LABC being uncooperative

[JohnW2]

The OP's home may well have existing faults, that the existing CU will not "spot" - change to a unit with RCD's and they could be faced with a situation where the RCD's won't hold. .... What don't you understand about this?

You keep mentioning, or alluding to, that one possibility but, other than that, I can think of no other way in which replacing a CU (correctly!) could render an installation 'unusable', can you?

In any event, as he has now confirmed, the OP's existing CU does have RCD protection - so what other 'doom scenarios' can you think of in which changing the CU could make the installation 'unusable' in his case?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok.

Having always been a registered electrician, I have had no dealings with Building Control.

However, since The Building Regulation 12 (it is not Part P) included electrical work in 2005 to regulate ancillary trades and DIYers I have always understood the the BC could prevent people they deemed unsuitable from doing notifiable electrical work.
What, other than that, was the legislation intended to do? Surely some form of 'permission' must be given.

In this document:

Do I need building regulations approval for electrical work? | LABC

As a homeowner it's your responsibility to ensure electrical work complies with building regulations. It’s easier and safer to use an electrician registered with a competent person scheme.

www.labc.co.uk

is the following:

"The regulations do not stop you doing your own work or using an unregistered tradesperson, but you will need to make a Building Regulations Application for approval."

So - what happens if that approval is refused?

 

[senfre_]

What, other than that, was the legislation intended to do? Surely some form of 'permission' must be given.

Well whilst they can't reject work beforehand, they do have a right (an obligation, actually) to inspect it during & afterwards and issue enforcement notices if they don't think it's compliant, so they do have some oversight. I assume they didn't have that ability before 2005, because it wasn't notifiable?

So - what happens if that approval is refused?

As we've been discussing above, the notion that you have to apply for electrical work seems to be unsubstantiated.. part P only requires you to notify.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well whilst they can't reject work beforehand,

No, but they could determine that you, for instance, do not have the necessary equipment; not to mention knowledge.

they do have a right (an obligation, actually) to inspect it during & afterwards and issue enforcement notices if they don't think it's compliant, so they do have some oversight.

Yes, but what does "The regulations do not stop you doing your own work or using an unregistered tradesperson, but you will need to make a Building Regulations Application for approval." mean should they not approve.

It can't mean they have no choice in the matter.

I assume they didn't have that ability before 2005, because it wasn't notifiable?

Correct.

As we've been discussing above, the notion that you have to apply for electrical work seems to be unsubstantiated.

Surely it is the same as any work where BC are concerned. You are not allowed to build something without approval.

part P only requires you to notify.

It's not Part P; it is Regulation 12.

Part P merely states:

So what if the BC decide you cannot ensure that safety because you do not have the required test equipment, not to mention knowledge.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

For what it's worth, the existing CU does already have a 30mA RCD

They do... but electrical work is mysteriously absent: https://www.gedling.gov.uk/media/gedlingboroughcouncil/documents/planningbuildingcontrol/BC Fees April 2023.pdf

Naughty of them. You will almost certainly find (if you can get a quote out of them) that it will be cheaper to do as i did. If you want to spend 6 months battling with them then feel free.....

 

[JohnW2]

However, since The Building Regulation 12 (it is not Part P) included electrical work in 2005 to regulate ancillary trades and DIYers

I'm not sure that was the sole, or even the main, intent. I would have thought that the intention was to introduce 'regulation' for all electrical work (which is predominantly undertaken by electricians), in the same way as all other types of Building work are 'regulated'

I have always understood the the BC could prevent people they deemed unsuitable from doing notifiable electrical work.

What led you to that 'understanding' ?

What, other than that, was the legislation intended to do? Surely some form of 'permission' must be given.

A Building Notice is a statement of one's intent to undertake certain work. I'm not aware of any mechanism for them to 'not accept' such a Notice, nor have I seen any mention of any 'permission' being required. The legislation certainly says nothing about that, and even most of the 'guidance' documents say that once one has given that Notice, indicating when one intends to start the work, that one can 'go ahead'.

As for "what is the legislation intended to do", you tell me! If (on the basis of the inspection that they are meant gto do) an LABC is not happy with the work, they would presumably refuse to issue a Completion Certificate, but what else may then (in practice) happen I don't know. I suppose that they could (as they can in relation to anything regulated by the Building Regs) take 'enforcement action', but I have to say that I've never heard of that happening in relation to electrical work - have you?

In this document: ..... is the following:
"The regulations do not stop you doing your own work or using an unregistered tradesperson, but you will need to make a Building Regulations Application for approval."

I don't know where the words "for approval" came from, since, as above, I see nothing about that in the legislation. As I think I may have posted recently. the Planning Portal says this:

Once you have given your 'building notice' and informed your local authority that you are about to start work, the work will be inspected as it progresses. You will be advised by the authority if the work does not comply with the building regulations.

This seems to imply that they do not have to 'approve' but that they can (and would) indicate if the work one is proposing to do would not be compliant with the Building Regs - the implication then being that if the work was undertaken as described, they would not issue a Completion Cert - but, as above, 'what then?'.

In practice, the description of the work in a Building notice is surely likely to be so 'vague' (e.g. "Replace CU with XYZ" or "Install a new radial sockets circuit") that they would very rarely be able to determine from the description that the work, if done, would not be compliant, isn't it?

Ironically, the thing which would (should) concern them most, namely that the applicant was not competent to do the work satisfactorily/safely, is not really something which they could determine from a Building Notice. I can't remember whether Building Notice application forms ask about 'qualifications' ( think not) but, even if they do, the absence of any 'relevant qualifications' (which will be the case with most DIYers, and probably some 'other tradespersons') does not in any way necessarily indicative 'incompetence'.

So - what happens if that approval is refused?

As above, I'm not at all sure that it can be 'refused', in which case 'refusing to issue a Completion Cert' might well be the most they could do- but, again as above, "what then?".

Furthermore, as I've said, I doubt that there is usually enough information in a Building Notice to tell them that they should 'refuse an application' ('not approve' the application), even if such an option existed for them, so it's hard to see under what circumstance they could legitimately 'refuse' (to 'approve' an application)., even that that option is available to them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So what if the BC decide you cannot ensure that safety because you do not have the required test equipment, not to mention knowledge.

Good question - but, as I've just written, I can't see that they would be in a position to 'decide' that on the basis of what information existed in a Building Notice. As I said, I'm not sure that they can do more than refuse to issue a Completion Cert - and the only thing beyond that I can think of would be an 'enforcement notice', but I've personally never heard of that happening in relation to electrical work.

You may be forgetting that none of this system was necessarily meant to make any sense .

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Good question - but, as I've just written, I can't see that they would be in a position to 'decide' that on the basis of what information existed in a Building Notice. As I said, I'm not sure that they can do more than refuse to issue a Completion Cert - and the only thing beyond that I can think of would be an 'enforcement notice', but I've personally never heard of that happening in relation to electrical work.

You may be forgetting that none of this system was necessarily meant to make any sense .

Kind Regards, John

The only enforcement notices I've known of:

Mid 70's a house that genuinely qualified for it. I'd have pulled the fuse myself if someone else hadn't.

Late 80's in a flat, cutout and meter in basement, lots of metres of rubber/cotton singles in conduit to a sealed 2p fused switch/isolator showing LED property label outside each flat. the singles simply rotted which was discovered during a flood. LEB cut the power at the C/O and an enforcement notice arrived. It created a lot of complaints as the residents believed the LEB labels and seals on the various accessories and conduits/boxes indicated them being LEB property. To get my friends power back on I removed seals and pulled in new singles, not having access to the locked basement and the steel panel therein took ages to arrange an appointment with LEB to complete. Their engineer queried why I was involved as he expected it to be a LEB job. The arguments continued for several weeks before landlords brought in electricians then months to accept my friend wasn't liable for paying for the other flats.

I've heard of a couple of others but not known of much in the way of details.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You may be forgetting that none of this system was necessarily meant to make any sense .

I think then that that must be the situation.

It certainly does not make sense if the BC can do nothing other than say "Ok" to everyone.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What led you to that 'understanding' ?

Well, without that option none of it makes sense - but we have just covered that.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, without that option none of it makes sense - but we have just covered that.

Oh - and the fact that notification (from the non registered) must be given before the work starts.

In view of what you think, what difference does the timing make? Another nonsense?

 

[JohnW2]

I think then that that must be the situation.

Quite possibly!

It certainly does not make sense if the BC can do nothing other than say "Ok" to everyone.

My point is that, from what I can see, they don't need to 'say' anything ("OK" or otherwise) when they receive an 'application'. As far as I can make out, their (essentially sole) role is to ascertain, when the work has been done (and, in some cases, whilst it is being done) whether the work is compliant with the regulations, and then issue a Completion Certificate if they are satisfied (although, as discussed, I'm not sure what is meant to happen if they are not satisfied !).

I'm not sure that this is quite as strange as you imply. One can 'apply for' ('put in an application for') for any number of things (exams, driving tests, benefits/grants, even jobs). In general, the recipient of that application cannot (or does not) ever 'reject' the application, but that does not mean anything in terms of the 'outcome' of the application - i.e. one might fail the exam/test, or not get the grant/benefit/job/whatever, even if 'the application has been accepted'.

I think one of the main practical points I have made (which essentially supports the belief that they are very unlikley to be able to ''reject/refuse an application' on the basis of the information available to them in Building Notice. Unless one proposed something crazy like "I propose to replace by RCDs with VOELCBs, the work as described in the Notice ('replace CU', 'install new sockets circuit' etc.) would nearly always be compliant (once completed) so long as it was done in a compliant fashion - and no-one can decide that won't be the case before the work has been done.

KInd Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Oh - and the fact that notification (from the non registered) must be given before the work starts. In view of what you think, what difference does the timing make? Another nonsense?

I don't see a problem with that. At least theoretically, they might want to undertake their 'first inspection' at a very early stage, so need to know before it starts, particularly given that the majority of electrical works are probably usually completed within a day or three of starting.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The only enforcement notices I've known of: ...

I'm a bit confused - what part of what you go on to describe has got anything to do with an LABC Enforcement Notice?

Apart from anything else, "late 80s" was better part of two decades before LABCs had any involvement/interest in matters electrical.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't see a problem with that.

...except...

At least theoretically, they might want to undertake their 'first inspection' at a very early stage, so need to know before it starts,

Exactly.

So what happens when their first inspection discovers the work is all crap.

...or...

particularly given that the majority of electrical works are probably usually completed within a day or three of starting.

It is all finished and the hidden parts cannot be inspected.

Does the householder not have to wait for communication from BC before starting?