CU Change - Not Part P Certified Spark

[machineage]

The opinions on here just goes to show me what an absolute shambles this legislation is... Just how is an uninformed member of the public expected to fair?

By knowing what the law is, just as with any other areas where there are laws associated with what they are doing.

I quite agree - however back in the real world - the general public just aren't aware of any 'laws' associated with notifiable electrical work.

All of my family & immediate friends hadn't a clue what Part P was when I mentioned it to them.

So?

Huh?

All of the sheds sell T/E & CU's - which may be their first port of call if they were to undertake their own work - supervised or not.

Venture into the rest of the store and you'll find they sell everything you need to build a complete house. There's no more excuse for thinking that because they sell T/E & CUs there can't be any constraints on how you use them than there is for thinking that because they sell bricks, sand, cement, timber etc it must be OK to build a house without Planning Permission or Building Regulations approval.

I suspect if you ask your average member of the public what they would need to do if they wanted to build an extension - new dwelling etc. I suspect most would be aware that planning would need to be looked into. Work on your electrics however? I think not.

So tell me - with all of the work that has (undoubtedly) gone ahead un-notified & un-(Part P)certified - where does that leave the homeowner? Have they committed a criminal offence

No.

has the spark committed a criminal offence?

Yes.

The disagreement amongst people here & elsewhere who are aware of Part P just proves wholeheartedly to me what a shambles the legislation is. That and the LABC's appear to not be keeping their end of the deal as has been suggested. It's no wonder Joe public could be forgiven for falling fowl of the law - even if they were aware of it. Something really needs to be done with this joke of a situation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I quite agree - however back in the real world - the general public just aren't aware of any 'laws' associated with notifiable electrical work.

That is their fault.

Huh?

Precisely.

Nobody here disagrees that many people don't know about it, so telling us that you have met such people is very much a "So?".

I suspect if you ask your average member of the public what they would need to do if they wanted to build an extension - new dwelling etc. I suspect most would be aware that planning would need to be looked into. Work on your electrics however? I think not.

That is their fault.

The disagreement amongst people here who are aware of Part P just proves wholeheartedly to me what a shambles the legislation is.

What disagreement?

Every now and then somebody makes the utterly preposterous suggestion that it is the householder who is responsible for notifying, and it is trivial to show, by reference to the actual Building Regulations, that that is nonsense, and I've done so more than once.

But for some reason some people refuse to read the actual Building Regulations.

 

[machineage]

I quite agree - however back in the real world - the general public just aren't aware of any 'laws' associated with notifiable electrical work.

That is their fault.

I suspect if you ask your average member of the public what they would need to do if they wanted to build an extension - new dwelling etc. I suspect most would be aware that planning would need to be looked into. Work on your electrics however? I think not.

That is their fault.

I couldn't disagree more. You are not one of the huge majority in this country who have no idea whatsoever that any legislation exists.

The disagreement amongst people here who are aware of Part P just proves wholeheartedly to me what a shambles the legislation is.

What disagreement?

Every now and then somebody makes the utterly preposterous suggestion that it is the householder who is responsible for notifying, and it is trivial to show, by reference to the actual Building Regulations, that that is nonsense, and I've done so more than once.

But for some reason some people refuse to read the actual Building Regulations.

You ask 'what disagreement' - then point one example out? Huh?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I couldn't disagree more. You are not one of the huge majority in this country who have no idea whatsoever that any legislation exists.

Tell me then - who is responsible for people being aware of laws, and what legal principles can you produce to show that it is not the responsibility of the individual? Some examples of people being let off in court because they didn't realise what laws applied to them and the court agreeing that it wasn't their job to have to know and that therefore they couldn't be held accountable for any transgressions would be useful.

You ask 'what disagreement' - then point one example out? Huh?

You keep saying "Huh?" - have you got a comprehension related problem?

One person, getting something wrong because they are ignoring the wording of the Building Regulations, does not constitute "disagreement amongst people here who are aware of Part P".

 

[machineage]

Ahhhhhhh

Thanks for the personal insult - you lost the argument there.

I should remember not to feed the trolls - sigh.....

'Ignored' & 'Blocked'

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well - just in case that isn't true I think you'll find that it's you who is showing more of the characteristics of a troll than I, as it is you who has come here spouting b******s, whereas all I've done is to point out the fallacies of your positions.


I wonder if, deep inside, you really do believe that by flouncing off and dismissing valid counters to your flaky arguments as trolling, that you have successfully got away with not having to prove that you are correct to assert that ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse?

 

[ericmark]

I remember as a lad giving my mate a crosse down to main road and getting caught by police who told me "The laws the law where every you are." when I said how I was only doing it in the side streets.

Last of the summer wine shows three on a bike quite regular we all know it breaks the law unless the bike is designed for three people but still shown on TV. So was the Italian Job and that was clearly against the law.

Be it dipping babies dummy in the sherry or doing 35MPH in 30 limit we all break the law and 9 times out of 10 we get away with it. However where it does go wrong we are up the creak without a paddle. All we can do is put up our hands and say "It's a far cop".

The problem is not only with Part P but it is OK to sell the gear and it is down to house owner to ensure any notification is completed. This is a real problem as when the home owner goes to LABC and says "Joe blogs did this work and I have no paperwork from either yourself or scheme provider any work required to inspect is down to the home owner to pay for. Unless the electrician has said in writing I am doing it for you.

So a van with one of the scheme providers names on it is saying in writing I am doing the notifying. Same with headed paper or any advert but if he does not say I am a scheme member then it's down to the home owner.

I think this is unfair as clearly where on this forum we argue as to what needs notifying and what does not for the home owner this is a real nightmare. Again not only electrics removing the end of restriction sign and so making a bit of road which was unrestricted now 30MPH is all too common and the motorist pays.

However the big difference is if we are not caught at the time they can't return years latter and say 6 month ago you were speeding.

Lack of permits to work mean the electrician only has to say "I thought the owner was doing that" to get away with it. And that is the problem know the right answers and you can get away with it. "I planned that in 2003 but only just got the money to go ahead with it." is the standard get out of jail free card.

Although the new rules should have made it better in fact they make it worse. In Wales a guy asks me to do work in his kitchen and I explain how it will cost an extra £100 plus to get paperwork. Same job in England and no problem I can go ahead but while doing the work I find the system has faults which would require notification the emergency clause allows me to continue and make safe and issue a installation certificate instead of the minor works planned but then the home owner is landed with a £200 bill to get the completion certificate.

That is hardly fair.

At the end of the day the real problem and it has been the real problem since start of Part P is the extortionate prices charged by the LABC. In Wales the lowest charge is £100 plus vat for work up to £2000 in value so add one socket in a kitchen and £100 plus vat to LABC and £60 to guy who did all the work this just can't be right.

Point is of course if a fair price was charged no one would pay the annual fees to be scheme members. If for example single new circuit, work in bathroom or consumer unit change was charged at £20 plus vat and multi new circuits or complete rewire was £100 plus vat then most electricians would say to H*** with being a scheme member.

I had some work done buy a contractor who was a scheme member at my mothers house paid for by the county council for her disability so even if not a scheme member it would not cost to get LABC to issue a completion certificate 6 months ago and I still have not got the compliance certificate and since it does not comply to have a new socket without RCD protection I am not really surprised they don't want to issue the certificate.

Lack of paper work is clearly not only for so called cowboys at least they come clean and say not unless your paying the LABC fees but even scheme members are trying it on. Last time I phoned they said not required it was not a new circuit but even if compliance certificate is not required a minor works most be required to change a transformer supply to a socket with a transformer plugged into it.

This is a firm working for a council with a two strikes and out policy what chance would I have if I was getting the work done private? May as well DIY at least that way would have minor works and would actually put meters on the circuit and really test it. It by the way passes all but the RCD trip times which is only to be expected since no RCD fitted.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

if he does not say I am a scheme member then it's down to the home owner

No it is not.

The Building Regulations use perfectly plain English, are precise and unambiguous.

They say that it is the person carrying out the work who has to notify, not the householder, not the building owner, not the person commissioning the work, the person doing it.

Try reading the regulations. See where it talks about the responsibilities etc of the person carrying out the work. Try substituting the terms 'householder' or 'home owner' etc in those places.

Realise what utter nonsense it is to think that "person carrying out the work" could possibly actually mean 'home owner'.