My disagreement with LABC re testing of electrical work...

[LiamPope]

Helloo...

As some may know i'm currently squabbling with my LABC about inspection and testing of electrical work, in particular who pays for it. My understanding is that it is the LABC who must sort out the testing, and that understanding is based on sections of Part P, that letter sent by ODPM (now dept. of CLG) to all the LABCs on the matter, and many threads on here and other forums. Here's the last reply I got from my LABC Building Control Manager:

"Dear Mr Pope,

With reference to your email I can advise that it is the responsibility of the person carrying out the work to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations and this will include providing certification that the electrical work complies. The charges set by Bedford are based on the administrative cost of processing the application and carrying out an inspection of the `first fix´ electrical work. The `advice´ within the approved document does not form part of the Regulation and the Department of Communities and Local Government are aware that Bedford together with a number of other Local Authorities and Building Control Bodies do not consider the carrying out of testing to be part of our function.

Equally the `advice´ letter from CLG is incorrect as it conflicts with the Regulations regarding charges. These Regulations do not allow Authorities to have two different charges for the same work, namely one charge for those who do provide a test certificate and another for those who do not. Our charges have been set to reflect our costs for those who do provide a certificate as these form the majority of applications we receive.

We would only consider carrying out testing when there is a need to prosecute for an offence under the Regulations where the additional costs incurred could be reclaimed. Building work which includes controlled electrical work is not treated as complete and will not be covered by a completion certificate until a test certificate has been provided. I hope this answers your questions and if I can be of further help please contact me.

Richard

Richard Martin MRICS MBEng
Building Control Manager"


So essentially Bedford does not consider testing to be part of their function. Is this right? Is it up to them to make that decision? I always had an inkling that quoting Part P at them wouldn't wash as it was also my understanding that those documents are 'technical guides' rather than statutory instruments (but then if an LABC can ignore the wording of the approved documents on those grounds surely anyone carrying out work can too?). Are there actually any real laws that say LABC must arrange testing?

Me, I just want to make sure that any work i do is in line with the law and that my LABC too is operating correctly. For example, it did occur to me that me engaging a third party to certify my installation, as my LABC is demanding, is in itself against the regulations! Their response was that the electrician should be engaged to simply issue a Periodic Inspection Report rather than an Electrical Installation Certificate. I understand that considerable discretion lies with the LABCs in deciding what they will accept as demonstrating compliance with the regs, so if they are happy with a PIR for a new installation and will issue me with a Completion Certificate on that basis, then so be it! It just strikes me that technically my work could break many regs (not that it will) and still pass a PIR!

Anyway, I've gone higher up the food chain and emailed that reply to LABC Services and CLG asking for clarification. Will update on here when they reply. On one hand a sympathise with LABCs having to provide this service at no extra cost to the householder - does seem like rather a good deal for DIY installers, but on the other hand I feel i pay enough tax in general to demand that my LABC upholds its legal requirements (if that's what they are) and does not get away with bullying householders. Therefore i reckon I can pursue this and still sleep at night!

Cheers,

Liam

 

[BS3036]

It certainly needs people like you to stick to their guns to sort out this mess. Well done, and I for one, am keen to hear where this goes.

It sounds like they are selectively enforcing Part P, just the bits that they agree with.

 

[Jaymack]

This is an extract from the following site:-
http://www.communities.gov.uk/plann...ionalcircularletters/buildingregulationspart/

Where, however, notifiable electrical installation work is to be carried out by a person not registered with a Part P competent person scheme, a building notice or full plans must be submitted to the local authority. Under section 91 of the Building Act 1984 local authorities are then under a duty to enforce the relevant building regulations in their areas. Regulation 18 allows local authorities to make such tests as may be necessary to establish whether building work (including electrical installation work) complies with the requirements in Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately.

Regards

 

[LiamPope]

That second paragraph from the ODPM letter is the exact one i quoted to the LABC manager, which he dismissed as incorrect 'advice'

We'll see...

 

[Jaymack]

That second paragraph from the ODPM letter is the exact one i quoted to the LABC manager, which he dismissed as incorrect 'advice'

We'll see...

Complain here: -
http://www.lgo.org.uk/complain.htm

Regards

 

[comms]

It sounds like they are selectively enforcing Part P, just the bits that they agree with.

The bits they can make some money from I think you'll find

 

[securespark]

It's a ducking fisgrace.

 

[JohnD]

This is an extract from the following site:-
http://www.communities.gov.uk/plann...ionalcircularletters/buildingregulationspart/

Where, however, notifiable electrical installation work is to be carried out by a person not registered with a Part P competent person scheme, a building notice or full plans must be submitted to the local authority. Under section 91 of the Building Act 1984 local authorities are then under a duty to enforce the relevant building regulations in their areas. Regulation 18 allows local authorities to make such tests as may be necessary to establish whether building work (including electrical installation work) complies with the requirements in Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately.

Regards

Spot the key word?

 

[LiamPope]

Exactly - neither this letter nor Approved Doc P are statements of the law. That's why I ask whether there actually are laws that are relevant here. It would seem the only statutory instrument is the wonderfully vague 'Building Regulations 2000 (as ammended)', and any details are a matter of interpretation, so an LABC can really pick and choose from Part P or any other Approved Doc. Ridiculous really.

Liam

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ask them to quote you the part of the Building Regulations which requires you to "demonstrate compliance with the Regulations and this will include providing certification that the electrical work complies".

And if you have the stomach for it, if you notify, and they won't provide a completion certificate unless you carry out actions of their invention, hit them with a court action.

 

[Richard C]

Just had exactly the same problem last Wednesday with 2 basic light circuits & a fan in a new en-suit. Did all the plumbing/waste runs, first fix electrics; hardly taxing! Dug new drain trench to existing manhole, laid new pipe work & called in BI for inspection. Looked at open trench with drain run on pea shingle, connection to existing foul drain & the en-suite itself, including waste runs & fan but refused to inspect first fix electrics! “Just get an independent test with a BS 7671 certificate & I’ll give you a completion certificate”; I say “but I’m not supposed to have to do that & sparkies aren’t supposed to sign one for someone else’s work”; BI shrugs shoulders & leaves saying everything else is OK!

I’ve got a willing Part P spark coming in tomorrow so hopefully all will be OK but I don’t yet know if it will be or how much extra it’s going to cost me!

 

[LiamPope]

Ask them to quote you the part of the Building Regulations which requires you to "demonstrate compliance with the Regulations and this will include providing certification that the electrical work complies".

I could try that. Part P is pretty clear on the matter:

"1.24 Where such installers (who may be contractors or DIYers) carry out notifiable electrical work, the building control body must be notified before the work starts...The building control body then becomes responsible for making sure that the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements in the Building Regulations."

But i'll get the same 'the approved docs are not the law' reply.

And if you have the stomach for it, if you notify, and they won't provide a completion certificate unless you carry out actions of their invention, hit them with a court action.

And that's where the fight might have to end. The average householder, me included, can't afford the expense, time and delay to their project of taking their LABC to court! I suspect the LABCs are well aware of this and will continue to stand firm in their refusal to adhere to the words of the Approved Docs and the opinions expressed in letters from the ODPM/CLG (which may be perfectly legal) knowing the householder will likely give up and pay up. This will continue to be the case unless the Approved Docs become statutory instruments and/or the LABCs risk fines or similar imposed by their controlling authorities, i.e. the government.

The only other option that has occured to me (and may be relevant to you, Richard C) would be to pay for the testing and later recover my costs through the small claims court. It would be a simple victory if it could really be shown the LABC was breaking the law. Not being a legal type, I dunno if that would be an option or not though!

Liam

 

[ColJack]

the problem is that the circular quoted above was dated 2005.. and mentions a part of the building act 1984 that hadn't come into power YET.. which by the sounds of it gives the LABC's the right to charge for testing and inspection..

 

[LiamPope]

Well I couldn't find any sign of a commencement order for section 33 of the Building Act on the UK Statute Law Database, but this is maybe getting beyond my google warrior skillzzz

What is interesting is section 7 of the building act itself which says:

A failure on the part of a person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but if, in any proceedings whether civil or criminal, it is alleged that a person has at any time contravened a provision of building regulations—
(a)a failure to comply with a document that at that time was approved for the purposes of that provision may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and
(b)proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

Which I interpret as meaning 'the approved docs might not themselves be the law, but if you're accused of breaking the regulations, failure to have complied with a relevant approved document will be good enough to establish liability'. Or in other words 'the LABC ignoring Part P may not in itself be illegal, but if I accuse them of breaking the regs in a court, having contravened Part P will establish their guilt in breaking the regs'. So maybe the approved docs do have some legal power? Anyway I'll wait and see what LABC Services/ dept. of CLG say...

Liam

 

[Richard C]

The only other option that has occured to me (and may be relevant to you, Richard C) would be to pay for the testing and later recover my costs through the small claims court. It would be a simple victory if it could really be shown the LABC was breaking the law. Not being a legal type, I dunno if that would be an option or not though!

Liam

Update. Sparky has just left after having a good look over everything & testing my new en-suite fan/light circuit; all was OK & he even moved the 30ma circuit breaker (I’m on T&T) across to the other rail so it also complies with the 17th edition as well, even though work was started under 16th.
Here for around 40 minutes including tea & I was really concerned about being ripped off but all he asked for was £40; so I gave him £50. Just got to wait for the NIC certificate to come through; am I pleased or what. Not sure I’ll bother trying to reclaim from LABC though, hardly seems worth it for the agro it may cause me as Iv'e future BI inspections on work being done here!