DIY Electrical Changes Made?

[SaladFingers]

Again, I've never stated that at all.

OK, so in all the times you've talked about people being fined:

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.

who would be imposing the fines, if not the council?

Do you have anything from your solicitor which talks about fines?

Again, I've never said who would be imposing the penalties, no one else has, only you've brought that up and won't let it go, in a bid to save face, despite me saying again, I've never mentioned that and no one else has.

Let's see if by tonight, we can get onto 10 pages of the same conversation that's been going since Friday.

 

[clifford1]

If he didn't pay his vehicle tax can they come and seize your car?

Yes.
If his cheque bounced but you continued to use the car you had just bought, YOU would be liable for failure to have valid tax.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Again, I've never said who would be imposing the penalties, no one else has, only you've brought that up and won't let it go, in a bid to save face, despite me saying again, I've never mentioned that and no one else has.

It's not I who is trying, and failing in a most miserable and pathetic way, to save face.

You can't deny that you have on multiple occasions talked about people being fined.

Please tell us who you think would impose fines.

Do you have anything from your solicitor which talks about fines?

Let's see if by tonight, we can get onto 10 pages of the same conversation that's been going since Friday.

You could avert that by admitting that you have been wrong since Friday, and stopping posting any more nonsense.

 

[JohnW2]

I feel really sorry for the OP when threads end up like this

Indeed ....

"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.

It seems that, just very occasionally, I make a wise decision!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes.
If his cheque bounced but you continued to use the car you had just bought, YOU would be liable for failure to have valid tax.

That was about a homeowner.

i.e. if you lived in a house where the previous owner had not taxed his car, could they come and seize yours?

 

[SimonH2]

If his cheque bounced but you continued to use the car you had just bought, YOU would be liable for failure to have valid tax.

Which is in fact a similar situation.
The current owner would be liable for using a car without tax, they would not be liable for using a dud cheque.

Where they differ is that using a car without Vehicle Excise Duty (aka Tax disk) is a criminal offence. Possessing and using a property which has had substandard building work is not a criminal offence - it only becomes a criminal matter if an enforcement notice is issued and the owner fails to comply. Even them the offence is failure to comply with the enforcement notice, not possession of the property.

 

[SimonH2]

You're not even reading clearly. I never bought the policy, the vendor did.

Have you heard a phrase including the words "pot" "calling" "kettle" and "black" ? I didn't say you bought the policy, only that you got it.

the solicitor told you to get an indemnity policy - and you got one.

The rolling eyes say it all - you do have a comprehension problem.

You are looking at a car, your mate/advisor suggests you should insist on it coming with a fresh MoT. You say you'll buy the car if the seller gets it MOT'd, he does, and you buy it. You've "got" an MOT, you didn't "buy" an MOT.

Likewise, you insisted on the house seller including an indemnity policy, which he did. You got a policy, you didn't buy it. I didn't say you bought it, but because you are (apparently) so desperate for everyone else to be wrong, you accuse others of a comprehension problem.

Reminds me of the story about soldiers on parade for some function. One is completely out of step with all the others - and his mother complains that all the other soldiers are out of step with her son.

 

[SaladFingers]

Page 10, coming soon................

this is for you, Simon, darling