that UK law effectively makes BS7671 legally enforceable - for the simple reason that very few would be capable of using any alternative route to compliance. And as pointed out, there are UK laws that do explicitly 'Incorporate by reference" non-free standards into law.
I'm inclined to side with the camp that says it is not reasonable to have to pay (in some cases, quite significant amounts) just to know what the law is.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's arguable that UK law effectively makes BS7671 legally enforceable -

They seem to go to great lengths to ensure that it is known that it is NOT statutory.
Every C&G regulation exam I have ever taken has included the question "Which of the following is NOT statutory?"; the answer being BS7671.

for the simple reason that very few would be capable of using any alternative route to compliance.

Part P (itself) does not call for compliance with 7671. Only the schemes insist on it.

Working to other standard is acceptable. 7671 states this.

 

[JohnW2]

Without looking it up, IIRC the specific case is about a law that says "X must be done in accordance with standard Y" - where Y is a on-free proprietary standard. ...

Yes, that may be the case, or the Standard may be 'incorporated into US law mopre formally/explicitly. However ,,,

It's arguable that UK law effectively makes BS7671 legally enforceable - for the simple reason that very few would be capable of using any alternative route to compliance.

True - but I fear the problem is that "being effectively legally enforceable" and " being legally enforceable" are, in legal terms, very different. As you say, there are some people (albeit not too many) who would be capable of using a different route to compliance with the law - so compliance with BS7671 cannot be a 'legal requirement'.

And as pointed out, there are UK laws that do explicitly 'Incorporate by reference" non-free standards into law.

I would need to study one to see if it is analogous with the situations we are discussing.

I'm inclined to side with the camp that says it is not reasonable to have to pay (in some cases, quite significant amounts) just to know what the law is.

I would personally go further than merely being 'inclined to that side'. I also suspect that (despite the comment immediately above) the law might well think similarly - since, as you imply, it would be rather odd to have to pay to discover what the law of the land specifically required. Indeed, if that were the case, relative 'poverty' (inability to pay for whatever the document was) might become a legitimate defence. Whilst, as a general statement, "ignorance of the law" is no defence, inability find find out what the law said/required might be!

Kind Regards, John