Rewiring my own house

[stem]

I agree to a certain extent. But it's the inconsistency that gets me. I can go into an industrial environment work all day long on a 3 phase MCC panel re-programme a PLC controlling a heavy manufacturing plant in a dangerous chemical environment. Without involving the LABC. I can even add a socket to the control panel for my soldering iron, but I cannot install a socket outlet in my kitchen without approval from my LABC.

Build an extension on the factory would however need LABC approval the exactly the same as an extension to my home.

Also, there is the scale of the work. Would you be happy for example if you had to get approval for simple jobs such as installing an airbrick and then pay a disproportionate fee to the work involved?

However, if I want to spur off a ring with a single cable to a new socket, the cost of the parts is £15 plus one hours work on a Saturday afternoon. My LABC fee for this would be £240 plus they add the statement that "additional inspections may be necessary and we may have to bring in an electrical consultant to inspect the work. Should this happen, then we may have to ask you to pay an additional charge to cover any extra costs incurred by the Council in ensuring compliance with the Building Regulations"

Five years ago I wired my new kitchen / utility / conservatory / cloakroom extension and added a new consumer unit. I had no qualms about the notification and inspection because of the extent of the work.

Anyway, moan over. The way it is is the way it is I'll just have to grin and bear it

 

[donlogan]

To the OP: If you were a 'fully qualified' Bricklayer with 20 years experience, do you believe that you would be exempt from 'notifying' an extension that you may build on your home?..........no, you still have to submit notification and/or plans etc. just like everybody else.

No. That's major structural work. Needs planning permission, loads of other beauracracy.

I just think that being as i'm qualified as an electrician, i should be able to rewire my house and make it a million times safer than it was and then get someone to inspect and test the work saying that it's safe. Which it is.

I previously worked on high risk industrial sites; chemicals, gases, fast flowing deep water, confined spaces etc. I could do massive alterations and then test and inspect them myself and that wasn't a problem with anyone. We used subcontractors from agencies as well who had no affiliation to our company, some were only apprentices.

Part P is a money making scam.

 

[bernardgreen]

No. That's major structural work. Needs planning permission, loads of other beauracracy.

Necessary to reduce the risk of sructural failures leading to injury and fatality.

Part P is a money making scam.

It has been used as such by some people, but its intention like the other parts was to reduce the risks of injury or death to people in the buildings.

Defective electrical installatons can be very dangerous, defective including badly designed installations.

I previously worked on high risk industrial sites; chemicals, gases, fast flowing deep water, confined spaces etc. I could do massive alterations and then test and inspect them myself and that wasn't a problem with anyone.

With respect that does not necessarily mean you are able to plan domestic installations. The difference is that on industrial sites there is almost always some form of maintainance operation that will ( should ) spot problems and repair or correct them before they become dangerous, that is not the case in domestic electrics. Hence the need to ensure that domestic installations are less prone to future failures and hence the need for Part P. That said I think it could better managed.

 

[JohnW2]

I have not heard of any cases of a LABC pursuing a homeowner due to it.

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=275610

As we discussed at the time, that (the only case we've ever heard of) appeared to be a particularly rdiculous case. It appeared that LABC were asking a new owner to pay for inspection of work that had mot been notified under previous ownership (and which, apparently, the new owner was not even aware of). We don't know the outcome, but I seriously doubt that legal advice would have been for LABC to pursue that one - which any sensible court would hopefully have throw out!

In any event, in present context, the important/interesting point is that all LABC were asking for was an inspection (presumable EICR or equivalent) of the installation, for which they were requesting payment. If, as in the case we are discussing in this thread, there already was an EICR (or 'EICR equivalent') from a 'fully qualified electrician', then they very probably would not even have asked for a repeat of that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I just think that being as i'm qualified as an electrician, i should be able to rewire my house and make it a million times safer than it was and then get someone to inspect and test the work saying that it's safe. Which it is. .... Part P is a money making scam.

I think that a lot of us would essentially agree with you, in terms of how the system currently operates.

If someone 'registered' in some way (similar to current self-certification) had inspected your work at every stage, then I would totally agree with what you say. However, so long as Building Regulations have requirements relating to things which are not inspectable once a job is completed (e.g. cable routing, or any 'concealed horrors'), someone just undertaking I&T after the job is complete is not going to be able to confirm/certify that such things have been done in a compliant manner.

However, although it's not appropriate for anyone here to suggest or advocate breaking of the law, as has been discussed, what you probably need to consider is what, in practice (if anything) is likely to be the consequence of failure to notify the work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

If the OP is fully qualified etc, then he can write his own paperwork for the work & testing he's done - actually anyone can do that, it's just that if they aren't qualified then it might not carry much authority. All he can't do is self-certify under an approved scheme since he's not a member of one. He doesn't need to get a "part P"* sparky to do tests/inspections for him.

So in principal, he can go to LABC, apply for regularisation of works already undertaken, and pay the 50% extra for that (that's what my LABC charges). The risk is, of course, that they may insist on some parts being uncovered (ie plaster knocked off to show cable routes & containment etc) - though I'd imagine that any reasonable inspector would only want to see a sample, especially if (for example) the conduit ends can be seen above the ceiling and in the backboxes.

If LABC insist on charging extra for independent tests then the OP could reasonably ask them to demonstrate why his test results are not acceptable. And I'd expect the onus to be on them to demonstrate that he isn't qualified which could be hard to do since the LABC inspector is most unlikely to have the electrical qualifications of the OP. That is, of course, assuming the OP used calibrated instrument(s) and performed a full set of tests.

* Yes I know, it's not about Part P, but it's a convenient way of talking about someone who's a member of an approved scheme and so in a position to self certify Part P work through their scheme.

 

[TheGayOwl]

Regarding selling the property it may cause an issue with some potential purchasers...sometimes a full inspect and test may be required to check the install is safe and correct for a sale to proceed. It depends on the purchaser to some extent and whether their lender is happy to offer a mortgage on said 'non-certified' installation.

As I said, I really wouldn't forsee any problems if all we've been told is correct. The OP told us that he is a 'fully qualified electrician' and that he undertook the work and testing 'to the letter'. If that is all true, then I see no reason for either the purchaser or a mortgage provider to have a problem. The electrical installation is not really 'non-certified' (the OP is effectively saying that he undertook an EICR) - the only real issue is the non-notification, and I can't see why that should matter a jot to either purchaser or mortgagor. Let's face it, if either had uncertainties, all they would probably ask for would be an EICR - which the OP already effectively has.

It could possibly invalidate buildings insurance in the shorter term if a problem arose..

Insurance companies are, of course, prone to try anything to squirm out of paying a claim but, if a 'fully qualified electrician' has undertaken a full I&T, it difficult to see any truly rational basis for any such squirming.

Kind Regards, John

I understand and agree with your though process John. Unfortunately others do not. Some banks (amongst other organisations) will insist on NICEIC contractors only for instance. My wife is an estate agent negotiator and she would say at leasst one sale per year falls through due to the OP's situation. As you say, an EICR can resolve it, but sometimes the experience only casts doubt in a purchasers mind and they then get cold feet. OK it is a small percentage of failed sales that encounter the problem. But if it was a really good offer, say £10K better than others, then I would be annoyed with meself for not sorting it originally.

Regards

 

[JohnW2]

I understand and agree with your though process John. Unfortunately others do not. Some banks (amongst other organisations) will insist on NICEIC contractors only for instance. My wife is an estate agent negotiator and she would say at leasst one sale per year falls through due to the OP's situation. As you say, an EICR can resolve it, but sometimes the experience only casts doubt in a purchasers mind and they then get cold feet. OK it is a small percentage of failed sales that encounter the problem. But if it was a really good offer, say £10K better than others, then I would be annoyed with meself for not sorting it originally.

I think we're almost agreeing. We seem agreed that an EICR should normally resolve the situation - indeed, in the case that no electrical work had been undertaken since 2004 (a situation in which electrical problems are probably more likely to be present), there's nothing other than an EICR that they could look at or ask for. I have to say that,as a purchaser, I would probably be more concerned about an electrical installation that hadn't been touched (or looked at!) for very many years than one which had been rewired recently, without notification, but with an EICR!

We also seem to be agreed that the probability of this affecting a sale (essentially, as you say, due to general 'nervousness' on the part of a purchaser) is very low. I would presume (hope!) that your wife sees a very large number (presumably at least 'dozens', perhaps hundreds?) of sales in the course of a year, so one such 'problem' per year is presumably pretty little - and it would, of course, be a particularly unlucky co-incidence if that one case per year happened in relation to that "£10k more than other offers" situation! In most situations, it would actually be the propsective purchaser who pulled out for this reason who would be the 'loser'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Beengone]

You should have informed the Building Control and pay their fee (£150 to £400) before the start of the work so that it could be inspected as it progressed.

No one else is allowed to certify work that they did not actually do.

All you can do now is have an EICR.
I'm not sure if you would be allowed to do this yourself.

Contact the BC and see what they require.
You could register with one of the schemes (£450ish plus insurance) and certify it yourself.

I know it's a bit late to be commenting on this, but would he only need to let BC know only if he was doing part P, or would he need to let them know if he was doing other rooms that don't require part P? Ie bedroom re-wire?


Thanks

 

[SimonH2]

Good question, the rules did change this April.

If the work is not notifiable, then it's not notifiable<period> There are now only 3 types of work that are notifiable :
1) Provision of a consumer unit
2) Adding a circuit
3) Work in the zones of a bathroom
If the work isn't one of those, then you do not have to tell LABC about it. BUT you do have to comply with "Part P" which basically only says it has to be safe (in practical terms, complies with BS7671).

Were the OP in the same position now, there is (in theory) a class of person who is allowed to inspect and test a third parties work. But such is the demand, I don't think any scheme has actually come up with such a person yet. Absent that, if in the OPs position, LABCs normally have a procedure to regularise un-notified work - you notify them, but tell them the work has already been done, and they charge extra (mine adds 50%).
For some work you may get away with notifying, leaving it a while, then telling them the work is done. But where it needs more than one visit, it might be hard to persuade them that you plastered between telling them it's ready for first fix inspection and them coming if the plaster is dry and decorated But if fully qualified, and you supply them with all the right test results in the right formate etc - then they might not visit at all.

 

[Beengone]

Good question, the rules did change this April.

If the work is not notifiable, then it's not notifiable<period> There are now only 3 types of work that are notifiable :
1) Provision of a consumer unit
2) Adding a circuit
3) Work in the zones of a bathroom
If the work isn't one of those, then you do not have to tell LABC about it. BUT you do have to comply with "Part P" which basically only says it has to be safe (in practical terms, complies with BS7671).

Were the OP in the same position now, there is (in theory) a class of person who is allowed to inspect and test a third parties work. But such is the demand, I don't think any scheme has actually come up with such a person yet. Absent that, if in the OPs position, LABCs normally have a procedure to regularise un-notified work - you notify them, but tell them the work has already been done, and they charge extra (mine adds 50%).
For some work you may get away with notifying, leaving it a while, then telling them the work is done. But where it needs more than one visit, it might be hard to persuade them that you plastered between telling them it's ready for first fix inspection and them coming if the plaster is dry and decorated But if fully qualified, and you supply them with all the right test results in the right formate etc - then they might not visit at all.

These are all questions.

So as a competent person I can not on my house, rewire all circuits, re-install a CU, let the electrician do all the part P ie, bathroom and Kitchen, then have a Periodic Inspection? Would that not be aceptaible?

I would need to let BC know, submit plans, pay a fee, then have a inspection?

Doesn't a Periodic Inspection tell you that the installation is safe and up standard/current regulations? So why the need for BC?

 

[EFLImpudence]

So as a competent person I can not on my house, rewire all circuits, re-install a CU,

Yes you can, but you must inform (notify) the LABC of the notifiable parts before you start.

let the electrician do all the part P ie, bathroom and Kitchen,

As above, Part P is one of the Building Regulations which states that all electrical work shall be done safely (WTTE) and separate from the notifiable requirements.

then have a Periodic Inspection? Would that not be aceptaible?

No, the third party inspection system has not yet been introduced.

I would need to let BC know, submit plans, pay a fee, then have a inspection?

Yes.

Doesn't a Periodic Inspection tell you that the installation is safe and up standard/current regulations?

Yes but not that it has been done correctly.

So why the need for BC?

It's the law.

You could find a registered electrician who is willing to inspect the work as it is done and issue the relevant certificates and schedules of inspection when completed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I know it's a bit late to be commenting on this, but would he only need to let BC know only if he was doing part P, or would he need to let them know if he was doing other rooms that don't require part P? Ie bedroom re-wire?

It's not too late for you to learn that Part P applies to any work whatsoever on fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter which operate at low or extra-low voltage and are—
(a) in or attached to a dwelling;
(b) in the common parts of a building serving one or more dwellings, but excluding power supplies to lifts;
(c) in a building that receives its electricity from a source located within or shared with a dwelling; or
(d) in a garden or in or on land associated with a building where the electricity is from a source located within or shared with a dwelling.

That was true when the OP wired his house, and it's true today - nothing has changed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the third party inspection system has not yet been introduced.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The third party inspection system for certifying DIY work as proposed in the 2013 changes to notifiable work has not yet been introduced.