Selling house - Electrics pre 2005

[Fozziebear40]

the door in the bath panel is easy, screw a plate over it so you need a tool to get in, job done.

I like your thinking, is that if we have to get this PIR done? What about this spur, won't it fail on that?

 

[333rocky333]

1992

1991 actually
reprinted in 1992 as BS7671

 

[securespark]

1992

1991.

 

[Atilla]

just answer NO, we bought our house 2 and a bit years ago, the same questions asked by our solicitor.

we had a PIR done because it was a request/condition of the mortgage that it was done, and any code 1/2 acted upon, in our case it was just a new CU and bonding up to code.

the door in the bath panel is easy, screw a plate over it so you need a tool to get in, job done.

a handle is a "tool" too - just put a catch on it.

 

[Stoday]

As for a warranty - what planet are the buyers on?

I think the NHBRC guarantee for ten years is the warranty in question.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I like your thinking, is that if we have to get this PIR done? What about this spur, won't it fail on that?

You've answered the Q about post-2005 electrical work truthfully.

Your buyers have had a survey done.

If they have not asked for an electrical certificate, don't volunteer the fact that there isn't one, and don't have a PIR done just in case.

If they have asked/do ask, say that there isn't one, and ask if their survey had highlighted anything wrong. Do not volunteer to get a PIR done.

If they say they want a PIR, tell them that they are welcome to arrange and pay for one, just like they arranged and paid for their first survey. (How far you push that only you can tell).

Basically give away nothing, volunteer nothing, resist doing anything.

 

[Fozziebear40]

Thanks for replies. It is the buyers solicitor that is being pedantic. We have finally told them as far as we believed the bathroom is fine. If they insist the isolator is moved we would agree to reduce the price by a certain amount and let the buyer move it in the future. (we all know it is not going to be moved because it isn't a problem) the buyer will just save some money. Probably enough to pay the extras on his solicitors bill for all these letters


[Rant alert] If the buyer chooses to use a hairdryer plugged in on the landing and use the mirror above the wash hand basin, what regulation is in force to stop that! Many a time I have plugged in a radio on the landing and listened to footie whilst in the bath.... ooohh scary. What happened to personal responsibility. I remember a time when we had to fit a plug to any electrical appliance we bought Sorry about the rant, stress selling a house. [Rant over]

 

[Astra99]

Hi Fozziebear

The reason for all the over-regulation is the "nanny state" where the politicians believe only they have the intellectual capacity to make decisions. This is always more prevalent under a Labour government, something which we were forced to tolerate from 1997 to 2010. Look at Part P. Originally meant to prevent poorly-qualified persons from the old Eastern Bloc from working on domestic installations in this country, it ended up effectively preventing the highly qualified electrical engineers who write the IEE regulations from working on their own homes! And even mor galling (for them) they would have to pay good money to the local council for an inspection by Buildings Control, who are not even electricians! That fat bloke (name begins with a P (is that why it was called part P?) has got a lot to answer for! Strange how he abandoned his dislike of hte unelected upper house when he was offered "membership"!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is always more prevalent under a Labour government, something which we were forced to tolerate from 1997 to 2010.

Would you be interested in the fact that the process which led to the idea of Part P, and the consultation document for it being issued, kicked off in response to the Construction Industry Deregulation Task Force’s 1995 report which recommended amongst other things that the Building Regulations should address electrical safety and that the administrative burden on builders should be rationalised? And that the Government at the time (led by a chap called Major, who was not, I believe, a Labour politician) responded to these recommendations by agreeing to review the case for new requirements and how they might best be practically introduced?

No, I thought not.

Originally meant to prevent poorly-qualified persons from the old Eastern Bloc from working on domestic installations in this country,

Would you be interested in the fact that the consultation process, which described how the changes to the Building Regulations would work, and what benefits would accrue etc, ran from May to September 2002, predating the first entry of an Eastern Bloc country into the EU by about 2 years?

No, I thought not.

Or that Poland, from where more migrant workers came than the rest put together never abandoned its apprenticeship system, and that Polish electricians are far better trained than the Domestic Installers created by the UK organisations that lobbied for Part P to be introduced?

No, I thought not.

it ended up effectively preventing the highly qualified electrical engineers who write the IEE regulations from working on their own homes! And even mor galling (for them) they would have to pay good money to the local council for an inspection by Buildings Control, who are not even electricians!

Would you be interested in the fact that none of these highly qualified electrical engineers were actually electricians working in the domestic installation field?

No, I thought not?

That fat bloke (name begins with a P (is that why it was called part P?) has got a lot to answer for!

Would you be interested in the fact that between 1997 & 2002 there were a few other distractions for the Government, like handing back Hong Kong, wars in Kosovo & Afghanistan and the run-up to the 2nd Gulf one, Scottish & Welsh Devolution, House of Lords reform, Foot & Mouth crisis etc, and that when a report produced after years of work by civil servants and industry experts telling you that painstaking and diligent research showed that this proposed legislation, supported by hundreds of relevant and expert bodies will save lives, that you tend to say "OK, we'll lay it before Parliament", because that's how governments work and that's what would have happened whoever had been in power?

No, I thought not.

Strange how he abandoned his dislike of hte unelected upper house when he was offered "membership"!

Would you be interested in the fact that even if he had been responsible for Part P, that would be irrelevant?

No, I thought not.


And finally, would you be interested in the fact that as well as being stupid, ignorant and bigoted, your worthless attempt at an explanation is probably of zero interest to the OP, since he's not been active on this forum since he posted his one and only topic well over a year ago?