LABC being uncooperative

[ebee]

I believe Building Control are free to subcontract the testing to an electrician of their choice and pass the cost on to the home owner, on top of the normal BC notice charge.

Unless that's changed?

Yes I believe so, but it they were not originally allowed to charge apparently but they still did. In fact when our LABC called all interested parties of Electricians in the area to a meeting to discuss the upcoming Part P they had their own contracted electrician who was still on the C & G 2380 & 2391 courses with a view to passing his exams and being their own selected subcontracted tester.

 

[JohnW2]

Absolutely correct John, there is no law saying you must conform to BS7671 it is not statute (the exception being a mention in the fairly recent landlord thingy that it must be inspected for safety and compared against one particular edition/amendment). Of course if you agree to a contract to conform to BS7671 (and that includes being a scheme member) well that is contract law.

We are agreed.

Having said that, it would be a very determined sole who flies against it in actual real life though. By far the easiest, sanest, most economical route is to comply with BS7671. We should treat it as our Bible, the On Site Guide is the recipe book,....

Exactly. As I implied, one probably can't blame BCOs (most of whom have no electrical training and little electrical knowledge) for looking to BS7671 for guidance but, as we have both said, it would be an uphill struggle, that most would not want to climb, to attempt to challenge the view that had been taken by a BCO, particularly if it were in relation to something which was not strictly 'BS7671-compliant'.

the Approved Doc P is not the bible but again more like a recipe book, being one suggested way to comply with the law including Part P.

Unlike the original Approve Doc P (which I imagine is still applicable in Wales) the current one for England contains virtually no information about electrical matters, relating almost entirely to 'administrative/logistical' matters.

In essence, BS7671 is not actually the law , however always treat it as though it actually is.

Exactly. For better or worse, pragmatically-speaking that is really the situation

So ref the OP, the Building Control Officer was probably using much of an erroneous blanket statement of half truths in order to achieve the best outcome for himself and others, usually having the required result I strongly suspect.

Maybe - but nothing in BS7671, the Building Regs or anything else gives an LABC/BCO the authority to 'reject' or 'refuse to accept' a Building Notice from a non-electrician. As far as I am aware, if they receive it, they have to accept it, and then make whatever arrangements for I&T that they feel are necessary.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Maybe - but nothing in BS7671, the Building Regs or anything else gives an LABC/BCO the authority to 'reject' or 'refuse to accept' a Building Notice from a non-electrician. As far as I am aware, if they receive it, they have to accept it, and then make whatever arrangements for I&T that they feel are necessary.

Kind Regards, John

Agreed John.

PS - I have noticed, over the years, that some officials of some organisations have a tendency to assume authority that they do not actually possess, particularly local council officials. Much the same be said with private companies or individuals assuming that they can unilaterally just add their own bits onto contracts once made, sometimes such sneaky conditions are added to receipts and have no validity

 

[Taylortwocities]

Unlike the original Approve Doc P (which I imagine is still applicable in Wales) the current one for England contains virtually no information about electrical matters, relating almost entirely to 'administrative/logistical' matters.

The current Online Approved Document appears to be from 2013. And does refer to BS7671. Helpfully BS7671 is noted as the standard referred to but (joy) its 17th edition from 2011
so we wouldnt need to have to bother with the 18th.

This page would seem to encompass all we have been talking about. OP raises building notice and pays the fee. There's a bit in there that says that if the job is easy then LABC might reduce the building notice fee. Yeah, that's going to happen....

 

[ebee]

This page would seem to encompass all we have been talking about. OP raises building notice and pays the fee. There's a bit in there that says that if the job is easy then LABC might reduce the building notice fee. Yeah, that's going to happen..

We live in hope TTC, dont we? swine fuelled and ready to fly!

 

[ebee]

 

[ebee]

I like that one

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed John.

PS - I have noticed, over the years, that some officials of some organisations have a tendency to assume authority that they do not actually possess, particularly local council officials.

Indeed - but, as you imply, it's by no means restricted to LA 'officials' (whatever that means!)

I think it has event crept into the police force. It seems that at least some, probably many, seem to think that the slightest of trivial 'touching' of a police officer is an "assault",whereas they would laugh at the suggestion from any other alleged 'victim' that a 'light casual touch' should be prosecuted as an assault! Also, long before there was any "Public Order" legislation, many of them seemed to think that swearing etc. at a police officer was in a different league from swearing at anyone else!

Much the same be said with private companies or individuals assuming that they can unilaterally just add their own bits onto contracts once made, sometimes such sneaky conditions are added to receipts and have no validity

Very much so - although, for those who can be bothered to try to challenge such things, they generally have the law on their side.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The current Online Approved Document appears to be from 2013. And does refer to BS7671. Helpfully BS7671 is noted as the standard referred to but (joy) its 17th edition from 2011 so we wouldnt need to have to bother with the 18th.

Yes, it does mention BS7671 (2008!) but, as I said, it's contents are almost entirely 'procedural', not directly related to anything elecytrical. In contrast, the original (2006) version had (in Appendices) a fair bit of 'electrical' stuff.

This page would seem to encompass all we have been talking about. OP raises building notice and pays the fee.

Quite so - as I've been saying all along. The lesson, I think, is that one should not 'talk to the LABC' but, rtaher, just submit a Building Notice to them.

There's a bit in there that says that if the job is easy then LABC might reduce the building notice fee. Yeah, that's going to happen....

As with all these matters, I think it various tremendously between LABCs and individual BCOs.

I've certainly known of cases (in relation to possibly 'grey area' work) in which an LABC/BCO has told a DIYer applicant that they would (applying their discretion) not regard the proposed work as being notifiable,, and therefore advised the applicant to 'withdraw the Building Notice' (whereupon the y refunded the fee, if it had already been paid).

More interesting, I am currently in discussion with a BCO (without revealing to him the identity of the property in question ) about some pretty minor work which, because of the way in which the Building Regs have been written is, undeniably, strictly notifiable under Part H. He appears to be saying that, although he agrees that, 'strictly speaking', the work would be notifiable, it is a situation in which he (his LABC) would be prepared (as they are allowed to under 11.1 of the Building Regs) to waive the requirement for notification (to quote him ... "on the basis of common sense").

So not all LABCs/BCOs are silly and 'money grabbing'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

So not all LABCs/BCOs are silly and 'money grabbing'.

Yes despite what I pointed out I still agree with that one John

 

[securespark]

I wanted to rewire our gaff years ago.

Called up LABC, explained I was a qualified spark working for a firm doing notifiable work for customers.

They told me they couldn't possibly allow me to start work without supplying them with all my certs and FULL plans of the rewire, before they would allow me to start work!

Regarding DNOs taking over equipment outside their remit, I had a visit from Norweb, back in the day.

Before they would connect my work, the inspector demanded I replace a breaker with a cartridge fuse and upgrade the MEBs.

I showed him the adiabatic equations which showed the existing sizes were fine. I could tell he hadn't got a clue.

I asked him if the main cable to the property was going to be upgraded because by his reckoning, the earth was undersized.

Turns out nobody likes a cocky b'stard....

He demanded upgrades or no connection.

When he finally came to connect and seal up, he put seals and NORWEB labels on the Henleys I had installed. I had to argue tooth and nail that he had no authority to do this; that it was the householder's equipment, not theirs.

It took many minutes of heated discussion and eventually a phone call to NORWEB before he backed down.

I met him several times over the years and we weren't the best of mates....

 

[JohnW2]

I wanted to rewire our gaff years ago. ... Called up LABC, explained I was a qualified spark working for a firm doing notifiable work for customers. .... They told me they couldn't possibly allow me to start work without supplying them with all my certs and FULL plans of the rewire, before they would allow me to start work!

As I said of the OP in this thread, I think your 'mistake' was probably in "calling them". Had you simply submitted a Building Notice (not a 'Full Plans' application), stating the date on which you intended to start the work, I think they would have had to accept that Notice, and couldn't have told you 'not to start'.

It would then have been down to them to decide what they wanted to do about I&T. If they were consdiering accepting your testing,it would not have been unreasonable for them to ask for your certs - and, if they didn't 'like the certs' (or, indeed,if you didn't have any) it would be down to them to make arrangements for whatever I&T they felt necessary - just as would be the case if I submitted a Building Notice.

Regarding DNOs taking over equipment outside their remit, I had a visit from Norweb, back in the day. ... Before they would connect my work, the inspector demanded I replace a breaker with a cartridge fuse and upgrade the MEBs. .... I showed him the adiabatic equations which showed the existing sizes were fine. I could tell he hadn't got a clue. .... I asked him if the main cable to the property was going to be upgraded because by his reckoning, the earth was undersized. Turns out nobody likes a cocky b'stard.... He demanded upgrades or no connection. ....

All I can say, is that I'm glad you eventually 'won'! This is, of course, totally different from the issue (concerning LABCs, BCOs, The Building Regs and Notification) that we have been discussing. DNOs seem to work to 'their own rules', and I suppose have the right to decide 'what they are prepared to connect' (or 'not connect'), even if it's BS7671-compliant and satisfactory in the eyes of an LABC !

Kind Regards, John