Next one.. AFDDs. Looks like there's a change from High Risk Residential Buildings to Higher-risk buildings (innocuous enough of itself as the definition seems to be similar (18m or 7 storeys and containing 2+ residential units) but the actual definition is indirected to the Building Safety Act and "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing this section.". Does this mean than BS 7671 has become "ambulatory" and it's precise meaning could change at any time without the knowledge or consent of JPEL/64? (or the reader of BS 7671)?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Does this mean than BS 7671 has become "ambulatory" and it's precise meaning could change at any time without the knowledge or consent of JPEL/64? (or the reader of BS 7671)?

No, I do not think that anything has changed there. Statutes, be they primary legislation (Acts) or secondary (Regulations, etc.) will always trump standards.

This is what Amd 2 says (Note 1 to 421.1.7): "It is anticipated that in many areas higher risk residential buildings will be defined in legislation which can be subject to change over time, as well as in risk management procedures adopted by fire and rescue services. Current legislation should be applied.)

Amd 2 was issued on 28 March 2022, but the Act received Royal Assent a month later on 28 April 2022 so it seems that the Committee was aware of the Proposed new legislation, but clearly could not refer to something which did not yet exist.

Statutes .... will always trump standards.

It's not so much the legislation trumping the standard (the legislation isn't saying install AFDDs, BS 7671 does that still), it's more the ability to say what BS 7671 actually means. Normally references out to other standards are to a particular fixed version of that standard (as listed in BS 7671 Appendix 1) - so when there's say a contract that says we agree to work to BS 7671:2018 AMD 2022 say, it is possible for all parties to know exactly what that means (as undoubtedly the lawyers will check). But if there's a contract or certificate that says BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026 we won't know, precisely. So say a contract is signed in January agreeing to BS BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026, designed in March, according to BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026, and then delivered in December  - but somewhere in between some politician changed their mind and reclassifies the type building the installation is in as a HRB - who takes the hit of paying for and installing all the extra AFDDs? (possibly hundreds of them). The customer because it wasn't a requirement when the contract was signed or the installer because what they delivered now doesn't comply with BS 7671, as stated in the contract?

   - Andy.

Statutes .... will always trump standards.

It's not so much the legislation trumping the standard (the legislation isn't saying install AFDDs, BS 7671 does that still), it's more the ability to say what BS 7671 actually means. Normally references out to other standards are to a particular fixed version of that standard (as listed in BS 7671 Appendix 1) - so when there's say a contract that says we agree to work to BS 7671:2018 AMD 2022 say, it is possible for all parties to know exactly what that means (as undoubtedly the lawyers will check). But if there's a contract or certificate that says BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026 we won't know, precisely. So say a contract is signed in January agreeing to BS BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026, designed in March, according to BS 7671:2018 AMD 2026, and then delivered in December  - but somewhere in between some politician changed their mind and reclassifies the type building the installation is in as a HRB - who takes the hit of paying for and installing all the extra AFDDs? (possibly hundreds of them). The customer because it wasn't a requirement when the contract was signed or the installer because what they delivered now doesn't comply with BS 7671, as stated in the contract?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

who takes the hit of paying for and installing all the extra AFDDs?

In many standard forms of contract, this is addressed in the change procedures, bu typically it's a change that the client will have to agree to, or not (at their choice and 'peril'.

In many standard forms of contract, this is addressed in the change procedures

Indeed - but if we're moving into a world where "BS 7671 to xxx. amdended to yyy" is no longer fixed reference point, doesn't the whole problem get worse? Is the situation where "complies with BS 7671" doesn't mean the same as "complied with BS 7671", is making things comply a change?

   -  Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Indeed - but if we're moving into a world where "BS 7671 to xxx. amdended to yyy" is no longer fixed reference point,

I don't see what the issue is ... this is down to how the standard is interpreted, and that can mean something different tomorrow than it did today, if a court case determined so (see earlier post).

That would be something the project change procedure is there to address.

Similarly, if legislation were to appear requiring an isolator is fitted in a certain place you never priced for one, that would be project change.

In the particular case cited, at least there's proposed to be a note so you can include in 'provisional sums' of a tender ...

If a contract depends upon a statute or standard which has yet to be enacted or issued, it would probably be void for uncertainty.

BS 7671 does go out of date, which is why we have amendments (large and small), and new editions.