House rewire certification

[bernardgreen]

And the primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work.

The person carrying out the work must comply but the it is the responsibility of the person employing them to ensure that they do comply.

Been there and personal experience is that the property owner is the person the LABC will take action against for non compliance. It is then up to the property owner to take it further against the person whose hands did the work.

( no action has been taken against me as nothing contravened in the house we self built but I needed to be 100% certain so I spoke to the LABC officers before starting the renovation project which may involve trades people being employed )

 

[lynch_i]

Hi,

I had my house rewired by a friend who is an electrician of many years. He did the whole house over a period of time, as we decorated each room, and completed the job over the period of about a year.

How long ago was this?
Have you approached your electrician friend about the lack of a certificate?

plugwash,

The job was finished about a year ago, the job was done over a year, room by room except the kitchen which was untouched. The electrician put in a new consumer unit at the end and did a lot of testing with what I am assuming is specialist equipment. He also pointed out all the failings with the old installation, too many spurs on a ring, upstairs/downstairs not on separate rings etc so i believe his work is of a good standard.

I have spoke to the electrician who said he can issue me with a installation certificate but i do not know if this enough.

 

[dhutch]

I bought my house, orignally re-wired in the 80's, but added to by the previous owner more recently.
- Had a elec survay done (full day job) which with a few adjustments and a new consumer unit it passed without issue.

However, on moving in, i have uncovered all sorts of thing I wouldnt have missed if i where doing a indepth inspection, and im not in anyway qualified (other than common sence and a degree in mechical engineering) so survays dont always mean much.

I wasnt there while it was conducted as it was overseen by the previous owner, but I selected the guy, from the list on the NICEIC website.


Daniel

 

[Paul_C]

So, it looks like the owner/person ordering work is responsible for the initial notification, but persons carrying out the work (e.g. Mr Sparky), have to notify there intention to commence work on the job.

I think, in that case, that the building owner would be ultimately responsible for notification - as they have to make the first application.

As discussed recently:
//www.diynot.com/forums/electrics/qualified-electrician.300516/page-2

Before 2004 there was no need for a completion certificate. Or to inform the LABC.

It's before 2005. Part P came into effect January 1, 2005.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The person carrying out the work must comply but the it is the responsibility of the person employing them to ensure that they do comply.

Been there and personal experience is that the property owner is the person the LABC will take action against for non compliance. It is then up to the property owner to take it further against the person whose hands did the work.

Ultimately they will always go after the property owner, even if he didn't commission the work, to resolve contraventions.

But if Mr Homeowner has an electrician install a socket in his garden, and the electrician is not registered, then in the absence of any agreement between the electrician and his customer to the contrary, it is the electrician's responsibility to submit the Building Regulations approval request.

Just as it is the electrician's responsibility to ensure that Part P is complied with, it is his responsibility to ensure that Part 3 is complied with, because he is the one carrying out the work.

 

[Paul_C]

Ultimately they will always go after the property owner, even if he didn't commission the work, to resolve contraventions.

But if Mr Homeowner has an electrician install a socket in his garden, and the electrician is not registered, then in the absence of any agreement between the electrician and his customer to the contrary, it is the electrician's responsibility to submit the Building Regulations approval request.

If it really is the electrician's legal responsibility to notify, and his alone, then what grounds would there be to go after the homeowner? He wouldn't have broken any regulations.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That provision is there to deal with actual work which needs rectifying.

So if you own a property which has had dodgy work done and is now structurally unsound, for example, then even if you didn't do it yourself, or even if it was like it when you bought it, then the council can seek to force you to rectify it.

IANAL, but IMO if the only contravention was failure to notify then any attempt by a council to force the current owner to "rectify" that non-compliance, i.e. to force him to submit a regularisation request, would be viewed with disapproval by the courts.

But assuming that they wanted to prosecute someone, and they could go for the electrician who did the work and didn't notify, or the homeowner who just asked him to install a socket in his garden, who's the most likely to get his collar felt?

 

[Paul_C]

So if you own a property which has had dodgy work done and is now structurally unsound, for example, then even if you didn't do it yourself, or even if it was like it when you bought it, then the council can seek to force you to rectify it.

Not disputing that that's what happens, but surely that weakens your argument that it is the person who physically executes the work, and he alone, who is responsible for notification?

You're saying that for the notification requirement in regulation 12 a person who "intends to carry out building work" means the person who physically builds the wall, installs the socket outlet, fits the toilet, or whatever, and not the homeowner who commissions the work.

The wording which appears to be that which requires that the work meet certain minimum standards:

4.— (1) Subject to paragraph (2) building work shall be carried out so that—

(a) it complies with the applicable requirements contained in Schedule 1;

- and -

7. Building work shall be carried out—

(a) with adequate and proper materials which—

(i) are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used,

(ii) are adequately mixed or prepared, and

(iii) are applied, used or fixed so as adequately to perform the functions for which they are designed; and

(b) in a workmanlike manner.

Admittedly the wording there is slightly different in that in doesn't refer explicitly to a person carrying out building work, but nevertheless, if the work is not carried out in compliance with schedule 1, or not using proper materials, etc., then how can the homeowner be contravening regulations 4 or 7 if he is not the one who did the work?

For consistency, surely the same interpretation as to who has done the work and who is responsible for that work must be same in regulation 12 as it is for regulations 4 & 7?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You seem to be getting confused between who is responsible for compliance, and therefore (theoretically) liable for prosecution for contravention, and who can be made to rectify non-compliant work to bring it into compliance.

The two are separate - if some cowboy builder does you a loft conversion which is in danger of pancaking onto the floors below you won't face prosecution for contravention of Part A, but if the builder can't be found to put it right, you will be served with an enforcement notice and made to make it safe.

 

[Paul_C]

Accepted - Looking at para. 36 in The Building Act 1984 it does refer specifically to the owner of a building:

(1) If any work to which building regulations are applicable contravenes any of those regulations, the local authority, without prejudice to their right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention, may by notice require the owner—

(a) to pull down or remove the work, or

(b) if he so elects, to effect such alterations in it as may be necessary to make it comply with the regulations.

But presumably with your interpretation of who is responsible for notification under regulation 12 of the Building Regulations, you would agree that the homeowner, if not the person who actually executed the work, would not have contravened regulations 4 & 7?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If he didn't do it he can't have failed to do it properly.