LABC being uncooperative

[JohnW2]

Some of it, possibly not the non-notifiable parts. It's going to get quite expensive getting people in to test all this, perhaps several times.

Indeed. As I said it's understandable that LABC would probably only do I&T of the notifiable parts, since that is their only 'interest' - if there were no notifiable parts to the work, they obviously would not be involved, or testing anything.

As for the extent (if any!) of testing of non-notifiable parts of the work, as I (and others) are always saying, that is an issue which applies to any DIY electrical work, and if one took the view that no electrical work should be done without 'full required testing', then one would almost be saying that no DIY electrical work should be done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As for the extent (if any!) of testing of non-notifiable parts of the work, as I (and others) are always saying, that is an issue which applies to any DIY electrical work,

It does.

and if one took the view that no electrical work should be done without 'full required testing', then one would almost be saying that no DIY electrical work should be done.

That depends on your definition of "DIY".

You appear to be of the view that all DIY work is by nature inferior whereas there is no reason why a DIYer should not do work that is equivalent to a professional standard (that of course also assumes that all professional work is to an acceptable standard) and have the necessary tools and equipment.

 

[JohnW2]

That depends on your definition of "DIY".

I am referring to electrical work undertaken by people without electrical qualifications and/or without the equipment/knowledge that would enable them to undertake 'all required testing'

You appear to be of the view that all DIY work is by nature inferior ....

Eh? That's the very last thing I would suggest (other than in the sense mentioned below)!

... whereas there is no reason why a DIYer should not do work that is equivalent to a professional standard (that of course also assumes that all professional work is to an acceptable standard) and have the necessary tools and equipment.

Ah, I see what you are getting at - but I've really answered that above, with my "and/or". One would certainly hope that the actual ('construction') work would be undertaken to the same 'professional standard', regardless of who was doing it. However, it is a simple fact that the vast majority of non-electricians who undertake electrical work are not equipped to undertake testing to the "professional standard" - so, in that sense, I suppose you could say that means that DIY work is usually 'inferior' if you wanted to.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

As for the extent (if any!) of testing of non-notifiable parts of the work, as I (and others) are always saying, that is an issue which applies to any DIY electrical work, and if one took the view that no electrical work should be done without 'full required testing', then one would almost be saying that no DIY electrical work should be done.

Perhaps, in this specific case the OP seems happy that the LABC will do all the final testing and he will take comfort from that. But they won't/might not do that for what could be substantial areas of non notifiable works.

If the LABC only include one final test in their fee, which might "fail", and it possibly doesn't include a chunk of the work anyway, then I'm not sure there is any comfort that the LABC/tester will put the OP's mind at rest. Testing wise.

Again, I'm not really talking about the wider DIY world but this thread in particular. I don't think the op will end up with what he is expecting or may have to pay quite a bit more to get what he thinks he wants/needs.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps, in this specific case the OP seems happy that the LABC will do all the final testing and he will take comfort from that. But they won't/might not do that for what could be substantial areas of non notifiable works.

Indeed, but I presume that the OP understands and accepts that. As far as the non-notifiable work is concerned, he is, at worst, in no worse a position than any other electrical DIYer - and if (as he has suggested) he is expecting/prepared to pay "a few hundred quid" for testing equipment, then (assuming he knows how to use the equipment and interpret the results) he will be in a far stronger position than the great majority of DIYers to give himself 'comfort' about everything he's done. The only residual problem would then be that the LABC would presumably not 'accept' his test results for the notifiable parts of the work - but that would be for them to address with their own testing.

If the LABC only include one final test in their fee, which might "fail", and it possibly doesn't include a chunk of the work anyway, then I'm not sure there is any comfort that the LABC/tester will put the OP's mind at rest. Testing wise.

See above.

Again, I'm not really talking about the wider DIY world but this thread in particular. I don't think the op will end up with what he is expecting or may have to pay quite a bit more to get what he thinks he wants/needs.

As I've previously observed in this thread, I think that some 'prophets of doom' have perhaps influenced some of the thoughts that have been expressed. Particularly if the OP does some testing (and certainly if he acquires the ability to do 'all' of it), then it's extremely unlikely that the LABC's initial testing would result in a 'fail', particularly since the OP would probably already have identified any 'obvious problems', and rectified them, before inviting the LABC to do their testing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[wundaboy]

Seeing the phrase "I reached out to..." in the OP, I knew immediately how this thread would turn out...

 

[JohnW2]

Seeing the phrase "I reached out to..." in the OP, I knew immediately how this thread would turn out...

I'm glad it's not just me

I've come to more-or-less 'ignore' (essentially 'not notice') occurrences of the phrase in contexts like forum messages, but I do personally find it very irritating - and, as you imply, often indicative of a 'certain type of person' ! I'm not sure whether it irritates me more or less than "can I get .... ?", a form of words seemingly beloved by my daughters and all their contemporaries

Almost every day I receive e-mails containing lists of 'job/work opportunities'. A fair proportion of them start my saying that they are 'reaching out to me' - and those ones get deleted, as a matter of principle, before I read any further!

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

I went, like, into Cafe Nero, like, and obviously reached out like to the barista to ask, obviously, if I could get a cup of coffee, like.
I find I have to bite my tongue to avoid correcting them!

 

[EFLImpudence]

D'oh! Friday again already?

 

[Taylortwocities]

You could of gone to Starbucks.

 

[ebee]

Well, a very interesting thread here. Seems the OP has asked his LABC and they`ve given very pessimistically skewed answers. Yes he can do it himself providing he notifies first and they must test it unless they operate due diligence in accepting his tests.
They charge him a fee. a short while after Part P came in a public servant called Ann Hemmings pointed out that the LABC were not allowed to charge inspection fees as rules stood at that time. Sadly she died in a cycling accident a while later.

Anyway, nowadays, apparently, they are allowed to charge. Can`t blame them really cos very few BCOs will have the knowledge and experience to do the I & T themselves. Actually they tend not to like the notification route and prefer everyone to be a scheme member.

It would usually be far better if folk tended to leave things to scheme members and would often end up costing less in many cases. Less hassle all around.
So you can see why the BCOs will tend to sending you away from the notification route.

However, you are still entitled to do it if you decide that`s what you want.

Who thinks that Part P says you must do it all to our Wiring Regs (BS7671)? there is no legal requirement to do so. All Part P says is that you must do it safely and not much else. You could, if you wish, do it to the standards of a civilised country - the original approved doc did actually mention you might want to do it to the standards of a fellow European Country.

Anyway, to the OP, good luck with your endeavours but I do advise you to consider the benefits of getting a scheme member to do it. You might even find one who is prepared for you to do a reasonable amount of the hard work under his direct instruction too and offer a substantial discount for your labours.

 

[senfre_]

Anyway, to the OP, good luck with your endeavours but I do advise you to consider the benefits of getting a scheme member to do it. You might even find one who is prepared for you to do a reasonable amount of the hard work under his direct instruction too and offer a substantial discount for your labours.

That was certainly my first port of call, but to be honest I must have rang 30 local, registered electricians, and except for one they all either didn't pick up, didn't do domestic work, or weren't available any time soon. The one that did come out was talking about thousands and thousands of pounds for the work I've described, which is money I don't have.
There's also an element of being able to work at my own pace, one room at a time, in my spare time. I live in this house and work from home the majority of the time, so having a stranger in to chase all the walls and run all the cabling in a matter of days would be very disruptive.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, a very interesting thread here. Seems the OP has asked his LABC and they`ve given very pessimistically skewed answers. Yes he can do it himself providing he notifies first and they must test it unless they operate due diligence in accepting his tests.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying from the very start. As I wrote fairly recently, I think the OP's 'mistake' was to 'talk to the LABC'. Had he simply submitted a Building Notice then, despite what his LABC (and some here) have said/implied, I don't think they have any option to 'reject' or 'refuse to accept' the Notice - and then, as you say, it's for them to either decide to accept the applicant's testing or arrange for their own to be done.

They charge him a fee. a short while after Part P came in a public servant called Ann Hemmings pointed out that the LABC were not allowed to charge inspection fees as rules stood at that time. Sadly she died in a cycling accident a while later. .... Anyway, nowadays, apparently, they are allowed to charge.

It seems to vary a lot between LA's. A good few are vague, in that they "reserve the right' ("may") charge for some testing, without any clear explanation as to when/why/how much would be a charge. However, as I illustrated, some (like mine) appear to charge nothing additional for inspection - although I imagine that there is some small print somewhere which says that they might charge if 'additional testing' is required because of 'failure' of initial testing - but that wouldn't seem unreasonable. In the case of those LAs who appear to make additional charges for any testing it begs the question as to what their (sometims high) Notification Fees actually are 'paying for'!! To remind you, this is what my LA says:

Can`t blame them really cos very few BCOs will have the knowledge and experience to do the I & T themselves.

Sure, but, as above, what exactly are their (often high) Notification Fees meant to be paying for if not for ('contracted out' if necessary) I&T?

Actually they tend not to like the notification route and prefer everyone to be a scheme member.

I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't alter the fact that the system exists, and they have to provide the service that they are meant to provide.

It would usually be far better if folk tended to leave things to scheme members and would often end up costing less in many cases. Less hassle all around.
So you can see why the BCOs will tend to sending you away from the notification route. However, you are still entitled to do it if you decide that`s what you want.

Exactly.

Who thinks that Part P says you must do it all to our Wiring Regs (BS7671)? there is no legal requirement to do so. All Part P says is that you must do it safely and not much else. You could, if you wish, do it to the standards of a civilised country - the original approved doc did actually mention you might want to do it to the standards of a fellow European Country.

All true, but it leads to a problem that we often discuss. I don't think there can be any doubt that if it is 'universally accepted' that work complies with Part P, then an LABC is obliged to accept that and issue a Completion Certificate. However, as you point out, Part P is so vague, and totally lacking in any detail, that, in practice, it obviously comes down to an individual BCO to decide, using their discretion and judgement, as to whether Part P has been satisfied - and, in practice, that probably means that they will be strongly guided by BS7671.

The practical reality is, unfortunately, that one probably cannot sensibly do anything to get around what may be 'unreasonable' judgments of an individual BCO - since the process of attempting to challenge their views/decisions could be very tedious and/or difficult (particularly for a 'DIYer'), and certainly costly in time, if not also money.

Anyway, to the OP, good luck with your endeavours ....

Indeed.

but I do advise you to consider the benefits of getting a scheme member to do it.

It is (in my opinion) a great pity, but that is an option which often needs to be considered. However, the OP has also mentioned 'other options' (which introduce serious 'ironies'), which are not things we would not here!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

"it obviously comes down to an individual BCO to decide, using their discretion and judgement, as to whether Part P has been satisfied - and, in practice, that probably means that they will be strongly guided by BS7671."

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.

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, 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.
I suspect the Highway Code has a similar relationship with the Road Traffic Acts etc. In the same way you might want to adopt another alternative method of driving. Not only is the highway code a very good way to drive safely but also if you adopt an equally safe method of driving you must take into account that most others will almost be driving with some intention of reliance on the highway code and therefore avoid possible conflicts.

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

If you were in charge of building control then would you prefer to deter people from getting you to do something that is outside your own comfort zone because you are not sufficiently qualified in electrics and working in an underfunded department? No, they really want you to go somewhere else

 

[davelx]

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?