LABC being uncooperative

[EFLImpudence]

You appear to have forgotten to underline the crucial bits which indicate what the bits you have underlined relate to,

Ok.

Are you saying that the notification shall contain adequate plans, details and extent of knowledge of installer so that the BC can decide that whilst sat in their office.

 

[JohnW2]

.... , the whole system would become nonsense.

Too late.

Daft though a lot of it may be, it surely can't be 'totally' daft - in that they would not have bothered to invent a procedure which couldn't be used, would they?

If, as you have almost suggested, the intent was that notifications (at least for some types of work) from people without electrical qualifications would automatically be 'rejected/refused', then they surely would have said that - i.e. would have introduced a procedure that was only available to those with electrical qualifications (but not CPS members), wouldn't they?

In any event, as I keep saying, that's not how it has been working. I know of a good few people who have absolutely no electrical qualifications who have successfully used the system, particularly pre-2013 when a lot more electrical work was notifiable (in England).

Kind Regards John

 

[JohnW2]

Ok. Are you saying that the notification shall contain adequate plans, details and extent of knowledge of installer so that the BC can decide that whilst sat in their office.

Not 'plans'. I know for sure that only a pretty general description of the intended work is required (e.g. 'replace CU' or 'install new sockets circuit'). However, as I said, although I previously expressed uncertainty about this, it sounds as if one might well have to declare any 'relevant electrical qualifications' when notifying - since, otherwise, as you imply, they would not have enough information on which to base their decisions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Daft though a lot of it may be, it surely can't be 'totally' daft - in that they would not have bothered to invent a procedure which couldn't be used, would they?

Yes.

If, as you have almost suggested, the intent was that notifications (at least for some types of work) from people without electrical qualifications would automatically be 'rejected/refused', then they surely would have said that - i.e. would have introduced a procedure that was only available to those with electrical qualifications (but not CPS members), wouldn't they?

That is the logical outcome of such a procedure.

In any event, as I keep saying, that's not how it has been working. I know of a good few people who have absolutely no electrical qualifications who have successfully used the system, particularly pre-2013 when a lot more electrical work was notifiable (in England).

Ok.

Could it be that the Local Authorities have not carried out their duties (perhaps understandably with reduced funding) to an acceptable level.
OR
The Government introduced something for which there was no available or qualified staff to implement - "Naaah!".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not 'plans'. I know for sure that only a pretty general description of the intended work is required (e.g. 'replace CU' or 'install new sockets circuit'). However, as I said, although I previously expressed uncertainty about this, it sounds as if one might well have to declare any 'relevant electrical qualifications' when notifying - since, otherwise, as you imply, they would not have enough information on which to base their decisions.

Ah. Getting there. So, what happens in those cases then?

 

[denso13]

it sounds as if one might well have to declare any 'relevant electrical qualifications' when notifying

Seems not. Two days notice of the works then it is ok to start.

https://www.bolton.gov.uk/downloads/file/695/building-notice-application-form-for-electrical-work

 

[JohnW2]

If a diy installation fails an LABC third party inspection could the diyer be prosecuted for contravening the Building Regs?

That would clearly be ridiculous.

I presume that, in practice, the first step would be to 'informally' ask the DIYer ro remedy the defect(s) -and perhaps pay an additional charge for a further inspection. If that failed, as with any controlled building work' the next step would presumably be the issuing of an Enforcement Notice. However, I'm not sure that even failing to comply with that would be a criminal offence, since I think the usual action in that situation is for the LA to have the remedial work undertaken "at the property owner's expense" - and if the property owner failed to 'pay up', I imagine that would probably be a matter fo the Civil Courts, not a criminal offence. However, I'm certainly no lawyer, so any of that may be wrong!.

Seemingly somewhat unusually for legislation, the Building Regs do not appear to have sections relating to "offences" or penalties". such matters may be dealt with somewhere within the text of the legislation, but I'm not going to plough through to find out!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Ah. Getting there. So, what happens in those cases then?

Which cases? If the notification forms ask about qualifications and one does not give an answer, then I presume that would either (a) assume that one has no relevant qualifications and make their decisions accordingly, or (b) ask.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

That would clearly be ridiculous.

I wondered if there was any possible sanction that non professional people had to take cognisance of, but it seems not.

The form doesn't ask for qualifications so any non professional can start with two days notice. It could be someone who has never even seen the inside of a socket or even how to test for dead properly. But they may just think that, having sent the notice in, they are good to go. That does seem to be the message.

 

[JohnW2]

Seems not. Two days notice of the works then it is ok to start. ...

Interesting. However, that LA seems to me more complicated than we have been discussing, because they seem to be insisting that the applicant arranges to have I&T undertaken by a member of NICEIC or "ECA" (who/what are they, and what about CPOSs other than NICEIC??) - which presumably means that the applicant's qualifications (or lack of them0 are Irrelevant - with my highlighting, you form says:***

If the electrical contractor is not a member of NICEIC or ECA, they must complete the Design and Construction parts of INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE (FORM 2) BS7671 (as amended) AND you are required to arrange for an electrical contractor who is a member of these bodies to inspect and test the installation to enable them to complete the Inspection and Testing part of the form.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

I took that to mean the electrical contractor stated on the form, if applicable. If left blank then the section you quoted wouldn't apply, IMHO. There would be no electrical contractor to fill out any BS7671 forms.

 

[JohnW2]

I wondered if there was any possible sanction that non professional people had to take cognisance of, but it seems not.

As I said, it would be ridiculous if anyone ('non-professional' or 'professional') for "failing an LABC third party inspection" without first at least being given an opportunity to remedy the defect(s) - particularly given that it's not impossible that the "failing of the inspection" could be the result of factors beyond the control of the installer (e.g. defective cables, accessories or devices).

It would be a bit different if there were persistent failure to respond to 'requests to remedy' - but, as I wrote, I'm not convinced that criminal prosecution is possible even then.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

As I said, it would be ridiculous if anyone ('non-professional' or 'professional') for "failing an LABC third party inspection" without first at least being given an opportunity to remedy the defect(s) - particularly given that it's not impossible that the "failing of the inspection"

I agree. It relates to the OP in as much as they won't be doing any testing, someone else will do that. There seems to be no incentive to get it right first time, as "someone else will check it and tell me what, if anything, is wrong. I can then fix it".

 

[JohnW2]

I took that to mean the electrical contractor stated on the form, if applicable. If left blank then the section you quoted wouldn't apply, IMHO. There would be no electrical contractor to fill out any BS7671 forms.

Yes, I saw that "if applicable", and hence wondered about the notes.

If your interpretation is correct, then I suppose that just brings us back to what I've been saying all along. Yes, the form doesn't ask about qualifications, so I assume that unless one completes that 'Electrical Contractor' section, they will assume that no-one involved has electrical qualifications, and will therefore arrange for their own I&T ... and, as we've both said, the work can then start 'immediately' (within 2 days) regardless of what, if any, response there is to the notification.

Using that form, if a DIYer applicant did have 'qualifications' (but not a member of NICEIC/"ECA") they would presumably have to record themselves as the 'Electrical Contractor', since they then they could presumably complete the Design and Construction parts of an EIC - but woud still have to arrange for a NICEiC/"ECA" member to unsdertake the I&T and complete that party of the EIC ?

As you will realise, that's what I have been suggesting all along.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

I actually just found it a bit strange that the OP is doing the work but doesn't care/won't do any testing as someone else will do it, and tell them what is wrong, if anything.

At least one LABC I have found says if they do a final test on a non professional install at the end, it may only be for the notifiable parts. Anything non notifiable may not be tested. I presume someone shouldn't be installing anything that won't ultimately be tested as ok? I don't know enough about electrical regulations.