Question for electricians

[JohnW2]

If a householder engages an electrician to undertake notifiable work in the knowledge that the work is not going to be notified, I'm not sure who is actually breaking the law.

It may of course be another one of those areas where the intention of the people who wrote the legislation was different from what they actually wrote, but the Building Regulations are, IMO, completely clear that it is the person carrying out the work who is responsible for complying with them, not the person ordering the work. And that includes the giving of a notice.

Yes, I can understand that viewpoint. However, as I said, we are aware of at least one case in which an LABC attempted to pursue a householder for previous non-notification - which they presumably could not do if the householder had no responsibility to notify?

[IANAL]If it could be shown that the householder knowingly employed someone to commit a crime then might that be conspiracy?[/IANAL]

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I would be surprised if what you suggest is not the case - either that or 'an accessory' to the householder's crime. Also, I suppose, the other way around - if it did transpire that the responsibility for notification rests with the householder, then an electrician who did the work in the knowledge that it had not been notified would, I imagine, also be part of a 'conspiracy' (and/or 'an accessory')?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, maybe DP should inform the householder that they must notify and if they do not then DP is absolved of all responsibility and not doing anything wrong.
I know Bas disagrees with this so we could be back to square one until a judge tells us the 'truth'.

I disagree with it because it is clearly wrong.

I don't think clearly is appropiate.

If it's your responsibility to do something you cannot shed that responsibility by asking someone else to do it.

No, but some are disputing with whom the responsibility lies.

For example, the law requires that you insure your vehicle. If you ask someone else to arrange the insurance and then drive about without verifying that that someone else did actually do it, and you do actually have insurance, who do you think would face prosecution for driving whilst uninsured?

That may be the same as a company not insuring their vehicles.
Would the driver be responsible (for the sake of my argument, on the first day the insurance had lapsed)?

 

[JohnW2]

One can never predict what a court might do. ... But one can look at the Building Regulations, find every instance of "the person carrying out the work" (or a variation thereof), and substitute "householder" for them. ... You should try that sometime, and see what complete nonsense it would be.

Yes, you've made that point before. However, in the absence of definitions, and in the absence of explicit clarity, I don't think one can necessarily assume that the same (undefined) words are going to have the same intended meaning wherever they appear within the Regs. In other words, I do not doubt that they are places where they use the phrase to refer to the person 'who gets his/her hands dirty', and that substituting "householder" would make no sense - but that does not necessarily mean that they had the same intent every time they used the phrase. It is in order to avoid such uncertainties that legal documents, including legislation, often/usually have an extensive set of definitions (or 'interpretation').

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Th introduction of Approved Document P merely perpetuates the uncertainties as to who is responsible:

People who are responsible for building work (for example, the agent, designer, builder or installer) must ensure that the work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations. The building owner may also be responsible for ensuring that work complies with the Building Regulations.

However, further on, it makes a statement which appears to support BAS's view of the situation:

If an installer is not a registered competent person and has not appointed a third party certifier, then before work begins the installer must notify a building control body.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

That may be the same as a company not insuring their vehicles.
Would the driver be responsible (for the sake of my argument, on the first day the insurance had lapsed)?

Yes

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, further on, it makes a statement which appears to support BAS's view of the situation:

If an installer is not a registered competent person and has not appointed a third party certifier, then before work begins the installer must notify a building control body.

Kind Regards, John

Fair enough.

I am not vehemently opposed to that being correct but would like to know for certain.
As you know I am not a fan of guidances and documents purporting to explain uncertainties based of the interpretations of someone else who could be wrong.

Out of interest, who would be a third party certifier? Would this be the same TPC as recently introduced?
Do I read it correctly that -
an UNregistered installer who HAS appointed a third party certifier does NOT himself have to notify - the third party certifier does?
If so, does this mean it is NOT the person intending to carry out the work?

 

[EFLImpudence]

That may be the same as a company not insuring their vehicles.
Would the driver be responsible (for the sake of my argument, on the first day the insurance had lapsed)?

Yes

Ah, ok, thanks.

 

[JohnW2]

That may be the same as a company not insuring their vehicles. Would the driver be responsible (for the sake of my argument, on the first day the insurance had lapsed)?

Yes

With the system we've had in recent times, would not both be 'responsible', but in different senses? The driver would certainly be responsible (and could be prosecuted for) driving a vehicle without insurance. However, would the owner not also not be responsible for allowing a non-insured vehicle to be on the roads (since the requirement for all vehicles to be insured was introduced)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If an installer is not a registered competent person and has not appointed a third party certifier, then before work begins the installer must notify a building control body.

Fair enough. I am not vehemently opposed to that being correct but would like to know for certain.

Same here.

Out of interest, who would be a third party certifier? Would this be the same TPC as recently introduced?

Presumably - it's in the same version of Approved Doc 3 which introduced the concept of TPCs.

Do I read it correctly that - an UNregistered installer who HAS appointed a third party certifier does NOT himself have to notify - the third party certifier does? If so, does this mean it is NOT the person intending to carry out the work?

If a third party certifier is being used, the work does not have to be notified to LABC in advance - just as with self-certification, the 'notification' is done (necessarily by the TPC) after (within 30 days) the work has been completed and 'certified'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

That may be the same as a company not insuring their vehicles. Would the driver be responsible (for the sake of my argument, on the first day the insurance had lapsed)?

Yes

With the system we've had in recent times, would not both be 'responsible', but in different senses? The driver would certainly be responsible (and could be prosecuted for) driving a vehicle without insurance. However, would the owner not also not be responsible for allowing a non-insured vehicle to be on the roads (since the requirement for all vehicles to be insured was introduced)?

Kind Regards, John

There would be an offence committed by the driver, and by the registered keeper.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If a third party certifier is being used, the work does not have to be notified to LABC in advance - just as with self-certification, the 'notification' is done (necessarily by the TPC) after (within 30 days) the work has been completed and 'certified'.

Yes, I realise that but I was trying to make the point that, in at least this one case, it is NOT the person intending to carry out the work - if that means the one actually doing it.

If, therefore, the actual wording of the Building Regulation (as per Bas) is being disregarded, how do we know that the ADP is correct?

 

[JohnW2]

There would be an offence committed by the driver, and by the registered keeper.

Indeed - that's what I was trying to say!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Oh, I thought you were asking a question.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I realise that but I was trying to make the point that, in at least this one case, it is NOT the person intending to carry out the work - if that means the one actually doing it.

Yes, that's a good point. However, don't forget that a third party installer has introduced new issues that had not even been dreamed of when the legislation was written.

If, therefore, the actual wording of the Building Regulation (as per Bas) is being disregarded, how do we know that the ADP is correct?

I'm not sure what aspect of the ADP you're suggesting might be 'incorrect'. What it says in relation to TPCs makes total sense - the whole idea is to remove the need for up-front notification to a building control body, with notification instead happening 'after the event', just as with self-certification. As I said above, this possibility did not need to be considered when the wording of the legislation was being decided - at that time, the only situation in which up-front notification of notifiable work was not required was if it was subsequently going to be notified by the person who really had 'carried out the work' (a self-certifying electrician).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Oh, I thought you were asking a question.

I was, effectively. I made a statement of what I believed to be the situation, with a question mark at the end - hence inviting you to indicate whether you agreed. You have (by essentially repeating what I had said) confirmed that you do agree, for which I am grateful.

Kind Regards, John