manchester building control- BAS please read...

[partpdoctor]

hi
i am going to do some work for a friend who has just bought a new house...
it is a large house with wiring from the last 15 years say.
i will be modding circuits, pulling in new ones and doing garden lighting, power and a nice new whopping 17th ed dual rcd mains.

anyhow i thought i would bring my notepad and camera and make it a new 17th edition part p doctor project...so this time i am doing it outside the nic self cert scheme just to make it more interesting.

i have gone on the manchester building control website and downloaded

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/Building_Control_application_for_Electrical_Work.pdf

everything on my new project was going smoothly till i read the notes. here i see things put in my way to stop things happening and would like to hear some comments- especially BAS who knows this paperwork backwards

 

[Taylortwocities]

Which part of that is causing you concern?

It looks perfectly reasonable to me. I do take isue with the section on Electrical Certificates Required....
There should be no difference between what is required from A NICEIC or ECA member and what is required from the member of any other recognised scheme. I would take issue with that - its a restriction of trade.

 

[partpdoctor]

hi
its the first bit that says they are accepting nothing unless it is self cert OR i have to get a bod in to test my work....or am i reading it wrong?

 

[LiamPope]

Hi there,

Looks like the kind of trouble i'm having with my LABC. In fact even worse! All very much the opposite of what Part P says - i.e. demanding you get it tested and provide an EIC, instead of doing it themselves as they're supposed to. Some more on the matter in my thread (back on page 3 now).

Liam

 

[Highpike]

I have recently had a mini fight with my local body (Lambeth, London) over this, who were trying to say the same thing about the owner supplying the relevant test cert's.

There was even a circular from the communities and Local Government on it:

Link

In particular

There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately.

having got them to admit defeat, I have had great pleasure to pay my application fee knowing that they will have to spend more on getting a qualified person into inspect at first fix and then test at the end! At least I can claim a little bit of my council tax back!

 

[partpdoctor]

crikey liam...
so im not on my own then?

 

[Spark123]

The document is a bit out of date, P2 was dropped a while ago.

Maybe they have got their act together a bit more by now.
Some info on page 11 here: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

 

[ebee]

I see that they have decided that the works MUST comply with BS 7671 as well as Part P.

They think Niceic has members too

 

[Richard C]

Welcome to the club Part P, members seem to be growing by the day! I had exactly the same problem a couple of weeks ago; the BI who came to inspect new drains & first fix on an en-suite didn’t want to know about the electrics; luckily I was able to find someone prepared to inspect, test & certify the new circuit

If you haven’t already seen it, I would suggest you read Liam's thread!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/Building_Control_application_for_Electrical_Work.pdf

ye gods

 

[partpdoctor]

hi
so then, the forum agrees that the information is flawed on the manchester application.....
my next question is then, how do i proceed. am i fit to "take them on"

the same thing happened to me in oldham last year....they...

1 refused my certs stating i was not competent
2 insisted i pay 3rd party nic man to sign it off

i quoted back 1.26 and 1.28 of part p and explained that what they were arguing was very wrong and probably outside the law

they phoned back and accepted my iee cert...

is this my play then?

 

[LiamPope]

Hi there,

Well since they themselves say that Part P must be complied with, try quoting 1.26, and that paragraph of the Circular printed above and see where that gets you. Some LABCs have seen the error of their ways at this point so you may get lucky. Dont like you're chances though - Manchester sounds a bit big to just be being naive More likely they're crooked like mine and will reply that the 'guidance' of Part P and the 'opinion' of government departments can be ignored as they please as they are not statutory.

Good luck!

Liam

 

[conny]

And as they are not 'statutory' then surely they can't be enforced then?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And there was that link that (Liam??) posted to a clause in the Building Act (under which the Building Regulations are made, of course) saying that not following the Approved Document guidance had a tendency to show that you'd not complied with the Regulations...

 

[LiamPope]

Yep - Sections 6 and 7 of the building act define the legal status of Approved Documents. 7 (1) says:

7 Compliance or non-compliance with approved documents

(1)A failure on the part of a person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but if, in any proceedings whether civil or criminal, it is alleged that a person has at any time contravened a provision of building regulations—
(a)a failure to comply with a document that at that time was approved for the purposes of that provision may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and
(b)proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

My understanding of that is that it's not an offence in itself to contravene an approved doc, but in a court case of alleged non-compliance with the regs themselves, having contravened an approved doc is enough to establish liability. It's slightly twisted but I think basically we'd win! But it'd have to go all the way to court. And i suppose this all assumes your LABC comes under the legal definition of a 'person'.