Had new consumer unit fitted... what next?

[EFLImpudence]

I would say that it's an obvious situation for negotiating a compromise, whereby no-one is likely to 'lose' much, even in the worst of scenarios one might imagine.

Yes, but if both refuse to budge, then I would think being without a certificate less of a disadvantage than never being paid.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but if both refuse to budge, then I would think being without a certificate less of a disadvantage than never being paid.

Well, yes, if the choice were that extreme, then you'd obviously be right.

However, I don't really see why any sensible person should 'refuse to budge' in the direction of what I was suggesting. I wouldn't think that either would have a problem with an initial payment being made for all the work that had already been done (i.e. everything other than provision of the certs) and, as for the final payment, if there is a lack of trust, the certificates and payment can be exchanged essentially 'simultaneously' (even via a third party 'intermediary' if there is a serious lack of trust).

Do you know if the ;'scheme providers' have a view on this issue?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you know if the ;'scheme providers' have a view on this issue?

Only that you must notify them (Elecsa) within thirty days and they will issue a Certificate of Compliance, so, if the electrician is not going to tell Elecsa either until paid, I would think that is wrong.

The customer, if not recieving the CofC within, say, sixty days could enquire of Elecsa where it is, although, of course they will not have a copy of the installation certificates.
Something might happen.

 

[JohnW2]

Only that you must notify them (Elecsa) within thirty days and they will issue a Certificate of Compliance, so, if the electrician is not going to tell Elecsa either until paid, I would think that is wrong.

Do they issue the Certificate of Compliance to the electrician or to the customer? If the former, then the electrician could report to the scheme provider within 30 Days and still withhold the Cert of Compliance from the customer until he was paid. However, as you say, the Cert of Compliance is only part of the paperwork which should be given to the customer.

However, that's not really what I was asking. I was wondering whether scheme providers had a view as to whether it is acceptable for their members to withhold paperwork from customers until the full bill had been paid.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All work is completed

No it isn't.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do they issue the Certificate of Compliance to the electrician or to the customer?

Customer.

However, that's not really what I was asking. I was wondering whether scheme providers had a view as to whether it is acceptable for their members to withhold paperwork from customers until the full bill had been paid.

Well, I never asked them. I hardly think it appropriate advice for them to offer gratuitously.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, I never asked them. I hardly think it appropriate advice for them to offer gratuitously.

It wasn't really 'advice' I was thinking about - but, rather, 'rules of membership' and 'expected practices of members'.

In other words, if a customer complained to a scheme provider that one of their members had undertaken electrical work for them but was not providing the expected documentation, would they 'take action' against that member (at least, 'have words'), or would they accept that the fact that the electrician had not been paid 'in full' (i.e. including payment for provision of documentation) be regarded as an acceptable reason for the documentation being withheld?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Working to BS7671 is a rule of membership.

I don't expect either it nor a scheme actually says so, one way or the other, but it does not seem ethical.



My point was that even in such a circumstance the electrician should (must) notify the scheme within thirty days - so the customer will, regardless, receive the CofC even if still not receiving the installation certificates.
If the electrician does not inform the scheme within the thirty days then he is definitely breaking the rules.


Edit - spelling mistakes/typos

 

[JohnW2]

Working to BS7671 is a rlue of membership. .. .. I don't expect either it or a scheme actually says so, one way or the other, but it does not seem ethical.

I suppose that there will be varying views/opinions about that....

... Whilst 'payment in advance' for services is common in the big wide world (utility standing charges, insurance premiums, Council Tax, Car Tax, 'memberships' etc. etc.), in the absence of 'staged payments' it is not, in general, something one usually see in relation to services provided by 'tradespeople'. Hence, if the work were split into two quotations (and two bills), one for 'the physical work' (plus materials) and the other for provision of documentation, then it would be arguably reasonable for the second of those bills to be paid after the corresponding work (provision of the paperwork) had been completed - which is essentially a formalised version of the 'compromise' approach I previously mentioned.

My point was that even in such a circumstance the electrician should (must) notify the scheme within thirty days - so the customer will, regardless, receive the CofC even if still not receiving the installation certificates. If the electrician does not inform the scheme within the thirty days then he is definately breaking the rules.

Yes, I understand and accept that but, as we have both said, that just the CofC, leaving all the other documentation unaddressed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suppose that there will be varying views/opinions about that....

... Whilst 'payment in advance' for services is common in the big wide world (utility standing charges, insurance premiums, Council Tax, Car Tax, 'memberships' etc. etc.), in the absence of 'staged payments' it is not, in general, something one usually see in relation to services provided by 'tradespeople'. Hence, if the work were split into two quotations (and two bills), one for 'the physical work' (plus materials) and the other for provision of documentation, then it would be arguably reasonable for the second of those bills to be paid after the corresponding work (provision of the paperwork) had been completed - which is essentially a formalised version of the 'compromise' approach I previously mentioned.

...but, as said, the documentation goes with the work. It is not an optional extra.

Stating that large corporations demand payment in advance is no argument one way or another. If one doesn't pay one doesn't get the service; fair enough. It is extremely unlikely that electricians would be paid in advance; the work would likely go to someone not asking for it.
The examples you quote are not really the same as they are all things which now can be limited to just one month in advance and traditionally paid in advance.
I don't think even British Gas ask for payment for work in advance.

Stating that possible solutions could be employed but aren't is irrelevant.

Yes, I understand and accept that but, as we have both said, that just the CofC, leaving all the other documentation unaddressed.

Yes, but it is proof that the work has been completed and that documentation should have been issued - and possibly enough to satisfy the selling of the property.

 

[JohnW2]

...but, as said, the documentation goes with the work. It is not an optional extra.

It isn't. However, that doesn't mean that the work cannot be split up into bits which (assuming not 'payment in advance') can be billed and paid for when the relevant parts of the work have been completed (as with more formal 'staged payments').

It almost sounds as if, by regarding the documentation as part of the work (and accepting that work will be paid for 'after completion') you are saying that (as per comments which started this discussion) the electrician should not be paid anything until all of the work (including provision of documentation) has been completed - is that your view?

Stating that large corporations demand payment in advance is no argument one way or another. If one doesn't pay one doesn't get the service; fair enough. It is extremely unlikely that electricians would be paid in advance; the work would likely go to someone not asking for it.

Isn't that exactly what I said? - that, although many other things (like 'large corporations' and government/agencies) ask for payment in advance, it is not something which generally happens in relation to services provided by tradespeople.

The examples you quote are not really the same as they are all things which now can be limited to just one month in advance and traditionally paid in advance.

That's different - the big corporations (and government departments/agencies) still mainly ask for payment in advance, but they are often prepared to give you (or, more commonly, arrange for you to be given) credit (i.e. a loan), and invariably charge 'interest' for paying by, say, monthly payments (only idiots would pay 'for a year' if paying monthly cost no more!). Indeed, in the case of a good few of the insurance premiums, 'memberships' etc. I pay monthly, the credit/loan is provided by a third party with whom I have a formal Credit Agreement.

Yes, but it is proof that the work has been completed and that documentation should have been issued - and possibly enough to satisfy the selling of the property.

Yes, that's all true.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It isn't. However, that doesn't mean that the work cannot be split up into bits which (assuming not 'payment in advance') can be billed and paid for when the relevant parts of the work have been completed (as with more formal 'staged payments').

...but it wasn't.
If it were, then the electrician is saying I am not going to do the last part until you pay in advance.

The solution is obvious in this impasse, as I said, they should meet and exchange at the same time.

It almost sounds as if, by regarding the documentation as part of the work (and accepting that work will be paid for 'after completion') you are saying that (as per comments which started this discussion) the electrician should not be paid anything until all of the work (including provision of documentation) has been completed - is that your view?

Yes. He has not finished.

Isn't that exactly what I said? that, although many other things (like 'large corporations' and government/agencies) ask for payment in advance, it is not something which generally happens in relation to services provided by tradespeople.-

Yes, but the situations are not comparable.

That's different

Of course it is.
You are doing what you often do. Namely: introduce hypothetical situations (which have nothing to do with the matter) and start arguing about them.

- the big corporations (and government departments/agencies) still mainly ask for payment in advance, but they are often prepared to give you (or, more commonly, arrange for you to be given) credit (i.e. a loan), and invariably charge 'interest' for paying by, say, monthly payments (only idiots would pay 'for a year' if paying monthly cost no more!). Indeed, in the case of a good few of the insurance premiums, 'memberships' etc. I pay monthly, the credit/loan is provided by a third party with whom I have a formal Credit Agreement.

So?
I believe Council Tax payments are not subject to interest.
That Motor insurance (and others) is could be considered a rip-off. One has no choice.
If I hire a car, I must give my credit card details so that the company can take whatever they want.

 

[JohnW2]

The solution is obvious in this impasse, as I said, they should meet and exchange at the same time.

Indeed. As I said, that's the obvious thing to do as regards payment for provision of the documents (if that were done as a separate 'item'). If the electrician is prepared to wait until then for all of his money, then fair enough.

Yes. He has not finished.

Again, fair enough. If the electrician regards provision of the documents as 'part of the job' (which it is) and is prepared to wait until he's done that before he is paid anything at all, then fair enough.

Yes, but the situations are not comparable. Of course it is. You are doing what you often do. Namely: introduce hypothetical situations (which have nothing to do with the matter) and start arguing about them.

I seem to be the victim of my own 'paranoia', in attempting to pre-empt people who pick apart anything I write. I thought that if (thinking of tradesmen etc.) I simply wrote that we do not normally pay for services in advance, some kind soul would have jumped on me and pointed out all those services (insurance, memberships/subscriptions, car tax etc.) for which we are required to pay in advance. I therefore mentioned those other (irrelevant) things in an attempt to protect myself from 'attack'!

I believe Council Tax payments are not subject to interest. That Motor insurance (and others) is could be considered a rip-off. One has no choice.

As you say, all this is totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion but, since you've raised it .... I can't remember about Council Tax, but if that is true, it must be one of the very few examples of something for which one is required to pay in advance but with monthly instalments costing no more than a yearly payment (and I wonder why on earth anyone would pay a whole year of Council Tax up front if it cost no less than monthly payments). As for the 'rip off', there clearly are many services (insurance, memberships/subscriptions, utilities {standing charges}, car tax etc.) for which one really has to 'pay in advance', since one can't really expect the provider to provide the 'service' on the basis of trust that you will pay for it at the end of the current 'period', but I see no reason why one could not, say, pay monthly in advance for just one month (rather than a year) of the service, thereby avoiding the need for credit/interest.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

but, since you've raised it

 

[JohnW2]

I've told you why I mentioned the 'payment in advance' of big corporations and government depts/agencies etc. (an attempt to avoid being 'taken to task' had I only mentioned the practice of tradespeople). You commented on that, so I responded, and then you commented again, so I responded again!

It really is totally irrelevant to the discussion about withholding payment to an electrician until the documents are provided.

Kind Regards, John