Cowboy Builder - Some advice please

[ericmark]

Lady Margaret Beaufort built Mold parish church I am quite sure she did not role up her sleeves and lay the stones. But she was responsible for it being built and should the County Council of the time want to take the mother of Henry VII to task for what she had done back in 1490 - 1550 then up to 1509, when she died, I suppose anyone willing to lose their head could have done.

The work is ordered by the owner of a dwelling and he could select to employ the tradesmen direct or to appoint a firm to over see the whole job. Where the owner employs each trade independent it is still covered by the one application to the LABC. So unless the builder has a contract which states his job is to ensure all building regulations are complied with then he has a back door he can slip out of.

I was involved with one job where the owner had written a very loosely worded request to LABC and he thought the LABC was over seeing the electrics and the LABC thought a scheme member electrician was doing the electrics. In that case the LABC did to some extent bend to accommodate but wanted the guy who had done the work to submit an installation certificate. But again it was the owner who had to sort out the mess not the builder.

I would agree many home owners do not know how to apply for the permissions required from the LABC and to expect them to ensure all the T's are crossed is unreasonable. In real terms the LABC should ask where there is any points which are not made plain in the application.

I have watched the odd builders from hell and asked the TV which never answers me where were the LABC while it was all going on? They are quick enough to take social services to court when baby B is injured but as yet not seen the LABC taken to court for not doing their job and ensuring the building regulations are complied with. It seems the money we pay is considered as a tax rather than a fee for work carried out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, I sincerely hope that I never order the construction of a building to which Regulation 26 applies.

CO2 emission rate calculations

27. —(1) This regulation applies where a building is erected and regulation 26 applies.

(2) Not later than the day before the work starts, the person who has ordered the work shall give the local authority a notice which specifies—

(a)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(b)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as designed, and.
(c)a list of specifications to which the building is to be constructed..
(3) Not later than five days after the work has been completed, the person who has ordered the work shall give the local authority—

(a)a notice which specifies—.
(i)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(ii)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as constructed, and.
(iii)whether the building has been constructed in accordance with the list of specifications referred to in paragraph (2)(c), and if not a list of any changes to those specifications; or.
(b)a certificate of the sort referred to in paragraph (4) accompanied by the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a)..


Not sure how this would work either:

Energy performance certificates

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The owner of the building shall—

(a)give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;


Isn't it about time that someone sued one of the self-certification schemes on the grounds that they never needed to join in the first place, because what the law really intends is

Provisions applicable to self-certification schemes

20. —(1) This regulation applies to the extent that the building work consists only of work of a type described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 and the householder is a person who is described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table in respect of that type of work.


Or to sue them for the return of the monies they charged them for notifying, since what the law really requires is

(3) Where this regulation applies, the occupier shall, not more than 30 days after the completion of the work—

(a)give to the occupier a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (2);


And whilst it is only guidance, should we feel sorry for all the people who have been misled by this?:

"The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the
regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work.
So if you are carrying out the work personally the responsibility
will be yours. If you are employing a builder the responsibility
will usually be that firm’s"

 

[JohnW2]

And whilst it is only guidance, should we feel sorry for all the people who have been misled by this?:"The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work. So if you are carrying out the work personally the responsibility will be yours. If you are employing a builder the responsibility will usually be that firm’s"

Maybe, but they may also have read (also only guidance):

"RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE
People who are responsible for building work (for example, the agent, designer, builder or installer) must ensure that the work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations. The building owner may also be responsible for ensuring that the work complies with the Building Regulations. If building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the building owner may be served with an enforcement notice."

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE
People who are responsible for building work (for example, the agent, designer, builder or installer) must ensure that the work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations. The building owner may also be responsible for ensuring that the work complies with the Building Regulations. If building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the building owner may be served with an enforcement notice."

And the last one has nothing to do with notification - an enforcement notice is about remedying non-compliant work, and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

 

[ericmark]

I thought the import of peanuts was supposed to be the example of gobbledygook in English law where no one could understand what it mean.

It would seem the writers of building regulations are trying to beat it.

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The owner of the building shall—

(a)give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;

Why does the owner tell the owner?

 

[JohnW2]

And the last one has nothing to do with notification - an enforcement notice is about remedying non-compliant work ...

Indeed so.

...and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by 'remedied', but you are presumably familiar with the process of "regularisation" (which would often have to be applied for by the owner/householder, even if (s)he was not the person who 'actually did the actual work')?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The owner of the building shall—

(a)give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;

Why does the owner tell the owner?

Err - he doesn't.

But that's what the regulations would say if those who believe that "person carrying out the work" and {"building owner"|"householder"} are synonymous were right.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by 'remedied', but you are presumably familiar with the process of "regularisation" (which would often have to be applied for by the owner/householder, even if (s)he was not the person who 'actually did the actual work')?

I am familiar with it insofar as I know it to be a route whereby a person, if he wishes, can obtain a certificate of Buildings Regulations compliance post facto.

I am not familiar with it as a route whereby a local authority can compel a property owner to apply for post facto approval when the only contravention of the Building Regulations was failure to notify. Nor does that use of enforcement appear to have been in the thoughts of the people who drafted Section 36 of the Building Act 1984.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by 'remedied', but you are presumably familiar with the process of "regularisation" (which would often have to be applied for by the owner/householder, even if (s)he was not the person who 'actually did the actual work')?

I am familiar with it insofar as I know it to be a route whereby a person, if he wishes, can obtain a certificate of Buildings Regulations compliance post facto. ... I am not familiar with it as a route whereby a local authority can compel a property owner to apply for post facto approval when the only contravention of the Building Regulations was failure to notify.

I'm not sure about that, either (certainly have not heard of it happening), so can't comment. However, I said nothing about compulsion; I was merely responding to your comment:

...and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

... and we seem to agree that failure to notify can be remedied (at least in terms of the everyday sense of the word) by "regularisation" - which may or may not always be a voluntary route chosen by a house owner who wishes to apply for it. Having said that, since LABC theoretically could (but seemingly don't) prosecute people for failing to notify, it wouldn't surprise me that if they so wished they could (but seemingly don't) compel people to apply for regularisation (or maybe 'effectively compel', but offer that route as a way of avoiding prosecution).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, I said nothing about compulsion; I was merely responding to your comment:

...and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

Ah - but the only reason you aren't talking about compulsion is because you removed and then ignored the context of what I wrote:

And the last one has nothing to do with notification - an enforcement notice is about remedying non-compliant work, and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

An enforcement notice is compulsion.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah - but the only reason you aren't talking about compulsion is because you removed and then ignored the context of what I wrote:

And the last one has nothing to do with notification - an enforcement notice is about remedying non-compliant work, and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied.

An enforcement notice is compulsion.

I'm a bit confused. We are agreed that enforcement notices (which, as you say, are compulsion) relate only to non-complaint work (not failure to notify), but I read the second part of your sentence, after the comma (i.e. "...and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied") to be a separate, standalone, statement/comment - was that not the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[terrypin]

Ahhhh. Don't yer just love ambiguity.

Don't pay the builder a penny until you are satisfied the work meets current standards and certification.

Call his bluff re court action and tell him you'll counter any accusations/claims.

Get legal advice.

Good luck.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm a bit confused. We are agreed that enforcement notices (which, as you say, are compulsion) relate only to non-complaint work (not failure to notify),

Failure to notify is a non-compliance. The Building Regulations require that (some) work be notified.

but I read the second part of your sentence, after the comma (i.e. "...and until we have time travel there's no way that not notifying can be remedied") to be a separate, standalone, statement/comment - was that not the case?

Not really - the point is that an enforcement notice can't be used to make people go back and notify work already done.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm a bit confused. We are agreed that enforcement notices (which, as you say, are compulsion) relate only to non-complaint work (not failure to notify),

Failure to notify is a non-compliance. The Building Regulations require that (some) work be notified.

You appear to be wriggling. As I said, we are agreed that enforcement notices relate to a requirement to rectify non-complaint work and, to the best of my knowledge, are not (and probably cannot) be used to enforce retrospective action in relation of failure to comply with notification requirements. As you say....

... the point is that an enforcement notice can't be used to make people go back and notify work already done.

... which, as above, is something we have already agreed about.

What, if anything, are you arguing or disagreeing about?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am disagreeing with the notion that it is somebody other than the person carrying out the work who is responsible for notifying the work in the situations where the legislation which imposes the requirement to notify says that it is the responsibility of the person carrying out the work.

"RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE
People who are responsible for building work (for example, the agent, designer, builder or installer) must ensure that the work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations. The building owner may also be responsible for ensuring that the work complies with the Building Regulations. If building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the building owner may be served with an enforcement notice."

Since notification was the only compliance issue being discussed, it seemed perfectly reasonable to take your post as a claim that there were circumstances where somebody other than the person carrying out the work could be held responsible for notifying it, and served with an enforcement notice to rectify the non-compliance of not notifying.