New Garage Electrics

[the trician]

"OOI, what then is your opinion of professional electricians who conspire with their customers to overcome the system of LABC notification?"

Surely not!

I'm sincerely intrigued as to whom BAS is referring!

Ferk em!

TT

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't see you round these parts very often, TT...

 

[the trician]

Don't see you round these parts very often, TT...

Nope! Sadly they can't afford me!



BTW - You stitched up Mr Seaface-whatever-he-calls-himself very nicely!
My congrats (Although I'd expect nothing less from you!)

It's about time that the mass populace earnestly learnt the difference in status between the Building Regulations and the current wiring regulations, especially when it comes to their respective status as far as the Statute Book is concerned.
Far too many Part P scams having successfully traded on the degree of confusion which presently exists between the two in my view.
As far as legal status is concerned, any contravention of Part P ranks on a par with an unpaid parking ticket, hunting with dogs etc etc.
My research thus far leads me to understand that any contravention of Part P is a Civil and NOT a Criminal offence.
Should a contravention of Part P lead to a fatality/fire/ etc, then other aspects of the law would be called in to account - H&S, Manslaughter etc etc.
Only then would the status change to a charge which could be brought under criminal proceedings.



TT

 

[mapj1]

Oh No....
lets tidy up a few loose ends left dangling.

The law (meaning the building act, as electricity is now a controlled service ) requires electrical work to be done safely, and one way to achieve this is by following, for example, the advice in Approved Document P.
In itself following the advice of the appropriate AD is not the only way to show compliance, but you need to convince your local building control office your alternative is at least as good.
Part P recommends inspection and certification to BS7671, or any equivalent European standard, such as Germany's VDE100, with which I am familiar, or the French NCF, with which I am not, or whatever. I believe there are well over 10 such national standards acceptable for the purposes of approved document P.

Self certification - Of the UKs 100,000 plus (govt estimated) companies and small businesses doing electrical work, over 20,000 have registered with a self certification scheme, and this allows them to notify building control of compliance with building regs, after the event, via their organization. The largest organization is NICEIC, by miles, with about 2/3 of all of the total, followed by NAPIT, ELECSA CORGI and the others. All these schemes only work with BS7671 style certification, and so anything non BS7671, will fall back to the local building control office, as per building notice.

The Building Notice - the other 80,000 outfits, are NOT self certifying, but we assume,are supposed to be notifying building control before they start, as are Britains 4 million DIY ers (govt estimate) who routinely dabble in electrics. The idea is you give your council a building notice, and they charge you to come out and look at it within 48 hours.
The same is true for replacing a WC, bathtub or sink, as waste plumbing is also a controlled service, as is double glazing.
In reality, as most building control offices have no special interest, they are not really bothering to chase people if no such notice is given, , unless building inspectors are on site already, because of other building work.

Enforcement, -A breach of the building regs is non-inditable offence, which means it never gets beyond a magistrate, whose powers are limited to a £5000 max fine, and/or a rolling fine for any dangerous situations not corrected. The exception is if another inditable offence has also occurred, such as manslaughter, in which case the additional minor charge may be taken into consideration in a higher court.
All non-inditable offences, including some far more serious ones, like posession of class A drugs, breach of ASBO etc are governed by the magistrates court act, as amended. This includes in section 127, a limitation of time, that says prosecution must start within 6 months of the alleged offence. After 6 months, and no court summons, you have 'got away with it' unless someone is actually hurt.

regards Mike

PS I too don't always like B-A-S's posting style, but technically he is very rarely wrong, and this is another of those examples.

FWIW
My academic electrical qualifications -
shall we start with the PhD, or the tutoring, or the lecturing experience, perhaps the Research Fellowship or just the fact that I have been pushing electrons for a very long time and have a wealth of accumulated experience. However, I only feel the need to mention this to counter balance folk who like point scoring on such matters.
I also design electronic apparatus for a living.
I too have had correspondence with the ODPM regarding the weaknesses and failings of part P, and my comments (while ignored to date) are certainly on file. I'd quite like to meet the folk who thought it would work any better than it is doing, and congratulate them on a certain lack of foresight.

Legal qualifications, none, but I have colleagues who specialize in technical law, and a good personal friend who is on the criminal circuit.

 

[seahawk2nigel]

Hi All
Just thought I'd post this on the forum for info...

PR 2373 7 February 2006



For immediate release



Successful prosecution by Bath & North East Somerset Council's Building Control section



A bathroom fitter has been fined a total of £1,500 after pleading guilty to breaking regulations aimed at preventing unsafe work following an investigation by Bath & North East Somerset Council's Building Control department.



The section prosecuted Roger Martin Drinkwater, born 1 March, 1956, (who trades as Salles de Bains) from Tarrant Cottage, Great Hinton, Trowbridge, for contravening Building Regulations with regard to the electrics in a replacement bathroom at a private property in the Bath and North East Somerset area.



The charges were brought under Part P of Building Regulations. These rules came into force in January 2005 and are designed to reduce the number of death, injuries and fires caused by faulty electrics. They are also designed to make it harder for contractors to carry out sub-standard work.



In this instance the defendant installed an electric shower but was not a qualified electrician. The method of wiring used was not in accordance with the British Standard. Also, while the installation of the electric shower was incomplete, the complainant was not advised that it should not be used or that it was awaiting checking. The complainant was eventually provided with a certificate from a suitably qualified electrician but only after insisting on this.



Mr Drinkwater pleaded guilty at a hearing at Bath Magistrates Court to three charges. He was fined £1,000 for the Part P offence and £250 each for the remaining two offences. The other two offences were that Mr Drinkwater failed to give a Building Notice to the Council prior to commencement of the work and he failed to give notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of the work. The purpose of these requirements is to enable qualified Building Control Surveyors to visit the site and ensure that the Regulations are being complied with and provide advice if necessary.



The court also ordered Mr Drinkwater to pay £1,066 in costs.



Cllr Vic Pritchard, Executive Member Community Safety and Housing, said: "These regulations are designed to reduce the number of people killed or injured by faulty electrics as well as make sure contractors carry out work to an agreed standard.



"This prosecution is evidence that Bath & North East Somerset Council takes seriously its role in ensuring the safety of residents and enforcing building regulations."



Philip Mansfield, Building Control Manager, said: "Bath & North East Somerset Council always recommends that people employ electricians who are members of a recognised electrical competent persons scheme to carry out any work for them.



"Residents can obtain details of the competent persons schemes from the council's building control section.



"If people are at all unsure about any aspect of work they are considering carrying out on their home or work that has been completed then please give us a call."



Ends



Notes for editors:



The case was heard at Bath Magistrates Court on 31 January.



Part P of Building Regulations requires that "reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical installations in order to protect persons from fire or injury".



To get further advice about the building regulations in relation to electrical work please contact Building Control on 01225 477517/8 or email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or look at the Building Control web pages on www.bathnes.gov.uk <http://www.bathnes.gov.uk>

regards

Nige

 

[Spark123]

This may have been better starting in a new thread.

A few things I picked up on was he was being prosecuted for non-compliance with part p of the building regulations (Statutory instrument 2004 no 3210), they used non compliance with the british standard (bs7671? I assume) as the way of showing contravention of "P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical installations in order to protect persons from fire or injury." The way I read it also the installer did not test, inspect nor provide an eic which before putting it into service which also contravenes P1.
As he probably could not provide an alternative source to fulfil P1 hence this is why BS7671 could be used against him.
Also, as he was not a member of a competent person scheme he was also prosecuted for not notifying LABC prior to commencing work.
Another prosecution: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/...could-have-died-name_page.html#story_continue