DIY Electrical Changes Made?

[ban-all-sheds]

But still, one would rather beleive a solicitor, over you.

A solicitor DID NOT tell you that if you buy a house, and it turns out that a previous occupant may have committed a criminal offence there, then you will be taken to court in his place and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the offence then you will be found guilty, receive a criminal record, and be fined and/or imprisoned.

And not one person here believes that preposterous nonsense, except you.

I did not say what you have said above. You have taken what I've said and twisted it in a possible attempt at saving face.

You think so?

I don't.

the fine if any will be levvied on the home owner and the home owner at the time may not be the person who did the work.

If they could prove the work was notifiable (dates etc) then the fine would be for non notification, if poor standard, then not complying.

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.

I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification.

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

And neither, I'm sure, does anybody else.

You see, the only way you can be fined for an offence under the Building Act is to be convicted in a court of such an offence.

So over and over again, from the first page of this topic, you have indeed been saying that a homeowner can be taken to court, prosecuted, found guilty, and fined for an offence actually committed by a previous owner.

No twisting - your words are there for all to see.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

More likely is that SF asked a different question, and the answer he's giving us is the correct answer - but to that different question. I've seen that happen many times.

What question could you possibly ask a solicitor which would get you the answer, "Yes, you can be fined for an offence committed by a previous owner of your house"?

As almost everyone has said or implied, the chances surely are that the solicitor was answering (or thought (s)he was answering) a question about possible responsibilities/liabilities, hence potential financial losses/liabilities, as a result of past electrical work - and gave a correct general answer which (due to lack of clarity of answer,or lack of understanding of it) led the OP to think he was being told that a new householder could be held responsible for the non-notification, per se, of work by someone else.

But SF would have none of that, he kept on talking about fines, and refusing to think for a second about how impossible it would be for anybody to be prosecuted in a court of law for an offence committed by someone who owned their house in the past. Not once did he stop and think "actually, yes, I must have misunderstood, because that situation would be preposterous".

 

[SaladFingers]

But still, one would rather beleive a solicitor, over you.

A solicitor DID NOT tell you that if you buy a house, and it turns out that a previous occupant may have committed a criminal offence there, then you will be taken to court in his place and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the offence then you will be found guilty, receive a criminal record, and be fined and/or imprisoned.

And not one person here believes that preposterous nonsense, except you.

I did not say what you have said above. You have taken what I've said and twisted it in a possible attempt at saving face.

You think so?

I don't.

the fine if any will be levvied on the home owner and the home owner at the time may not be the person who did the work.

If they could prove the work was notifiable (dates etc) then the fine would be for non notification, if poor standard, then not complying.

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.

I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification.

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

And neither, I'm sure, does anybody else.

You see, the only way you can be fined for an offence under the Building Act is to be convicted in a court of such an offence.

So over and over again, from the first page of this topic, you have indeed been saying that a homeowner can be taken to court, prosecuted, found guilty, and fined for an offence actually committed by a previous owner.

No twisting - your words are there for all to see.

No, you did twist them completely. You made a statement of what I said, but that wasn't how I said it. You made it out to be meaning any criminal activity which is not what I said.

All you have done is highlighted the word fine, in another attempt at saving face.

What you have done this time is tried to make out that I said that I didn't say 'fine', then highlighted where I did - when I never said I didn't say 'fine'.

You're wearing thin and becoming very unconvicing now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, you did twist them completely. You made a statement of what I said, but that wasn't how I said it. You made it out to be meaning any criminal activity which is not what I said.

All you have done is highlighted the word fine, in another attempt at saving face.

What you have done this time is tried to make out that I said that I didn't say 'fine', then highlighted where I did - when I never said I didn't say 'fine'.

35 Penalty for contravening building regulations.

If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which this section does not apply, he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted.

So tell us then - how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence and thus becoming liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it?

 

[SaladFingers]

No, you did twist them completely. You made a statement of what I said, but that wasn't how I said it. You made it out to be meaning any criminal activity which is not what I said.

All you have done is highlighted the word fine, in another attempt at saving face.

What you have done this time is tried to make out that I said that I didn't say 'fine', then highlighted where I did - when I never said I didn't say 'fine'.

35 Penalty for contravening building regulations.

If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which this section does not apply, he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted.

So tell us then - how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence and thus becoming liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it?

Doesn't what you've just said tell us?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - it does not explain in that part of the Building Act how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence and thus becoming liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it.

I think you'll find that the phrase "liable on summary conviction" is a pretty strong indication that that part does not tell us how you can be fined in the absence of a summary conviction.

 

[SaladFingers]

No - it does not explain in that part of the Building Act how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence and thus becoming liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it.

I think you'll find that the phrase "liable on summary conviction" is a pretty strong indication that that part does not tell us how you can be fined in the absence of a summary conviction.

To be honest I've never used the phrase 'level 5' anyway, so it's not clear what you're asking.

 

[SimonH2]

More likely is that SF asked a different question, and the answer he's giving us is the correct answer - but to that different question. I've seen that happen many times.

What question could you possibly ask a solicitor which would get you the answer, "Yes, you can be fined for an offence committed by a previous owner of your house"?

I cannot think of one. But I can think of one scenario :

Q: "If I buy a house and a previous owner didn't comply with building regs, can I be liable ?"
A: "Yes, you could be required to put right any non-compliance at your expense and be fined if you fail to do so"

Then that gets translated (incorrectly) to "You can be fined because the previous owner didn't notify the work" which is confusing the "notification" requirement for which you cannot be fined, with the "comply with technical requirements" bit for which you can be fined if the work was sub-standard and you fail to correct it if told to. The latter of course is NOT a fine for the actions/omissions of the previous owner, but for your own actions/inactions in failing to put right the work if required to do so.

Now, where did I leave that popcorn ...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To be honest I've never used the phrase 'level 5' anyway, so it's not clear what you're asking.

It is clear, and it would be nice to say that it beggars belief that you would try and use the presence of the term "level 5" as an excuse for claiming you don't know what I'm asking, but really it doesn't.

"Level 5" just defines the scale of the fine. It is immaterial to the real issue.

Section 35 of the Building Act says that if a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which that section does not apply, then they are liable on summary conviction to a fine.

You keep talking about people being fined.

Please tell us how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence, and thus become liable to a fine, without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then that gets translated (incorrectly) to "You can be fined because the previous owner didn't notify the work" which is confusing the "notification" requirement for which you cannot be fined, with the "comply with technical requirements" bit for which you can be fined if the work was sub-standard and you fail to correct it if told to. The latter of course is NOT a fine for the actions/omissions of the previous owner, but for your own actions/inactions in failing to put right the work if required to do so.

But over and over again SF kept insisting that a homeowner can be fined for the omission or commission of acts by an earlier owner.

 

[SaladFingers]

To be honest I've never used the phrase 'level 5' anyway, so it's not clear what you're asking.

It is clear, and it would be nice to say that it beggars belief that you would try and use the presence of the term "level 5" as an excuse for claiming you don't know what I'm asking, but really it doesn't.

"Level 5" just defines the scale of the fine. It is immaterial to the real issue.

Section 35 of the Building Act says that if a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which that section does not apply, then they are liable on summary conviction to a fine.

You keep talking about people being fined.

Please tell us how is it possible for someone to be convicted of an offence, and thus become liable to a fine, without being charged with the offence and taken to court and prosecuted for it?

You said level 5, not me.

Nothing beggars beleif apart from you running this around in circles just because you can't say 'ok yes someone could be liable if LABC ever found out'. No, you can't just say that, but you carry on running around in circles.

You're chopping things up to suit yourself, by asking exactly how someone can be convicted, without being charged and taken to court - when I made NO suggestion of how someone would be exactly taken through and proceedings.

What you're doing is trying to deflect from liabilities and asking a completely different question, again to save face.

Face it, you're wearing thin. The best thing you can do for once is stop dragging threads through the mud over things people have not said.

 

[SaladFingers]

Then that gets translated (incorrectly) to "You can be fined because the previous owner didn't notify the work" which is confusing the "notification" requirement for which you cannot be fined, with the "comply with technical requirements" bit for which you can be fined if the work was sub-standard and you fail to correct it if told to. The latter of course is NOT a fine for the actions/omissions of the previous owner, but for your own actions/inactions in failing to put right the work if required to do so.

But over and over again SF kept insisting that a homeowner can be fined for the omission or commission of acts by an earlier owner.

No one insisted. You're doing it again.

I told you what a solicitor told me. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You said level 5, not me.

I did.

And you claimed that you were therefore unable to understand what I was asking.

Nothing beggars beleif apart from you running this around in circles just because you can't say 'ok yes someone could be liable if LABC ever found out'. No, you can't just say that, but you carry on running around in circles.

Untrue:

The current owner would be the one that any enforcement notice was served on

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

You may end up with liabilities associated with the property.

You're chopping things up to suit yourself, by asking exactly how someone can be convicted, without being charged and taken to court - when I made NO suggestion of how someone would be exactly taken through and proceedings.

I know you didn't, and I've asked you to explain that at least twice.

You have clearly said, multiple times, that a homeowner can be fined because a previous owner didn't do something he should, or did something he should not.

So please tell us how that can happen unless they are convicted of a criminal offence, and if you cannot, i.e. if you can't show how a fine can be imposed on someone who has not broken the law, then please explain how they can be taken to court and tried for something they did not do.

What you're doing is trying to deflect from liabilities and asking a completely different question, again to save face.

No - I am not trying to deflect from liabilities, as you can plainly see.

I am trying to focus on the issue of fines, which are completely different, and which you insist a homeowner can have imposed on him.

Face it, you're wearing thin. The best thing you can do for once is stop dragging threads through the mud over things people have not said.

You have said, several times, that people can be fined. To be fined you need to be found guilty of a criminal offence.

So as you are so convinced that people can be fined, can you please explain how?

 

[SaladFingers]

So as you are so convinced that people can be fined, can you please explain how?

Another long winded post, completely down the wrong avenue, where you've already answered your own question.

So please tell us how that can happen unless they are convicted of a criminal offence, and if you cannot, i.e. if you can't show how a fine can be imposed on someone who has not broken the law, then please explain how they can be taken to court and tried for something they did not do.

No need for me to, as I've never said how so or how not so. All you're doing is trying to save face here by unnecessarily asking me how legally it would work when we've done all that's necessary in saying the new home owner needs to sort it out before LABC find out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No one insisted. You're doing it again.

the fine if any will be levvied on the home owner and the home owner at the time may not be the person who did the work.

If they could prove the work was notifiable (dates etc) then the fine would be for non notification, if poor standard, then not complying.

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.

I was told as the home owner, I[/] could be landed with the fine for non notification.

No one would be jailed over it, but landed with an enforcement or possible fine is something else.

You seem pretty insistent to me.

I told you what a solicitor told me.

No you did not.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I will when it is the messenger who has taken the message and then altered it so that it is wrong.