DIY Electrical Changes Made?

[JohnW2]

[Err.. Yes - I know you can be fined for a building control non compliance on your property, regardless who's comitted it. The levy is on the house, not the offender. So who ever owns it at the time, takes the flack.

Hmmmm. We're talking about criminal prosecutions (which, AFAIAA, have never happened, and will probably never happen) - and you can't prosecute a house!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SaladFingers]

[Err.. Yes - I know you can be fined for a building control non compliance on your property, regardless who's comitted it. The levy is on the house, not the offender. So who ever owns it at the time, takes the flack.

Hmmmm. We're talking about criminal prosecutions (which, AFAIAA, have never happened, and will probably never happen) - and you can't prosecute a house!

Kind Regards, John

It's on the homeowner. Wheather it has happened or not, or would or wouldn't doesn't mean we should ignore it. Plenty of people here are happy to ram part p down peoples throats, so either stick to it, or not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes - I know you can be fined for a building control non compliance on your property, regardless who's comitted it.

Don't be an idiot - how can you possibly be fined for non-notification of work when it was not you who did the work?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's on the homeowner. Wheather it has happened or not, or would or wouldn't doesn't mean we should ignore it. Plenty of people here are happy to ram part p down peoples throats, so either stick to it, or not.

Part P has nothing to do with notification, and notification has nothing to do with Part P.

 

[SaladFingers]

Yes - I know you can be fined for a building control non compliance on your property, regardless who's comitted it.

Don't be an idiot - how can you possibly be fined for non-notification of work when it was not you who did the work?

It's their law, not mine.

This is how I know. My house has had new windows, fitted by a blind man who didn't notify LABC. I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification if LABC ever found out about it as it's left with the houseowner, not the cowboy - so my solicitor instructed my vendor to take out an indemnity policy before we exchange.

 

[SaladFingers]

It's on the homeowner. Wheather it has happened or not, or would or wouldn't doesn't mean we should ignore it. Plenty of people here are happy to ram part p down peoples throats, so either stick to it, or not.

Part P has nothing to do with notification, and notification has nothing to do with Part P.

But, if you don't notify....you haven't notified.

 

[JohnW2]

It's on the homeowner. Wheather it has happened or not, or would or wouldn't doesn't mean we should ignore it. Plenty of people here are happy to ram part p down peoples throats, so either stick to it, or not.

I agree that whether or not there ever have been,or ever will be, prosecutions is irrelevant. However, and with respect, it's just plain daft to suggest that a criminal prosecution can be taken against a house, and equally daft that a criminal prosecution could be taken against a homeowner in relation to something done (or not done) by a previous houseowner. If the previous houseowner had committed murder, would it be reasonable for you to be prosecuted for it?

...and you obviously cannot have read much of what I write if you think that I am one of the people who would ever "ram Part P down people's throats"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AdamCH]

I still don't really understand your point. In a few weeks time, some people will like to be able to 'prove' that work was not undertaken before the notification requirements were relaxed on April 6th. To do as you suggested and use 2012-dated cable would therefore seem to be the very last thing they would want to do. I must still be mising something.

Kind Regards, John

Yes, if you want to prove that the work was done after the regs change then you would need 2014 dated cable. However, I'd expect the onus of proof to be the other way round with the authorities (if they can be bothered) needing to prove that the work was undertaken in a period during which it should have been notified.

Hence in the same way that lots of wiring was claimed to have been completed in 2004 with the new cables, there may be a similar period in 2013 where a lot of work with cable dated 2011/12 is claimed to have been completed post regs change.

 

[SaladFingers]

It's on the homeowner. Wheather it has happened or not, or would or wouldn't doesn't mean we should ignore it. Plenty of people here are happy to ram part p down peoples throats, so either stick to it, or not.

I agree that whether or not there ever have been,or ever will be, prosecutions is irrelevant. However, and with respect, it's just plain daft to suggest that a criminal prosecution can be taken against a house, and equally daft that a criminal prosecution could be taken against a homeowner in relation to something done (or not done) by a previous houseowner. If the previous houseowner had committed murder, would it be reasonable for you to be prosecuted for it?

...and you obviously cannot have read much of what I write if you think that I am one of the people who would ever "ram Part P down people's throats"!

Kind Regards, John

For the second time, home owner, not the house. That's the legislation as it stands.

If the previous home owner committed muder? Now you're just being stupid. Murder has nothing to do with notification to building control.

 

[AdamCH]

Isuspect that the criminal prosecution might come later if you didn't pay LABC and they took out an enforcement action.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's their law, not mine.

It's still a law.

And there is no law which works the way that you say it does. If you bought a car from someone who the year before had killed someone by careless driving, do you think you could be sent to prison for his actions because you now owned the car?

This is how I know. My house has had new windows, fitted by a blind man who didn't notify LABC. I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification if LABC ever found out about it as it's left with the houseowner, not the cowboy - so my solicitor instructed my vendor to take out an indemnity policy before we exchange.

If your solicitor told you that then he's as big a fool as you. But I suspect he did not - I believe that you were either not listening properly or you did not understand what he was telling you.

You cannot possibly be prosecuted or punished because someone else broke a law in the past. If you had windows in your house which did not comply with the Building Regulations then you could indeed be the subject of an enforcement notice requiring you to carry out remedial work to bring them into compliance, but that is not you being fined for non-notification of the work by a previous owner.

But, if you don't notify....you haven't notified.

Indeed you have not, but in that case it would not be Part P which you had contravened, it would be Part 3. "P" and "three" may sound similar, but they are quite different.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the previous home owner committed muder? Now you're just being stupid.

No, he's not being stupid, he's trying to get you to understand.

So on second thoughts, maybe he is being stupid.

 

[SimonH2]

'New colours' merely means that it was done after early 2004. The requirement for notification didn't arise until 1st January 2005 - so it's amazing how much electrical work is said to have been undertaken during 2004

In any case it doesn't matter - the cable could have been installed at any time whatsoever without any requirement for notification since it is allowed to replace any cable. So being "new colours" actually tells you nothing about when any work which could have been notifiable actually took place.

That's why now they have started, printing the year of manufacture on the sheath

I reckon there will be a lot of cabling done in April 2013 with cable dated 2012 and earlier

It's quite normal for cable to be "not brand new" in DIY work. We've still got quite a bit of red/black left
It would be virtually impossible to prove that the works were done before April - unless there's something else going on such a kitchen refit done in March and it's clear the 'lectrics were done before that.

For the second time, home owner, not the house. That's the legislation as it stands.

If the previous home owner committed muder? Now you're just being stupid. Murder has nothing to do with notification to building control.

The argument is simple, no-one would consider it reasonable to charge the homeowner with murder because a previous owner killed someone and left then under the floorboards. In the same way, it's not reasonable to hold the current homeowner liable for a previous owners criminal act of not notifying. Different acts, but same principal.
If (and I'm not arguing with you - you say the law does say that, and I can believe it) then that would probably be ruled unlawful if someone had the wherewithall to take it up to the right level of appeal. I rather think the ECHR would slap it down.

 

[SaladFingers]

It's their law, not mine.

It's still a law.

And there is no law which works the way that you say it does. If you bought a car from someone who the year before had killed someone by careless driving, do you think you could be sent to prison for his actions because you now owned the car?

Again, wrong comparison. Has nothing to do with notification. If you'd like to tell the solicitors and legislation that they're wrong, go ahead.

This is how I know. My house has had new windows, fitted by a blind man who didn't notify LABC. I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification if LABC ever found out about it as it's left with the houseowner, not the cowboy - so my solicitor instructed my vendor to take out an indemnity policy before we exchange.

If your solicitor told you that then he's as big a fool as you. But I suspect he did not - I believe that you were either not listening properly or you did not understand what he was telling you.

I understood fully. There was a non compliance and LABC can fine the homeowner over it. It's you again, who's just too full of your own steam to just listen to the legislation.

You cannot possibly be prosecuted or punished because someone else broke a law in the past. If you had windows in your house which did not comply with the Building Regulations then you could indeed be the subject of an enforcement notice requiring you to carry out remedial work to bring them into compliance, but that is not you being fined for non-notification of the work by a previous owner.

You can be left with any bill from a legislative body that's upon your home.

But, if you don't notify....you haven't notified.

Indeed you have not, but in that case it would not be Part P which you had contravened, it would be Part 3. "P" and "three" may sound similar, but they are quite different.

And LABC.

 

[JohnW2]

For the second time, home owner, not the house. That's the legislation as it stands. If the previous home owner committed muder? Now you're just being stupid. Murder has nothing to do with notification to building control.

"I'm out". I'll leave you and BAS to play and destroy another thread. ... and please try to learn to be a bit more selective in your quoting, to make your posts easier to read.

Kind Regards, John