Old colours and new colours

[julioarca]

Just to pose a question, suppose some one had rolls of old coloured cables, whats to stop them from using it currently, not informing LBA of the work done etc, because its old colours, who would ever know, apart from the person who installed it, there would be no proof of when it was installed

2ns scenario, they was a period prior to part p when both new and old colours were available, approx 2005?, whats to stop some1 carrying out some work in their house and stating it was done in tihs transition period prior to Part P

Just wondered if this was a loop hole...

 

[Paul_C]

Absolutely nothing to stop anyone doing that whether using red/black or brown/blue cable, which, as you say, were both available prior to Part P becoming effective in 2005.

Although the country is rapidly becoming a police state, LABC don't yet have any authority to come into your home to make spot checks to see if you've been "naughty" and done anything without telling them, so if it's internal work nobody is going to know unless you tell them. And with a relatively short statute of limitations on Building Regs. enforcement anyway, after a couple of years it won't matter if they find out anyway.

You could also claim it to be 2005 or later but non-notifiable work:

"Yes, that's new cable. I replaced a damaged length."

 

[Taylortwocities]

Oh yes that's an old pre-part P split load consumer unit (what a pity about the manufactured date stamp - it says 2008!)

 

[chapeau]

Although the country is rapidly becoming a police state, LABC don't yet have any authority to come into your home to make spot checks to see if you've been "naughty" and done anything without telling them

Alas they can after giving 24 hours notice. If you refuse entry into your home they can go to a magistrate for a warrant and come back and break your door down.

Section 95 Building Act 1984

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just to pose a question, suppose some one had rolls of old coloured cables, whats to stop them from using it currently, not informing LBA of the work done etc, because its old colours, who would ever know, apart from the person who installed it, there would be no proof of when it was installed

You mean break the law and lie about it if asked?

2ns scenario, they was a period prior to part p when both new and old colours were available, approx 2005?, whats to stop some1 carrying out some work in their house and stating it was done in tihs transition period prior to Part P

You mean break the law and lie about it if asked?

Just wondered if this was a loop hole...

No more or less than many situations where you could break the law and lie about it if asked.

 

[Paul_C]

Alas they can after giving 24 hours notice. If you refuse entry into your home they can go to a magistrate for a warrant and come back and break your door down.

Section 95 Building Act 1984

We're really further down that road then, I guess. At least it does say that the justice of the peace must be presented with "reasonable grounds" for entry, so it's not quite a "we're checking just in case" scenario. Yet.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1984/cukpga_19840055_en_10#pt4-pb3-l1g95

You mean break the law and lie about it if asked?

If it's good enough for politicians.....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh it's open to all types of criminal.

 

[Paul_C]

Reaslistically, there are so many thousands of petty laws now that I doubt any of us isn't now a criminal, even without realizing it.

That's the way power-crazed governments like it: They have no hold over law-abiding citizens, only over criminals, so they seek to create so many laws that it becomes practically impossible to live any sort of normal life without breaking some law or other. How many thousands of new laws is it that have been created in just the last 10 years? Do you know them all? I certainly don't.

I'm sure that most people realize this. Yes, it's a criminal offense to fit a new CU in your own home now without paying an extortionate amount of money to a local council which is already taking excessive amounts in council tax for dwindling services.

But I don't think anyone is really going to put that on a par with what they consider to be real crimes. Quite simply: Most people have come to realize that these petty laws are not there to protect people but merely to exercise control and take money from us, so they really don't care about breaking them when the chances of being discovered are slim, at least within the period of which enforcement is possible.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But I don't think anyone is really going to put that on a par with what they consider to be real crimes.

No more than I, for one, am going to put your incessant whinging about it on a par with complaints about real oppression and human rights abuses, like ID cards, imprisoning children because their parents are seeking asylum, lying to parliament and the public and taking us into an illegal war, colluding with other countries in torture, refusing to allow the Gurkhas to settle here, letting companies off the hook for bribery and corruption so as not to upset despots who are funding terrorism but happen to have lots of money and oil....


The list goes on and on, and on a scale of 1 to important the Building Regulations come in at about zero.

 

[LoveRocket]

The list goes on and on, and on a scale of 1 to important the Building Regulations come in at about zero.

So why do you bang on and on and on about part p then? Do you think someone putting a new extractor fan in their kitchen is up there with the most heinous offences? You seem to treat people who plan doing minor DIY without notifying as public enemy number one.

If you were actually asked, then lying changes not having an EIC or a Building Regulations completion notice into fraud by false representation, an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006

PS. I'm completely with you on the BAe investigation farce. That was an absolute disgrace.

 

[chapeau]

We're really further down that road then, I guess. At least it does say that the justice of the peace must be presented with "reasonable grounds" for entry, so it's not quite a "we're checking just in case" scenario. Yet.

Yes, it does say that, but magistrates tend to side with authority. I have little faith in them standing up for you or I if a man from the council says he wants to take a look around your gaff.

And there is no 'reasonable grounds' provision to protect you if building control want want to come into your house without a warrant. The warrant is only there to enforce their right of access, with force if neccessary.

However they do have to secure your premises after they have left. If that means replacing a window I wonder if they need to notify or whether they self certify

 

[Paul_C]

Yes, it does say that, but magistrates tend to side with authority. I have little faith in them standing up for you or I if a man from the council says he wants to take a look around your gaff.

And there is no 'reasonable grounds' provision to protect you if building control want want to come into your house without a warrant. The warrant is only there to enforce their right of access, with force if neccessary.

Good point. Reading that section carefully again, it doesn't say they have a legal right to enter after going to a magistrate, presenting evidence of reasonable cause, and getting a warrant. As you say, the way it's worded that's only there as a backup.

Even the police can't just give 24 hours notice and demand to come and look around your house without a search warrant. (Or has that been changed now as well? Probably if they justify it under some anti-terrorism law or something.)

I fully agree though that I have absolutely no faith in magistrates to stick up for our basic rights any more.

And yes, B-A-S, the right to be free from searches of our own homes without reasonable cause supported by a warrant is up there with the right not to be required to produce ID on demand etc.

 

[chapeau]

Even the police can't just give 24 hours notice and demand to come and look around your house without a search warrant. (Or has that been changed now as well? Probably if they justify it under some anti-terrorism law or something.)

There is a reasonably long list of ways a policeman in uniform can enter your house without warrant and arrest you. Any indictable offence for example, or even if you don't stop your car when required to do so by constable in uniform. They can come and get you, and then take a look around.

PACE Part II Section 17.

Article 8 of the ECHR provides protection for your rights in your home, but then provides a long list of times when it doesn't apply, including when neccessary for the public safety, which some on here would argue applies if you use red/black cable instead of blue/brown

And yes, B-A-S, the right to be free from searches of our own homes without reasonable cause supported by a warrant is up there with the right not to be required to produce ID on demand etc.

Agree with you. Unfortunately he consistently demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic legal principles as well as lack of understanding of detail, so probably not worth debating.

 

[dingbat]

That's the way power-crazed governments like it: They have no hold over law-abiding citizens, only over criminals, so they seek to create so many laws that it becomes practically impossible to live any sort of normal life without breaking some law or other.

Actually, it's the other way around - as you point out.

The law, it seems, has little to deter criminals but plenty of ways to keep the generally law-abiding in fear of transgressing.

You just have to learn - as Winston eventually did - to love Big Brother.

 

[baggielad]

. And with a relatively short statute of limitations on Building Regs. enforcement anyway, after a couple of years it won't matter if they find out anyway."

I understand that under statute they only have a year from the date of completion of the works to investigate and force you to correct any breaches. However, after this period they are able to take out an injunction to force you to correct any breaches but this would only be used in cases where the breaches were a danger to the general public, other than the householder. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely.

The only other issue is when you come to sell the buyer's solicitor would want to see a completion certificate for the work. However, this would only occur where the buyer was aware that work had been carried out, which he should be if you filled in the standard sales forms correctly.