DIY Electrical Changes Made?

[AdamCH]

Are you sure it's a criminal act not to notify?

On the planning portal it says "Therefore, failure to comply with the relevant rules will result in the owner being liable for any remedial action (which could go as far as demolition and/or restoration)."

Would the criminal conviction not come later if a court ordered compliance and you did not comply with the court order (a criminal offense)?

 

[SaladFingers]

For the second time, home owner, not the house. That's the legislation as it stands. If the previous home owner committed muder? Now you're just being stupid. Murder has nothing to do with notification to building control.

"I'm out". I'll leave you and BAS to play and destroy another thread. ... and please try to learn to be a bit more selective in your quoting, to make your posts easier to read.

Kind Regards, John

I might join you, mine's a pint.

 

[JohnW2]

Hence in the same way that lots of wiring was claimed to have been completed in 2004 with the new cables, there may be a similar period in 2013 where a lot of work with cable dated 2011/12 is claimed to have been completed post regs change.

Yes, I'm sure that will happen - but they will be able to claim that the work was undertaken after April 2013 regardless of the dating of the cable. They could even make that claim with pre-2004 red/black cable if they wanted - and no-one could prove them wrong on the basis of anything to do with cable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Are you sure it's a criminal act not to notify?

Yes. Any contravention of any provision of the Building Regulations constitues a criminal offence - applicable penalties are described (very briefly!) in Section 35 of the underlying Statute (Building Act 1984) - see here

On the planning portal it says "Therefore, failure to comply with the relevant rules will result in the owner being liable for any remedial action (which could go as far as demolition and/or restoration)." Would the criminal conviction not come later if a court ordered compliance and you did not comply with the court order (a criminal offense)?

I think there may be confusion of at least three things. Firstly, unsatisfactory/non-compliant work can result in the perpetrator being liable for remedial action, under an enforcement notice. Secondly, as you mention, the individual may fail to comply with the enforcement notice, in which case further legal action would be taken (certainly civil, to recover the costs, if LA undertook the remedial work, and possibly also criminal - I don't know about that).

Thirdly, failure to comply with requirement to, say, notify, which is a straight violation of the law, and therefore a criminal act. Don't forget that one can be guilty of failure to notify even if the work were fine and totally compliant - there would therefore be no remedial action required, so the law-breaker could then not be punished other than by criminal prosecution and consequent fine on conviction.

Having said all that, no-one seems aware of any prosecution for failure to notify electrical work ever having happened, and I personally have never even heard of an enforcement notice in relation to electrical work (although I imagine they probably do arise).

Kind Regards, John

 

[AdamCH]

Thanks for that John

I had a look around and found a section on Westminster Councils website that explains it & the last para also gives a clue to why there aren't many convictions:

Non-compliance with the Building Regulations

Contravention of the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and action may be taken under Section 35 of the Building Act 1984, against a person who contravenes them. If convicted, that person is liable to be fined up to £5,000 for each offence and may also have to pay a daily fine if the default continues after conviction.

Section 36 of the Building Act allows a Notice to be served requiring the owner: (a) to pull down or remove any work contravening the Regulations or (b) to bring the work into compliance with the Regulations.

Rather than take action for a breach of the Regulations we prefer our customers to work with us to achieve compliance. Formal enforcement action is usually taken as a last resort.

Cheaper reach an agreement with building control than go to court I'd have thought.

Section 36 would mean that a current owner could get an enforcement notice & a conviction if they didn't comply with the notice, even if the work wasn't completed by them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Again, wrong comparison. Has nothing to do with notification.

It's not a wrong comparison.

It is another example of Person A, utterly unknown to you and utterly unconnected to you committing a criminal offence, and you subsequently and quite legitimately becoming the owner of property of his. It does not make you guilty of the crime in his stead.

As you correctly observe, it would be stupid in John's example to claim that a person could be found guilty of murder because he had bought a house from a murderer.

It is equally stupid to say that a homeowner can be fined for non-notification when it was not they who failed to notify.

If you'd like to tell the solicitors and legislation that they're wrong, go ahead.

I don't need to, because it is not they who are wrong, it is you, and grievously so.

I understood fully.

No you did not.

There was a non compliance and LABC can fine the homeowner over it.

No they cannot.

A homeowner could end up being prosecuted if when ordered to do so they fail to remedy work which does not comply with the Building Regulations, but they cannot be fined for non-notification because a previous owner did not notify.

It's you again, who's just too full of your own steam to just listen to the legislation.

No, it's I again full of an ability to read and understand, and you again full of ignorance and obtuseness.

You can be left with any bill from a legislative body that's upon your home.

You may end up with liabilities associated with the property.

But you cannot be convicted of a criminal offence in a court of law and be fined or imprisoned because you happen to live in a property where the previous owner committed the offence.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for that John I had a look around and found a section on Westminster Councils website that explains it & the last para also gives a clue to why there aren't many convictions:

Non-compliance with the Building Regulations
Contravention of the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and action may be taken under Section 35 of the Building Act 1984, against a person who contravenes them. If convicted, that person is liable to be fined up to £5,000 for each offence and may also have to pay a daily fine if the default continues after conviction.
Section 36 of the Building Act allows a Notice to be served requiring the owner: (a) to pull down or remove any work contravening the Regulations or (b) to bring the work into compliance with the Regulations.
Rather than take action for a breach of the Regulations we prefer our customers to work with us to achieve compliance. Formal enforcement action is usually taken as a last resort.

Cheaper reach an agreement with building control than go to court I'd have thought.

Indeed, and that makes total sense. However, I think the different issue are still being confused. What you quote there all relates to non-compliance with the ('technical') regulations and remedial work to rectify that non-compliance (i.e.'making safe') - which is all very reasonable. That is, as I said, very different from non-compliance with the requirement to notify (a 'procedural' crime) - which, as I said, can easily relate to work which is totally compliant and requires no remedial work.

Section 36 would mean that a current owner could get an enforcement notice & a conviction if they didn't comply with the notice, even if the work wasn't completed by them.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. Indeed, I imagine that an enforcement notice could be issued, requiring remedial work to be undertaken in the the interests of safety, relating to work undertaken in the distant past, perhaps even before there were any building regulations, or perhaps not due to any human error (maybe just deterioration of the building). In those cases, it will inevitably be the current owner who will be served with an enforcement notice - since it is the property which has to be remedied, necesarily by the present owner. This is why the question of indemnity insurance was raised. What was daft, however, was the suggestion that someone could be prosecuted for non-notification by some previous owner,whether the non-nitfied work were compliant or not!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Isuspect that the criminal prosecution might come later if you didn't pay LABC and they took out an enforcement action.

Pay them for what?

What else in this utterly bonkers world which you and Saladfingers works like that?

If the previous owner had a TV but no licence, can you be fined for that?

If he didn't pay his vehicle tax can they come and seize your car?

 

[AdamCH]

Isuspect that the criminal prosecution might come later if you didn't pay LABC and they took out an enforcement action.

Pay them for what?

What else in this utterly bonkers world which you and Saladfingers works like that?

If the previous owner had a TV but no licence, can you be fined for that?

If he didn't pay his vehicle tax can they come and seize your car?

I'm suggesting that Salad isn't going to be jailed for work the previous owner completed but he may get served with an enforcement action to make it compliant. If he didn't comply with the enforcement notice then he would have committed an offense. Presumably the insurance policy he took out would cover the work required to make it compliant if BC came calling.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you sure it's a criminal act not to notify?

I am.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/55/part/I/crossheading/breach-of-building-regulations

But if it was not you who failed to notify then it is not you who is guilty of contravening Regulation 12 of the Building Regulations.

Would the criminal conviction not come later if a court ordered compliance and you did not comply with the court order (a criminal offense)?

If you disobey a court order, or even just an enforcement notice from the council then you would be liable for prosecution.

But that's not the same as being fined in a Magistrate's Court for someone else's failure to notify.

Section 36 would mean that a current owner could get an enforcement notice & a conviction if they didn't comply with the notice, even if the work wasn't completed by them.

Yes - an enforcement notice followed by refusal by the current owner to comply with that.


That's not the same as being fined in a Magistrate's Court for someone else's failure to notify.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm suggesting that Salad isn't going to be jailed for work the previous owner completed but he may get served with an enforcement action to make it compliant.

He might, but if all that's wrong is that the person who did the work failed to notify then in the absence of a time machine there's not much anybody can do to notify it.

Maybe, in theory, an LABC could demand that the new owner submit a regularisation application, but that's not the same as being fined in a Magistrate's Court for the previous owner's failure to notify, which is what Salad keeps claiming can happen.

If he didn't comply with the enforcement notice then he would have committed an offense.

Yes, but his offence would not be that of failing to notify, and any conviction and fine would not be for failing to notify, which is what he keeps claiming.

Presumably the insurance policy he took out would cover the work required to make it compliant if BC came calling.

Presumably, if he was properly advised by his solicitor.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=building+regulations+indemnity+policy

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=building+regulations+contraventions+time+limit

 

[SaladFingers]

I'm suggesting that Salad isn't going to be jailed for work the previous owner completed

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

 

[bernardgreen]

The worst penalty I have heard is a couple of flats being declared by the local council as "un-inhabitable" due to bodged DIY electrical work. The landlord had to pay for the tenant's temporary accomodation until the electrics were bought up to standard.

It seems that a council declaring a building as unfit or a dangerous structure and issuing an enforcement notice can result in a severe financial penalty to the owner without invoking any criminal actions.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

Ignoring fixed penalties for minor motoring issues, courts will only fine you if you are found guilty of a criminal offence.

35 Penalty for contravening building regulations.

If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which this section does not apply, he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted.

When are you going to realise that if it is not you who contravened the Building Regulations it cannot be you who can be taken to court and prosecuted for the offence?

Transferring ownership of a property from Person A to Person B does not also transfer the guilt for criminal acts carried by Person A to Person B.

 

[SaladFingers]

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

Ignoring fixed penalties for minor motoring issues, courts will only fine you if you are found guilty of a criminal offence.

35 Penalty for contravening building regulations.

If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which this section does not apply, he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted.

When are you going to realise that if it is not you who contravened the Building Regulations it cannot be you who can be taken to court and prosecuted for the offence?

Transferring ownership of a property from Person A to Person B does not also transfer the guilt for criminal acts carried by Person A to Person B.

It transfers ownership of a property with non compliances, so the problem has a new owner. When are you going to realize this?