I recently bought a house and have received a letter from the local authority to say that they were aware that some electrical work had been carried out on the house in the kitchen (by the previous owner) which had been reported to them by a building inspector who had gone out to inspect building works but they need to know that the person who carried out the electrical work was registered. If not they want to charge me £200+ to send someone out to inspect the work. How do I stand with this a) I had no knowledge any work was carried out - nothing highlighted on the enquiries before contract b) I have no idea where the previous owner now is - they would be unlikely to pay anyway. In my view the LA was aware the work was going on but did nothing until now about ensuring it met current standards. Any help greatly appreciated especially if others have had this problem.
Part P certificate
- Thread starter walcott
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,736
- Reaction score
- 2,675
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
If the person doing the building work was registered then the LABC would have received the minor works or installation certificate from their scheme operator.
To know that electrical work has been carried out post 2004 unless two inspections have been made is near impossible.
If it were me I would write back to say you were lead to understand the work was planned before 2004 and therefore did not require Part P notification. But since you are new owners you would need to place this in the hands of your solicitors if they can prove this was not the case.
Can they please furnish you with the details so it can be passed on to your solicitor.
I will guess there is no way they can prove what date the work was planned. Remember it is date it was planned not the date it was done that matters. And since before 2004 one did not need to submit plans how can they ever prove what date the work was planned?
To know that electrical work has been carried out post 2004 unless two inspections have been made is near impossible.
If it were me I would write back to say you were lead to understand the work was planned before 2004 and therefore did not require Part P notification. But since you are new owners you would need to place this in the hands of your solicitors if they can prove this was not the case.
Can they please furnish you with the details so it can be passed on to your solicitor.
I will guess there is no way they can prove what date the work was planned. Remember it is date it was planned not the date it was done that matters. And since before 2004 one did not need to submit plans how can they ever prove what date the work was planned?
First thing that springs to my mind is why your solicitor hasn't asked if any improvement/repair work has been carried out during his 'search enquiries' as this is usually a standard question to the vendors.
Second, if you were unaware of this being carried out I fail to see how you can be made to pay for it to be signed off. Again, this is something your solicitor should have been made aware of by the vendor when they filled in the questionnaire.
If you are worried about the work carried out you can always arrange your own PIR, (periodic inspection report), and submit this to the LA.
Maybe someone on here will be able to give you an idea of the cost for this as I don't know.
Second, if you were unaware of this being carried out I fail to see how you can be made to pay for it to be signed off. Again, this is something your solicitor should have been made aware of by the vendor when they filled in the questionnaire.
If you are worried about the work carried out you can always arrange your own PIR, (periodic inspection report), and submit this to the LA.
Maybe someone on here will be able to give you an idea of the cost for this as I don't know.
I would be wary of stating you had any knowledge of this work - which you didn't.
Did they say how long ago the Inspector visited?
Was the letter from the LA addressed to you or the previous owner?
I would say this is the strongest part of your argument.
Did they say how long ago the Inspector visited?
Was the letter from the LA addressed to you or the previous owner?
Sponsored Links
Sounds like you should ring your solicitor.
No they wouldn't.
Why do you persist in giving out such incorrect information?
Again, incorrect.
Stop it.
You are confusing different methods of gaining Building Regulations approval.
It's the person who did the work or instructed someone to do the work that's responsible.
You should either do nothing or tell the LABC it has nothing to do with you because it relates to work done before you bought the house so they should send their bill to the previous house owner. Also you are not going to allow the BC to carry out the inspection unless they can show lawful authority to do so.
There is a potential problem if you or someone else pays and the inspection shows there is something wrong. They are not going to give you an inspection report; they will just tell you to get it put right. But you can't do that. You can't employ an electrician to do so either because he won't take the responsibility for someone else's work.
If you do nothing and don't reply to the BC's letter, he can't do anything to you. He can't prosecute you because you've done nothing. He can't say that you haven't notified the work. He has to chase up the installer.
Don't involve your solicitor; it's not necessary and it will cost you money.
You should either do nothing or tell the LABC it has nothing to do with you because it relates to work done before you bought the house so they should send their bill to the previous house owner. Also you are not going to allow the BC to carry out the inspection unless they can show lawful authority to do so.
There is a potential problem if you or someone else pays and the inspection shows there is something wrong. They are not going to give you an inspection report; they will just tell you to get it put right. But you can't do that. You can't employ an electrician to do so either because he won't take the responsibility for someone else's work.
If you do nothing and don't reply to the BC's letter, he can't do anything to you. He can't prosecute you because you've done nothing. He can't say that you haven't notified the work. He has to chase up the installer.
Don't involve your solicitor; it's not necessary and it will cost you money.
this topics getting interesting!! pulls up a chair, gets the popcorn out!! -carry on lads!
Thanks to all for the responses so far. To clarify. My solicitor did ask in the enquiries before contract if any electrical work had been carried out by the previous owner(s) to which the answer was "no" although the building work had been approved by the local inspector (taking out an old solid fuel boiler) hence their knowledge that rewiring/additional wiring was being installed. I first saw the house last July and all work had by that time been finished and the appliances (oven & microwave) fitted in the old boilers place showed signs of some use therefore I guess not a recently completed job. Any further thoughts much appreciated.
Sounds a nasty situation.
It doesn't seem right you as the buyer should have to pay for this.
Surely somewhere between your solicitor and the vendor this should be sorted.
Solicitors get paid a lot for their services - if they didn't get all the information requested and there was this hanging electrical LABC activity they didn't pick up on, surely it should be for them to find the vendor to sort it.
Is there more than one solicitor at the practice -or even a solicitor's practice manager to complain to?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,795
- Reaction score
- 2,648
- Country
Write a letter detailing your concerns to your solicitor. Ask him why this issue has not been boxed off before completion. Tell him to rectify the situation to your complete satisfaction.
If he does not, contact these people:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/redressscheme.law
If he does not, contact these people:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/redressscheme.law
So in other words the vendor lied.
IANAL, but to me it would seem that lying about a material fact in a transaction of a value of hundreds of thousands of pounds is a serious offence.
Fraud is the common term.
As well as civil remedies, start agitating for a criminal prosecution.
Hmm, so it seems that :
Work was done which involved some electrics, but this work was notified to BC and they inspected it.
The previous owner lied on the enquiry form.
But that doesn't really matter since the PO has scarpered anyway.
Firstly, my understanding is that BC "issues" like this have no time limit and can be dropped in the lap of whoever owns the building when it's found out. Hence the reason for explicitly asking about certain things when purchasing a property as the new owner can find himself liable to sort it.
In this case however I think the OP has a simple response to use against BC. If it was notified work, then a fee will have been paid. As I understand it, they are not allowed to charge extra for inspecting/testing electrical works* and so they are free to come and inspect the work but cannot charge you for it - the inspection is supposed to have been covered by the original BC fees.
I suppose they may argue that the scope of works exceeded the original notification. If so then the PO is (or I'd have thought, should be) liable for the underpaid fees, but the BC inspector should have noticed when performing the inspection.
* My LA get around this by having different base fees depending on whether you can supply BS<whatever> test results for the work. The difference happens to be about the cost of a PIR.
Work was done which involved some electrics, but this work was notified to BC and they inspected it.
The previous owner lied on the enquiry form.
But that doesn't really matter since the PO has scarpered anyway.
Firstly, my understanding is that BC "issues" like this have no time limit and can be dropped in the lap of whoever owns the building when it's found out. Hence the reason for explicitly asking about certain things when purchasing a property as the new owner can find himself liable to sort it.
In this case however I think the OP has a simple response to use against BC. If it was notified work, then a fee will have been paid. As I understand it, they are not allowed to charge extra for inspecting/testing electrical works* and so they are free to come and inspect the work but cannot charge you for it - the inspection is supposed to have been covered by the original BC fees.
I suppose they may argue that the scope of works exceeded the original notification. If so then the PO is (or I'd have thought, should be) liable for the underpaid fees, but the BC inspector should have noticed when performing the inspection.
* My LA get around this by having different base fees depending on whether you can supply BS<whatever> test results for the work. The difference happens to be about the cost of a PIR.
walcott - I'm sure we would all be very interested to know what happened about this.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
