Local Council response

[diwire]

I wonder how people have fared with their local council when attempting a d.i.y. consumer unit replacement. After leaving a message requesting a price at two local electrical contractors, without response, I telephoned the local building control, to be told to call in an electrician. The reason given was that they would have to use an electrician to do the testing thus making the cost to me c. £300.

It seemed pertinent to quote from Anne Hemming's letter from The Office of the DPM, dated 30th March 2006: para C1 "... When a local authority thinks that such testing is necessary in the circumstances to ensure that reasonable provision has been made the local authority must do this at its expense.". This evoked some comments about the aforesaid Office, with which I wholeheartedly agreed, but no change of stance.

Since the meter seals slide off easily, I am now facing considerable temptation - but fortunately 1 Cor. 10.13!

MM

 

[delmel]

is this a rented accomadation, if so they will not change unless there is an upgrade programme or a fault.

If it is yours then it will need testing, also you are likely to require cable upgrade of tails and earth. They then need to test existing circuits and log results.

It is for your safety this is done.

 

[RF Lighting]

I think you have slightly missed the point.

Th OP was refering to part P notification to their LABC.

You are talking about council houses, and not what the OP was asking about.

 

[diwire]

Dear Delmel,
Thanks for your response. The property is not rented. I know it will need testing. Yes, new tails will be needed (I happen to have a pair to hand!). The earth is OK (upgraded several years ago).

MM

 

[diwire]

Dear RF,
Thanks for your reply too. Sadly, being thick, I don't understand it!

MM

 

[Adam_151]

I suspect that if you did it to BS7671 (and that includes testing and certing, I'm afraid), which is the recommended way to comply given in the approved doc and gave LABC the cert (of course you notify them 48 hours in advance as well) then in light of the ODPM advice they wouldn't have a leg to stand on (some would still fight tooth and nail tho... )

 

[diwire]

Thanks Adam. Surely "doing it to BS7671" doesn't include "certing" because the certificate is proof that the work complies with the standard. My problem is that I do not have the equipment to test and am not qualified to certify. It was my interpretation that the LABC should pay for these and their charge would be for inspection. I agree with the comment made by the chap I spoke to, that the Government's directive on this is unreasonable.

Obviously I, as a householder, am not in a position to challenge the council! Hopefully I can find an electrician to do the job.

MM

 

[simon_d]

My problem is that I do not have the equipment to test and am not qualified to certify. It was my interpretation that the LABC should pay for these and their charge would be for inspection.

your fee to LABC covers them testing. they cannot charge you extra if you cant test, altho many try to.

 

[Spark123]

If the LABC have been upfront and said this is their fee then there may be little you can do about it.

 

[diwire]

Dear Simon,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that theoretically I cannot be charged for testing but if they refuse to come out for less than £300, there's nothing I can do about it. All they have to do is say this is their inspection fee! Spark123 makes this very point.

MM

 

[Spark123]

I think the comment you quoted above came about as some LABCs were charging their fee and then expecting the householder to pay again for an electrician to test and inspect the work. This is wrong as they had already paid the fee for LABC to oversee this.

 

[Softus]

Obviously I, as a householder, am not in a position to challenge the council!

I don't see why not. In fact, a non-householder would have even less right to challenge it.

if they refuse to come out for less than £300, there's nothing I can do about it. All they have to do is say this is their inspection fee!

Not so. If the right to charge is bestowed by an Act of Parliament, or a Statutory Instrument thereof, then I doubt that the right extends to a carte blanche charging system. If the right is not so defined, then I would reason that it lies within the jurisdiction of the Supply of Goods and Services Act, and therefore must be a "reasonable" charge; if significantly higher than the fee for non-electrical work, then I would reason that it's automatically unreasonable.

This is a moral minefield, because the testing fee has to be paid by someone, and in the end it's going to be the householder either directly or as part of the Council Tax. It becomes unfair when there's a lack of clarity, and although it's not illegal for anyone to disobey the ODPM, that clarification from the government, via the ODPM, would carry significant weight should you want to test the legality of the £300 fee in open court. IMHO.

 

[diwire]

Dear Spark123 & Softus,
Many thanks for your helpful comments. To my mind the problem boils down to what is a reasonable fee. Council websites up and down the land publicise scales of charges for buildings inspections but virtually none of them mention charges for electrical work.

When I first telephoned the council, the lassie I spoke to told me the fee for work costing <£1000 would be £90 but then said I needed to speak to an "electrical person". £90 would be an unreasonably low figure for both inspecting and testing. The purpose of my call was to find out if the d.i.y. approach would be sufficiently less costly than using an electrician to compensate for the extra hassle (of, for example, dealing with the supply company myself).

The reason for my post was that, after the conversation, I felt none the wiser! The comment "moral minefield" seems to sum up the situation.

MM

 

[Softus]

To my mind the problem boils down to what is a reasonable fee.

Perhaps there's an easy way forward.

The Wiki topic at //wiki.diynot.com/electrics:part_p:diy_electrical_work_and_the_law documents two authoritative statements:

...some LABCs are spreading misinformation, either by accident or design, about the status and acceptability of electrical work done by DIYers or other non-registered people.

These include:

1) Stating that such persons simply cannot carry out notifiable work, and that it must be done by registered electricians. The legislation referenced above, Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210 The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004 makes it quite clear that this is not the case. LABCs are not allowed to refuse to process Building Notices submitted by non-registered people.

2) Stating that work carried out by a non-registered person must be inspected and tested by someone who is registered, or who they regard as qualified. Again, there is no mention of this requirement in the statutory instrument.

Recently the DCLG issued a circular to local authorities making it absolutely clear that they are not allowed to do this:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1131042

Additionally, the new Approved Document P now explicitly says

1.26 The building control body may choose to carry out the inspection and testing itself, or to contract out some or all of the work to a specialist body which will then carry out the work on its behalf. Building control bodies will carry out the necessary inspection and testing at their expense, not at the householders’ expense.

Unfortunately, many LABCs have been simply ignoring what the DCLG say, and persisting with their policy of requiring DIYers or other non-registered people to hire someone to inspect and test the work. The DCLG’s position on this appears to be that if you are being told this by your LABC you should take them to court.

..and...

I recently posed LABC services the following question:

“My local Building Control dept has told me that because of staffing problems they are unable to inspect some building work, and will have to sub-contract it, and that I will therefore have to pay this cost on top of their fees. Are they allowed to do this?”

Their reply was:

“Building Regulation fees are set to a scale that embraces the whole scope of what may be necessary in respect of checking and approving the plans and inspecting the work. The input necessary can vary according to the circumstances of a specific scheme, but the fees are not variable due to this feature. The local authority has a legal duty to carry out the Building Regulation function to a proper degree. This can also vary in extent according to the demands of any scheme and considerable discretion rests with the authority. However they are responsible to give a proper service within the fee and cannot charge extra for the reason you mention. Indeed if they failed to inspect yet still charged you might have a case for a refund.”