Dangerous wiring by plumber

[ericmark]

Even in Wales, it is unlikely the plumber would need to register his work, however what Part P does do, is make it easier to prosecute when work is not safe.

However the question is why did the thermostat fall off the wall, did he not replace screws, or did some thing break? I have had old plastic units where the plastic has degraded and after being disturbed the plastic has failed, it would be near impossible to show it was the fault of the person working on the device where the plastic latter failed.

Although the BSi/IET BS7671 regulations state we should inspect and test all electrical work, that book is not law, it can be used in a court of law, but it's not law.

So you have to prove the guy was negligent, which is very hard, even before Part P there have been Court Cases where some one has died, and the HSE is called in to investigate. And they have decided who to blame, however it is not always the result we expect. In the one linked to there were three people who could have been blamed, the plasterer who damaged the cable, the plumber who failed to glue pipe, or the guy using tester who fudged up the results, however court cleared them all, and it was the foreman who had not even been on site who was blamed, as he used some one who he knew was not qualified.

So you knew the plumber was not qualified, as you say he said he had an electrician friend who would sign it off, so just like the foreman you knew he was not qualified, so in real terms not sure you would want to take him to court, I don't think the court would totally blame you, but they may put a proportion of blame on you for employing some one you knew did not have the skill required.

OK new pre-warned you would be careful in the way you worded things, "reasonable" is the key word, it may be the plumbers fault, but could he have foreseen the thermostat falling off the wall, had your daughter been killed so HSE got involved, would his actions be seen as reasonable?

I had a new roof fitted to garage, in doing so they damaged the supply cable, with a freezer in garage I needed to find fault and repair it quickly, so I went around removing sockets and fuse connection units to trace fault, I found it and replaced cable. However when I came to inspect and test, I found the builder who replaced the roof, had removed a socket leaving it dangling on the wires, I am sure he was trying to help, however I was unaware it had been removed. So if I had failed to find it, and some one had been injured, who would you blame? Builder or me? I would say me, for not checking, and this is your problem, if there were signs that the job was not to standard, you should have got it corrected or switched it off, you were just as qualified as the plumber.

I know it's not what you want to hear, and I agree the plumber did a poor job, and if you need to get an electrician to correct the work, then yes you should be able to claim it back from Plumber, however I know I would make it safe before calling an electrician, so the electrician if asked was it dangerous would have to say no, as I had made it safe. I would want to give the Plumber a piece of my mind, however don't think I could really do any more, as by time I had found Plumber it would be safe again.

 

[festive]

Thankyou for your thoughts and details on this, thanks to all of you here taking the time to share your opinions, very much appreciated.

I will be taking action against him anyway via small claims as he has made a right pigs ear of the plumbing side also, he's a complete bellend.

 

[ericmark]

I wish you luck, please do say how you get on, when my dad had new central heating fitted he also seemed to have selected a poor firm, however some of the work was very good, it was not all bad, however 10 years latter we have just about got it working in a reasonable way.

Some of our faults were very clearly poor workmanship, like connecting a power shower to the mains pressure water supply, that broke the law.

However many of the problems I was unaware at the time what was done was actually wrong, the thermostat fitted was not a cheap model, over £100 even today, however now I know it was wrong type, and not a single lock shield valve set.

Some so called faults can be debatable, I feel pipes running around the room above skirting boards are wrong, I feel if that was only route then one should be small bore not 15mm and two should go behind skirting be it the special skirting to take pipes and wires, or simply remove and replace existing. However it may be untidy, but hardly a fault.

As to living room getting too hot, again debatable if down to room design or central heating design, OK I have altered the central heating control to get around the problem, but as to if I can really blame the system design not so sure.

So I would list what you consider as faults, and see if others agree they are faults, or a standard practice which is not particularity good, but not really considered a fault, like fitting an on/off thermostat to a modulating boiler, instead of modulating thermostat.

I have questioned what is reasonable to expect during commissioning, one hopes a system flush to remove any rubbish, flux etc. Filling with inhibitor, to stop erosion. And with gas setting pressures. But as to lock shield valves, although they could measure in and out temperatures and set at lets say 15°C radiators come in standard sizes so each one could be slightly too big or too small so until cold hard to get setting spot on, likely some adjustment will be required, so should this be done by installer or customer? Again some debate with this. Personally I feel one should not need to set a thing, the installer should inquire about your live style and you should not need to touch a thing until live style changes.

However next has to be installation cost, I can see how one could have EvoHome with separate controls for every room, or a heat store combining any other wise waste energy to assist in heating the home, however the price tag is some what off putting. So most of us agree to a system requiring some human control. Plus often some work done by the customer, small amount of plastering, and redecoration. Very common for a customer to make good.

Clearly this should all be agreed beforehand, however even seen that go wrong. I remember well a job with all agreed with man of the house, however his wife would ask "can you do this" to which the answer was normally "yes" and the extra work was noted and added to final bill. She had no idea that her words were seen as requests for work.

My own wife changed a repair job into a whole new drive job. OK sure she knew what she was doing, she was like many women getting her own way, but it is so easy with a verbal contract to not get what you expected, heard many an IT bloke say. "I did exactly what they asked for, but not what they wanted." and this is true with many jobs, good tradesmen will say are you should that will mean XYZ will happen. But they are not required to do that.

So list your faults and post pictures being careful not to identify either yourself or the plumber and see what others think, pipe burst and brought celling down is easy, but it looks a mess, not so straight forward. Also moving finger writes and having writ moves on etc. So you don't want to say I asked about Part P and he said a mate to do it, you need to specify the time, so you could say when it was completed I asked about Part P, but then you have said it was completed, think you can get my drift, so easy to say some thing which gives him a get out.

OK as a job I had to deal with contractors and suppliers, after many arguments I had to use the phone to find if they can supply, but order by fax as all to often they would try to say that is what I asked for, contracts always said BS7671 will be followed unless written permission give to deviate. At home one is not so careful.

Also make sure he is able to pay any claim made through small claims court, I was awarded money by court, but guy claimed he had no money, so never got it. And guy who fitted bathroom I involved LABC who it would seem caused him to cease trading, so we got nothing. All his money went to pay fines.

Remember if he is a bad tradesman, then likely he will be living hand to mouth, and so unless you can claim off his insurance (if he has any) you may win, but that does not mean you get any money.

 

[scousespark]

[ predictive text, I presume ... modifiable/notifiable ]

It's surely not a case of Part P being stupid (what little it says is very reasonable) but, presumably for the reason you imply (lack of resources) it is not adequately (virtually not at all) enforced or policed.

What seems rather odd is that they seem have/find the resources to do a fair bit more enforcement in relation to other parts of the same piece of legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

<a quote of my previous post>

Yes, I did write that - do you have any comment to make about it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

of course it was predictive text
In terms of festive's position the implementation of Part-P is a mess, not just the enforcement.
As I posted the Queensland rules, they have a clear process to deal with dangerous installations.

As an aside, NAPIT have the following letter on their website.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents...t-P-and-the-Independent-Review-20-June-18.pdf

I'd say this would resolve the issue in this post for people charging for electrical work. This is under the proviso that there is a change to identify a single place to go when unregistered people leave a customer with a dangerous installation
I don't see the need to restrict all work to scheme members.

 

[JohnW2]

As an aside, NAPIT have the following letter on their website. (click here) I'd say this would resolve the issue in this post for people charging for electrical work.

What they are proposing seems to be essentially the Australian model - all 'new installation work' to be notifiable, and all electrical work (including 'maintenance and repair') to be only allowed to be undertaken by a 'registered competent person'. If you are now supporting that approach (widened, as you go on to say, to not only relate to scheme members), it seems to be a significant change from what you recently wrote (with my emboldening) ...

As an aside I just looked at what happens down under. All electrical work must be done by a registered electrician (I would not want us to go down that route). ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

What they are proposing seems to be essentially the Australian model - all 'new installation work' to be notifiable, and all electrical work (including 'maintenance and repair') to be only allowed to be undertaken by a 'registered competent person'. If you are now supporting that approach (widened, as you go on to say, to not only relate to scheme members), it seems to be a significant change from what you recently wrote (with my emboldening) ...


Kind Regards, John

I posted this as in relation to the case where people are charging for electrical work. I had already said I'm not in favour of restricing all electrical installation to scheme members. It will lead to people not having small jobs done.

 

[JohnW2]

I posted this as in relation to the case where people are charging for electrical work. I had already said I'm not in favour of restricing all electrical installation to scheme members. It will lead to people not having small jobs done.

I'm getting a little confused, so perhaps you can help me understand ...

NICIEC appear to be making just two main proposals - firstly that all new installation work (that requiring a BS7671 EIC) should be notifiable (i.e. not that much different from the situation between 2005 and 2013) and, secondly that "all electrical work in the home must be carried out by someone registered on a UKAS accredited Competent Person Scheme". Given that you are saying that you disagree with the second of these proposals, is it the first of these proposals which you feel "would resolve the issue in this post for people charging for electrical work" ?

... and which (if any) of the proposals do you feel should apply to people undertaking electrical work for which they are not charging?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'd say this would resolve the issue in this post for people charging for electrical work.

We already have ample laws to deal with people who charge for work and do not do it properly.

If they are not working properly then that will be because they are not being properly enforced, or because the penalties for contravention are too light, or a combination of the two.

Adding new laws to the statute book will make not a blind bit of difference.

There is no point to more laws which will

a) not be enforced, and
b) have pathetic penalties anyway.

 

[scousespark]

I'm getting a little confused, so perhaps you can help me understand ...

NICIEC appear to be making just two main proposals - firstly that all new installation work (that requiring a BS7671 EIC) should be notifiable (i.e. not that much different from the situation between 2005 and 2013) and, secondly that "all electrical work in the home must be carried out by someone registered on a UKAS accredited Competent Person Scheme". Given that you are saying that you disagree with the second of these proposals, is it the first of these proposals which you feel "would resolve the issue in this post for people charging for electrical work" ?

... and which (if any) of the proposals do you feel should apply to people undertaking electrical work for which they are not charging?

Kind Regards, John

I'll try to clear this, but I know full well that whatever I write, it won't be enough.

My post was specifically relating to festive's situation where he paid a plumber who has taken it upon himself to do the electrical work, leaving festive in a potentially dangerous installation with a live cable. As I remember, the original purpose of Part-P was to stop this type of situation occurring.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at the Queensland regs and saw they restrict electrical wok to registered electicians. They have 2 separate legal processes. One is to prosecute people carrying out electrical work, who are not registered. The second is to prosecute anybody (registered or not) who leave an unsafe installation.

I also looked at the NAPIT (not NICEIC) recommendations, which are for something similar but not identical. From a professional standpoint, the recommendations seem sensible (make all work notifiable; cover alterations as well as new installation; assess electricians individuallly; issue ID cards defining the scope of work the electrician has been assessed to carry out). As an electrician, working for myself, I can't see much to disagree with here.

The issue I have with the recommendations are that the implication is that NAPIT now seem to want to outlaw DIY electrical installation.
I'd say that is draconian step and would lead to people doing it regardless or leaving jobsas it is too expensive to get an electrician to do them or the jobs are so small there are no electricians willing to take them on.

 

[scousespark]

We already have ample laws to deal with people who charge for work and do not do it properly.

If they are not working properly then that will be because they are not being properly enforced, or because the penalties for contravention are too light, or a combination of the two.

Adding new laws to the statute book will make not a blind bit of difference.

There is no point to more laws which will

a) not be enforced, and
b) have pathetic penalties anyway.

This is just a matter of opinion.

 

[JohnW2]

I'll try to clear this, but I know full well that whatever I write, it won't be enough.

Many thanks - what you now say makes your views very clear.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at the Queensland regs and saw they restrict electrical wok to registered electicians. They have 2 separate legal processes. One is to prosecute people carrying out electrical work, who are not registered. The second is to prosecute anybody (registered or not) who leave an unsafe installation.

Indeed (I have some relatives in Australia and there has been a fair bit of discussion about this in the past!). The first of those legal processes is obviously only relevant if electrical work is restricted to registered electricians (which is obviously not currently the situation in the UK). The secvond is, as far as I can see, no different from the current UK situation - even though the legislation does not detail any 'legal processes' people who undertake unsafe electrical work can be prosecuted under Part P of the building regs - but (as previously discussed), the problem is that that virtually never happens. As BAS as said, if no-one is enforcing the existing laws that require electrical work to be undertaken safely (by anyone), there's no real reeason to think that they would enforce new legislation which addressed the same issue.

I also looked at the NAPIT (not NICEIC) recommendations, which are for something similar but not identical. From a professional standpoint, the recommendations seem sensible (make all work notifiable [etc.] ...

Fair enough. In fact, given the UK system, once they suggested that all electrical work should only be allowed to be undertaken by registered CPS members, they didn't really need to mention 'all work notifiable' - since all work would automatically get notified (by 'self-certification/notification).

The issue I have with the recommendations are that the implication is that NAPIT now seem to want to outlaw DIY electrical installation. I'd say that is draconian step and would lead to people doing it regardless or leaving jobsas it is too expensive to get an electrician to do them or the jobs are so small there are no electricians willing to take them on.

Yes, that's the bit that is draconian, and the proposal wouldn't only affect DIY electrical work - since, as I understand it, there are currently plenty of working electricians (or 'electricians') who are not members of CPS schemes.

However, I'm not sure what changes (improvements) to the present situation you would be thinking of that would still avoid that draconian situation (in relation to DIYers and non-CPS electricians). Making all (or most) electrical work notifiable (NICIEC's first main proposal) (maybe a bit like the 2005-2013 situation) would not really work - it's the cost of notification that has always been the main issue, so that if most/all work were notifiable, we would again be in the situation you describe of people doing the work (without notification) regardless, or not doing (or having done) the work at all. Since it is implicit from your wanting to avoid the 'Draconian' situation that you do not agree with NICIEC's other main recommendation (that all domestic electrical work had to be undertaken by CPS members), it seems that the only bits of NICIEC's recommendations/approvals you would be left with would be those relating to assessment/identification/registering of CPS members - all reasonable proposals, but I would have thought very much secondary to their main ones.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is just a matter of opinion.

OK - fine.

Please explain how the reality is that the existing laws regarding poor quality work are being enforced to the maximum, but it's just doing no good, and that the only way to crack down on poor quality work is to have new laws.

It would be very helpful to your case if you could cite some examples of poor quality work where no matter how hard they tried, nobody in authority could find a law which had been broken.

It will be very damaging to it if you can't.

 

[SimonH2]

This is just a matter of opinion.

Not really - and I fully agree with BAS here.
In a completely different area of activity, I recall a few years ago (during the reign of Teflon Tony) that there was a problem which was basically down to a small minority of people ignoring the law because they knew darn well that there was close to zero chance of anyone with the authority to do anything actually doing anything - and even if that did happen, there was likely to be very little by way of penalty.
People affected by this problem, and I will point out that it was mostly people with an attitude of "I don't ant to share anything with people with different ideas of what constitutes an enjoyable leisure activity", lobbied government to "do something". The result was yet more laws which did absolutely nothing to solve the problem - the new law wasn't enforced, in practical terms couldn't be enforced, and so nothing changed. However, the new law caused problems for those law abiding people who weren't part of the problem.
So yes, if (as there always is) there is a proportion of the population who don't respect a particular law, and that law is not policed, and/or there are no significant penalties for getting caught - then the law is effectively worthless, except as another of those "bonus charges" to be thrown onto the list when the person is caught for something else.