Cowboy Builder - Some advice please

[JohnW2]

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.

There is no disagreement there. However, as we have seen, there is seemingly scope for considerable debate is in relation to the intended meaning of "the person carrying out the work". You are taking a very 'literal' interpretation, but I really don't think the intention is that, say, an electrician's apprentice or 'assistant' has a responsibility to separately notify (and pay notification fees) the bits of work that (s)he undertakes. Nor do I believe that, if an owner chose, for whatever reason, to employ several different electricians to work on a large job, that the intention is that they would each have a responsibility to notify (and pay notification fees) for the bit of the whole job which they did. However, in the (IMO ridiculous) absence of a definition in the legislation, we could speculate about the intention until the cows come home.

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.

That might have been a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote but the reality is that I was intending to point out that there were some (other) future risks/responsibilities which attached to the owner of a property, rather than the person who had actually "carried out the work" in question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, as we have seen, there is seemingly scope for considerable debate is in relation to the intended meaning of "the person carrying out the work".

There is only scope for that if you disregard the utter nonsense that many of the requirements in the Building Regulations become if you substitute householder or homeowner, or building owner etc for the term "person carrying out the work".

You are taking a very 'literal' interpretation,

I'm interpreting it as it is written, rather than deciding that it ought to be interpreted as if it were written differently.

That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I cannot understand why so many people, in so many cases (not just these regulations) seem consumed with a desire to pretend that the meaning is something not as written.

If you take "person carrying out the work" to mean person carrying out the work, then all of the provisions make sense. But when you decide that "person carrying out the work" means the householder, or the occupant, or the building owner, then the provisions start to become nonsensical.

The nonsense is laid bare in the examples I gave earlier (and they aren't the only ones in the regulations. Take this one again:

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.

How can you possibly insist that the regulations require that? It's nonsense.

but I really don't think the intention is that, say, an electrician's apprentice or 'assistant' has a responsibility to separately notify (and pay notification fees) the bits of work that (s)he undertakes.

Maybe not, but that would be less ridiculous than expecting a home owner to be a member of all of the relevant types of self-certification schemes, which is what those who believe that notification is the home owner's responsibility claim. It would also be possible, whereas it would at any practical level be totally impossible for a home owner to be a member of multiple self-certification schemes if the giving of a notice is to be avoided.

And please don't forget that the concept of the legal entity carrying out the work would of course apply, and that could easily be Acme Electrics plc rather than the individuals.

Nor do I believe that, if an owner chose, for whatever reason, to employ several different electricians to work on a large job, that the intention is that they would each have a responsibility to notify (and pay notification fees) for the bit of the whole job which they did.

There is no reason why someone employing multiple tradesmen could not act as their agent and submit a notice. The tradesmen would be well advised though to verify that it had been done.

However, in the (IMO ridiculous) absence of a definition in the legislation, we could speculate about the intention until the cows come home.

Yes, we could, for as long as we just ignore the nonsense which is created when deciding to pretend that the law contains words which it does not, and ignore the fact that no such nonsense arises when we don't make such a pretence.

This is another example of people finding that they don't like what the law says and therefore deciding to pretend that it means something else, no matter how inconsistent, illogical or downright stupid are the consequences which stem from their decision.

 

[JohnW2]

However, as we have seen, there is seemingly scope for considerable debate is in relation to the intended meaning of "the person carrying out the work".

There is only scope for that if you disregard the utter nonsense that many of the requirements in the Building Regulations become if you substitute householder or homeowner, or building owner etc for the term "person carrying out the work".

The point is that the Building Regs are badly written, not the least by the omission of important definitions. The fact is that if one takes your approach, there are also some situations which, in common sense terms, are verging on 'utter nonsense'.

If you take "person carrying out the work" to mean person carrying out the work, then all of the provisions make sense.

That's your view - but I and others have suggested that some of the situations created by that view do not make particular sense.

This is another example of people finding that they don't like what the law says and therefore deciding to pretend that it means something else, no matter how inconsistent, illogical or downright stupid are the consequences which stem from their decision.

I thought you were the one who, in the last day or two, suggested that we shouldn't work to what the law actually says about notification of CU installation (that 'replacing' one is notifiable, without any indication that installing a new, non-replacement, one is notifiable) because the legislators have indicated that what they wrote in the legislation was not what they intended!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The point is that the Building Regs are badly written, not the least by the omission of important definitions. The fact is that if one takes your approach, there are also some situations which, in common sense terms, are verging on 'utter nonsense'.

Which gives the greater number? Using the words as written or using words of ones own invention?

And can you provide examples of nonsense as extreme as, or even approaching, that of saying that it is the home owner who has to be a member of self-certification schemes?

That's your view - but I and others have suggested that some of the situations created by that view do not make particular sense.

Does the lack of particular sense you believe is there begin to approach that of saying that the owner of the building shall give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building?

I thought you were the one who, in the last day or two, suggested that we shouldn't work to what the law actually says about notification of CU installation (that 'replacing' one is notifiable, without any indication that installing a new, non-replacement, one is notifiable) because the legislators have indicated that what they wrote in the legislation was not what they intended!

The fact is that they have so indicated - as far as the legislators are concerned the legislation does make installation of a new CU notifiable. I did say that IMO it would need a court case to decide, one way or another, what the law requires, but assuming that you want to comply with the law it would probably make more sense to follow the stated intent (as it's more logical) than to set yourself up for a legal argument with Building Control and/or the DCLG about who is right.

Except how would most people know? I know, because I've had the discussion with the legislators, but their opinion has not been publicly stated.

 

[JohnW2]

The point is that the Building Regs are badly written, not the least by the omission of important definitions. The fact is that if one takes your approach, there are also some situations which, in common sense terms, are verging on 'utter nonsense'.

Which gives the greater number? Using the words as written or using words of ones own invention?

I can't be bothered to try counting - but the point is that either view can result in some 'nonsense'.

I thought you were the one who, in the last day or two, suggested that we shouldn't work to what the law actually says about notification of CU installation (that 'replacing' one is notifiable, without any indication that installing a new, non-replacement, one is notifiable) because the legislators have indicated that what they wrote in the legislation was not what they intended!

The fact is that they have so indicated - as far as the legislators are concerned the legislation does make installation of a new CU notifiable.

So what? I thought your usual point was that what is written in the legislation is the law, regardless of what the legislators 'intended', or even claim that the legislation actually says (when it doesn't!). I really can't see that there can be any argument about what the word "replacing" means - and that's what is written in the legislation. If, as you say, the legislators have indicated that the law is meant to say something that it doesn't say, then they are free to revise it so that the words correctly reflect their intent.

I did say that IMO it would need a court case to decide, one way or another, what the law requires, but assuming that you want to comply with the law it would probably make more sense to follow the stated intent (as it's more logical) than to set yourself up for a legal argument with Building Control and/or the DCLG about who is right.

You did say that, and it may well 'make more sense' to comply with what one understands was the intent of the legislation, rather than what the the legislation actually says - but, as I said, that appears to be the opposite of your usually expressed view. Furthermore, as above, I find it hard to believe that a sensible court would rule that "replacing" can possibly mean anything other than "replacing" - and if the legislators told the court that they actually mean something else, I would hope that the court would tell them to go away and re-write the legislation according to their actual intent! Having said that, attempting to second guess the decisions of courts/judges is a fool's exercise

Kind Regards, John.