Qualified Electrician

[JohnW2]

See this booklet - albeit a bit out-of-date (2005).

It looks as if BAS is basically right, although the responsibility for rectifying any non-compliant work rests with the owner. In particular:

2.4 The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with theregulations rests with the person carrying out the building work. So if you are carrying out the work personally the responsibility will be yours. If you are employing a builder the responsibility will usually be that firm’s – but you should confirm this position at the very beginning. You should also bear in mind that if you are the owner of the building, it is ultimately you who may be served with an enforcement notice if the work does not comply with the regulations (see paragraph 6.3). So it is important that you choose your builder carefully (see paragraph 2.11).

and:

6.3 If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates’ court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, although proceedings must be taken within 6 months of the offence (section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980). Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

16.[/b] - (2) Subject to paragraph (8), a person carrying out building work shall not— {.....}

Why would they have that requirement if the meaning of the term "person carrying out building work" was "person who commissioned building work to be carried out by someone else"? Big problem with householders employing builders and then covering up foundations and drains is there?

I agree it might sound absurd from that perspective, but maybe this is where interpretation of what that actually means has to take into account the legal principle of a principal and an agent acting on his behalf. Wouldn't the principal in this case be the person who commissioned the work, and the builder or other tradesman physically executing the work his agent?

(2) Not later than the day before the work starts, the person carrying out the work shall give the local authority a notice which specifies— {.....}

Poor old householder has got to learn an awful lot of stuff these days before he can get the builders in, it seems.

That doesn't mean that the householder has to understand the details and complete the notice himself though, only that he is required to procure one to give to the local authority. And again, if the builder sends that notice directly to the local authority, wouldn't he then merely be acting as an agent for the householder?

Still - at least he shouldn't get into any arguments when he also gives an energy performance certificate...

... to himself ...

Energy performance certificates

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The person carrying out the work shall—

(a) give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;

Yes, I know that sounds as though it might be a little crazy, but consider that the person who commissions the work might not be the owner of the building. Besides, if it's the owner of the building who decides to do the work himself, then clearly there's no doubt that he is the person who is "carrying out work," and thus he is required to give a certificate to himself anyway!

And just think of how much money all these electricians, plumbers, window installers etc have thrown away over the years taking out totally unnecessary membership of various Competent Person schemes, because it's the householder who has to be a member, not them:

Fair point, and from that perspective it does seem to imply that the "person carrying out work" means the person physically executing the work. But again, I wonder whether the principal/agent issue could apply. Remember that a company is a legal "person," and can be a member of one of the competent persons schemes, then the real person who physically does the work does not need, himself, to be a member of the scheme, since he is acting as an agent for the legal "person" of the company.

And there he goes again, giving a certificate to himself...

(3) Where this regulation applies, the person carrying out the work shall, not more than 30 days after the completion of the work—

(a) give to the occupier a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (2);

Again, the person who commissions the work is not necessarily the occupier. A landlord/tenant situation comes to mind as a common example.

 

[Paul_C]

2.4 The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work. So if you are carrying out the work personally the responsibility will be yours. If you are employing a builder the responsibility will usually be that firm’s

I know that says broadly "compliance with the building regulations," but isn't it rather talking in terms of compliance with the way that the work is actually carried out, rather than with all the official paperwork associated with it?

The following part -

You should also bear in mind that if you are the owner of the building, it is ultimately you who may be served with an enforcement notice if the work does not comply with the regulations (see paragraph 6.3).

- seems to imply that, since an enforcement notice is for work which the LABC believes does not comply with the requirements of Parts A through P, not for anything related to notification.

And again, doesn't the highlighted part of this -

6.3 If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates’ court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, although proceedings must be taken within 6 months of the offence (section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980). Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act).

- imply that it's talking about the standard of the actual work?

Admittedly though, if the "person carrying out building work" is used in the regulations related to both the standard of the work and with regard to notification, then it would be illogical to assume it to take on a different meaning in each case.

So if the actual obligation to notify rests solely with the person (individual or company) who is physically executing the work, that would mean that a householder who calls upon a tradesman to do whatever notifiable work he requires would have no obligation whatsoever to notify under regulation 12 since he would not be the "person who intends to carry out work."

Furthermore, as mentioned already, what happens with something like an extension project where multiple people who "intend to carry out work" (in the physical sense) are involved?

Householder gets a general builder to construct the basic walls and roof of the extension - That builder would be a "person who intends to carry out work" and would therefore be obligated to submit a building notice under regulation 12. Then the householder gets a plumber to install a new boiler in the extension and hook it up, so the plumber who is then a "person who intends to carry out work" would also be obliged to submit notification under regulation 12. Then the householder gets an electrician to do the wiring, and the electrician, being a "person who intends to carry out work" then also has to notify, and so on.

Clearly that doesn't happen in practice, and it's all done under the same building notice. So are all those tradesmen falling foul of regulation 12 by failing to submit their own notifications? Or back to the principal/agent issue again, if the householder has already submitted a building notice covering the whole lot, does that then make the householder the agent for each and every one of those tradesmen so that their obligation to notify as a "person who intends to carry out work" is satisfied?

The reference to the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 is interesting though, since it appears to put a 6-month limit on prosecution for failure to notify anyway. So on a more general note, despite all the fuss made on this forum about notifying, what are the chances of failure to notify some internal job being detected within that short period of time? We both know the chances of anything happening just for failure to notify are slim anyway, but the 6-month statute of limitations gives even more incentive to save the money and not get involved with the bureaucracy.

Besides, if the "person carrying out work" means only the person who actually executes the work, even if something was detected within that short period of time, wouldn't LABC have to prove that it was the householder himself who actually physically did the job? That might be pretty difficult. But then perhaps that's why as far as Part P is concerned at least, we have heard of not one instance of any normal householder being taken to court merely for failure to notify.

 

[JohnW2]

I know that says broadly "compliance with the building regulations," but isn't it rather talking in terms of compliance with the way that the work is actually carried out, rather than with all the official paperwork associated with it?

In a large part, I'm sure it is. However, one of the requirements of the Building Regulations is the requirement to notify/apply, so failure to do so presumably constitutes non-compliance with the regulations just as much as would incorrect undertaking of the work.

Kind Regards, John.