Tower Block Fire

Pross

No you can't. You get prosecuted under the relevant legislation that the Code refers to. No-one has ever found themselves in court for acting contrary to rule so and so of the Highway Code, they would be there for acting contrary to Section something of the Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Regulations Act etc.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Absolutely priceless!
To be guilty of an offence you have to be in breach of legislation.
Here is an idiots guide governing the legislation concerning the most common offences.

https://www.allaboutuklaw.co.uk/road-traffic-act/

You will note that the highway code isn't mentioned.

diplodicus

Remind me what this has to do with burning buildings, again?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Absolutely priceless!
To be guilty of an offence you have to be in breach of legislation.
Here is an idiots guide governing the legislation concerning the most common offences.

https://www.allaboutuklaw.co.uk/road-traffic-act/

You will note that the highway code isn't mentioned.

Somebody clearly doesn't understand.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Absolutely priceless!
To be guilty of an offence you have to be in breach of legislation.
Here is an idiots guide governing the legislation concerning the most common offences.

https://www.allaboutuklaw.co.uk/road-traffic-act/

You will note that the highway code isn't mentioned.

Somebody clearly doesn't understand.

In the UK we have a system of Common Law. What that means is that the law is defined both by legislation and also by custom and precedent. The latter are usually defined by case law i.e. judgements made in court but not defined by act of parliament. Case law may result in the passing of an act but it's not necessary for there to be a statute for a court to decide a crime has been commited. Breaching highway code guidelines is strong evidence against those in breach and it's not necessary for act to support a court decision that a crime has been committed. The UK differs in that respect from other countries such as France where there is no common law.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Pross wrote:

john80 wrote:

. I am off to report 25 cars that did not maintain correct road position or indication in accordance with the highway code on my way to work this morning

That would be a waste of your time. No-one can be arrested for failing to follow the Highway Code as it isn't legislation (something far too many road users seem oblivious to when quoting it). I suggest you dig out the relevant section of suitable legislation such as the Road Traffic Act instead.

Some of the Highway Code is enshrined in legislation. How the code is used is explained here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... troduction

The fact that the UK has Common Law isn't the issue. We all know we have Common Law in the UK and what it is. People who commit traffic offences get charged under the relevant Road Traffic Act.
I have reproduced, above, your post, stating that some of the Highway Code is enshrined in legislation, not common law.

Your latest post is nearer the mark

Breaching highway code guidelines is strong evidence against those in breach

I note that you now seem to accept that the Code is a guideline to show that road users were in breach of something else. A section of a Road Traffic Act for instance?

john80

Pross wrote:

Really? You didn't make it obvious. It seemed more the point that you were trying to make was you'd have no luck getting close passes investigated but that the police were prepared to investigate this despite it having less potential to do physical harm (which I actually think is a reasonable point).

OK I will be more specific. I was being sarcastic as deep down I realised that reporting breaches of the highway code was not really an offence as you are correct I would rather and officer was out on his bike getting close passed whilst his colleague handed out fines. This is proper policing where a conviction or penalty can be applied versus telling off a bunch of geezers for poor taste. Lets face it before the internet only their next door neighbours would have known what they did in the evenings and I am sure they could have pointed out the poor taste face to face if so bothered.

robert88

TV Asahi cancels performance of K-pop group BTS over member’s Hiroshima A-bombing T-shirt

DeVlaeminck

Obviously out to shock, the modern day Sex Pistols.

tangled_metal

Blondie with atomic during first gulf War got banned. Out to shock? Or the clash with the re-release of Rock the casbah? Something like 347 singles got banned by BBC radio during the run up and the duration of the first gulf War. If they hadn't been banned would the BBC or their label have been guilty of an offence under our nation's laws?

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Blondie with atomic during first gulf War got banned. Out to shock? Or the clash with the re-release of Rock the casbah? Something like 347 singles got banned by BBC radio during the run up and the duration of the first gulf War. If they hadn't been banned would the BBC or their label have been guilty of an offence under our nation's laws?

That has the whiff of an urban myth to it.

tangled_metal

It was on a BBC music clip show on banned records. Or rather records banned by the BBC. I think the BBC would know who they have banned.

Pross

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Absolutely priceless!
To be guilty of an offence you have to be in breach of legislation.
Here is an idiots guide governing the legislation concerning the most common offences.

https://www.allaboutuklaw.co.uk/road-traffic-act/

You will note that the highway code isn't mentioned.

Somebody clearly doesn't understand.

In the UK we have a system of Common Law. What that means is that the law is defined both by legislation and also by custom and precedent. The latter are usually defined by case law i.e. judgements made in court but not defined by act of parliament. Case law may result in the passing of an act but it's not necessary for there to be a statute for a court to decide a crime has been commited. Breaching highway code guidelines is strong evidence against those in breach and it's not necessary for act to support a court decision that a crime has been committed. The UK differs in that respect from other countries such as France where there is no common law.

Well yes, which is what Ballsy and I were saying all along. The prosecution is made under the relevant Act whilst secondary legislation (Regulations) and accepted codes of practice get used as evidence of how the law was broken. Part of setting precedent is how this evidence was interpreted in previous cases. So the original statement that you cannot be prosecuted for breaching the Highway Code that you disagreed with is actually the case.

To bring it back on topic - at Grenfell there is likely to have been a breach of Building Regulations, CDM Regulations and various Codes of Practice associated with the installation of the cladding used. However, when / if anyone is in Court they will be charged under the relevant sections of an Act such as the Buildings Act, Health and Safety Act or potentially the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. The breaches to Regulations and Codes of Practice will then be used to demonstrate how the defendants broke the law as set out in those Acts.

awavey

Tangled Metal wrote:

It was on a BBC music clip show on banned records. Or rather records banned by the BBC. I think the BBC would know who they have banned.

banned, or just refused to play ? in the 90s if the song wasnt on the playlist, someone had to go down to the vault and pick it out, the chances of an early 80s song like that being picked and played were next to none anyway Id have thought.

and that BBC article is a bit of a joke because whats the one record everyone remembers being actually "banned" by the BBC by Frankie Goes to Hollywood...and it doesnt even get namechecked

ballysmate

Any charges yet against the Bonfire 5?
Thought not.

Pross

I'll put this here as it originates from the fire. Is it the Government's responsibility to sort out the mess in respect of cladding and other fire safety issues in private housing? I'm torn here as I don't think it is reasonable for those who bought houses that, as far as they and their surveyors would have known, met all necessary standards.

I think it is reasonable for the Government to step in but it feels a bit unfair for residents to then say it is too little, too late unless a Government institution approved unsuitable materials for use in these circumstances. I have to admit I've lost track of whether the materials have been used in the way that they have been approved or not but it feels that the Developers are getting off lightly having been the ones making money from selling the buildings whilst leaseholders and the tax payer are picking up the costs.

elbowloh

The developers and the providers of material that the knew not to be safe for the application they were sold for should be held liable. The developers either knew their products weren't safe or they were negligent in not doing any due diligence.

The lease holders bought the flats in good faith. It's not just about the cladding though, there seem to be so many breeches of fire regs in many high rises e.g. lack of fire doors or if they do have them, they are poorly fitting and therefore next to useless.

john80

As an engineer I find it pretty amazing that no one gets jailed for this. If this turns out to be the case then it would seem that if you put enough layers into the process no-one takes the fall.

Companies falsely claiming certs for products. Engineers and specifiers not doing due diligence on those certs and ensuring compliance with the building regs. Kind of blows a hole in the argument that there are consequences for poor CDM reg compliance and lack of technical competence.

Pross

This is where I've lost track of things. Have manufacturers made false claims or have the wrong product versions been used in the wrong situation? If the former then there need to be prison sentences as it would be fraud (or worse in the case of Grenfell itself).

I'm not convinced an architect or anyone else specifying can do much more than check that a product is certified to the correct standards so as long as the are specifying a product that complies with codes / standards I don't think they are liable. Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

If it is the Contractor and / or using something similar to specified but not meeting the required standards then the liability stops with them. They should be carrying out all works at their costs with their insurances and Bonds getting hammered accordingly.

One thing is for sure, leaseholders shouldn't be out of pocket. The Government should be providing support and reclaiming it from those responsible but are only really liable if the BS testing wasn't up to the job or they knew of an issue and failed to act.

rick_chasey

Is it not a failure of the regulators as much as the constructors?

The government acting as insurance for something that was unexpected (and so uninsurable) is entirely reasonable behaviour in my view.

Ben6899

Pross said:

I'm not convinced an architect or anyone else specifying can do much more than check that a product is certified to the correct standards so as long as the are specifying a product that complies with codes / standards I don't think they are liable. Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

This. If I specify a component which fails and there's an accident... if I have specified that component in a way that the manufacturer and our internal approval process has deemed the correct way, then you start looking at the approval process or the manufacturer's test results / specification sheets. If I specify a component in a manner that wasn't approved, then I'm in trouble.

We have this all the time - lots of products approved for use on the infrastructure, but with really quite specific applications / restrictions.

From what I understand with Grenfell, the cladding failed tests and manufacturers fudged the results. The icing on the cake is that the developers were aware.

Ben6899

rick_chasey said:

Is it not a failure of the regulators as much as the constructors?

The government acting as insurance for something that was unexpected (and so uninsurable) is entirely reasonable behaviour in my view.

Regulators will have seen that the materials passed the tests, they weren't in on the trick.

pblakeney

Ben6899 said:

Pross said:

I'm not convinced an architect or anyone else specifying can do much more than check that a product is certified to the correct standards so as long as the are specifying a product that complies with codes / standards I don't think they are liable. Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

This. If I specify a component which fails and there's an accident... if I have specified that component in a way that the manufacturer and our internal approval process has deemed the correct way, then you start looking at the approval process or the manufacturer's test results / specification sheets. If I specify a component in a manner that wasn't approved, then I'm in trouble.

We have this all the time - lots of products approved for use on the infrastructure, but with really quite specific applications / restrictions.

From what I understand with Grenfell, the cladding failed tests and manufacturers fudged the results. The icing on the cake is that the developers were aware.

That is the reason that I have to cough up for extremely large liability insurance cover. There are people to be held to account. I don't care who they are, or how many there are, but it has to happen. Doubt it will though...

elbowloh

Pross said:

This is where I've lost track of things. Have manufacturers made false claims or have the wrong product versions been used in the wrong situation? If the former then there need to be prison sentences as it would be fraud (or worse in the case of Grenfell itself).

I'm not convinced an architect or anyone else specifying can do much more than check that a product is certified to the correct standards so as long as the are specifying a product that complies with codes / standards I don't think they are liable. Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

If it is the Contractor and / or using something similar to specified but not meeting the required standards then the liability stops with them. They should be carrying out all works at their costs with their insurances and Bonds getting hammered accordingly.

One thing is for sure, leaseholders shouldn't be out of pocket. The Government should be providing support and reclaiming it from those responsible but are only really liable if the BS testing wasn't up to the job or they knew of an issue and failed to act.

I think its believed that (for the Grenfell panels) the manufacturer did not release test results that showed that they were not suitable for high rises. They also deliberately marketed them for this application in countries where the rules were not very stringent (i.e. the UK). It is claimed, that developers were aware that the panels may not have been suitable, but they were cheap, so went for them.

The other issue in other high rises where there aren't fire doors or where the fire doors have massive gaps are just clear breaches of fire regs.

One of the other issues has been balconies made with timber structures which have apparently been flagged as one of the reasons why building can't now get their fire certs. I'm not sure what the requirements were for this at the time of build.

thistle_

Pross said:

Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

Only once in 13 years have building control ever queried anything I've submitted to them, and that was 11 years ago. I think 90% of the time as long as something has been sent to them for their records they are happy with it.

We always used to joke that they look at the name on the front cover, weigh it, then file it away.

rjsterry

thistle_ said:

Pross said:

Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

Only once in 13 years have building control ever queried anything I've submitted to them, and that was 11 years ago. I think 90% of the time as long as something has been sent to them for their records they are happy with it.

We always used to joke that they look at the name on the front cover, weigh it, then file it away.

Building Regs sign off does not absolve you of design responsibility, so if they've just missed something, you're still liable for missing it, too.

thistle_

rjsterry said:

thistle_ said:

Pross said:

Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control.

Only once in 13 years have building control ever queried anything I've submitted to them, and that was 11 years ago. I think 90% of the time as long as something has been sent to them for their records they are happy with it.

We always used to joke that they look at the name on the front cover, weigh it, then file it away.

Building Regs sign off does not absolve you of design responsibility, so if they've just missed something, you're still liable for missing it, too.

Yes, totally.
A lot of people seem to think they are the ones who thoroughly check what you submit. I think these days you're lucky if they give it a cursory glance over because they don't have the time or resources to do anything more than that.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Is it not a failure of the regulators as much as the constructors?

The government acting as insurance for something that was unexpected (and so uninsurable) is entirely reasonable behaviour in my view.

I agree to an extent with that second paragraph and think I said as much in one of my posts. However, it seems unreasonable that when the Government announces £3 billion plus towards sorting out the problem that a spokesperson for one of the residents' groups says it is too little, too late. For me this is a Developer / Contractor PI insurance issue (unless, as I said earlier, they have worked correctly to the standards put in place by Government bodies) and potential legal issue. There are too many out there keen to make quick money from property development but that won't accept the consequences of being cowboys.

john80

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

rjsterry

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.