Notifying DIYer with 'evil' LABC - what tests will I miss?

[LiamPope]

Hi there

As part of rennovation to the bungalow I've just bought, I'm doing a full DIY rewire notifying via my building notice. My very first posts on here were regarding my disagreement with my LABC, Part P etc etc. To cut a long story short they will inspect first fix and completion, but refuse to do any tests. Instead they want me to engage an electrician to do a PIR on completion.

Whilst deciding whether to take them all the way to court (that's how far it'd have to go ), or opting for the quiet life and paying for the PIR myself, I've been getting on with non electrical stuff and designing the installation. I'm now bashing out the first fix electrical.

Before I get too far, I've started to wonder what, if any, testing I will never get with things done this way, and what I should/could do about it?

Are there tests that need to be done before final connections, for example ring continuity, insulation tests, etc etc, or could anything that needs doing be done on completion?

Any other tests that should be done on a new install that wont be part of the PIR, and should I consider getting in a spark to do these before/along with the PIR?

If i'd known my LABC were taking this stance before I'd notified, I might have gone the not-quite-so-official route of finding a friendly spark prepared to 'supervise' me. Too late now, I guess...

Any advice appreciated as ever,

Liam

 

[sparkyspike]

You can do PIRs after everything is finished. The electrician will have no problem with this, but it will be quicker an easier to do the insulation tests before you connect up appliances and lamps etc. Make sure that your cpcs are sheathed seperately at the CU - this makes R1+R2 measurements easier to make.

Personally, I would have an EIC done, rather than a PIR. This will require an electrician to be present at all stages of the work. And would also mean you don't have to pay the notification fees. Which you probably already have! Can you get a refund, as they are refusing to test?

 

[ericmark]

I do see your problem I raised this years ago when Part P first came out. What I have been told is the LABC don't have to issue a installation certificate but they do have to issue a completion certificate and they do have responsibility for site safety and if they do not have the personnel to do the work they must pay for any outside contractor who is used by them to test it.
When a spark does a PIR it is given to person ordering the work. So if the council bring in an outside firm to test it that firm will give report to council not you.
The whole thing that was published as being "Approved Document P" seems to be full of errors.
I would write to your MP. Cheaper than legal method. I can't see how if they are responsible for the safety how they can prove they had done this without completing a installation certificate.
Maybe we can get new TV show "Councils from Hell".
I have watched the TV programs a few times and what I fail to understand is where building control have been? Once building control is informed the work is going on then they should be checking.
It seems the councils are not doing their job in general or there would be nothing going wrong to make the programs about?

Anyway if the council are doing their job everything should be checked and should be safe. Only thing that may be missing is paperwork with reading on it. But you will get completion certificate so no real worries.

It would not matter who does the testing you can't be sure they have done their job right. To get someone else to test it as well could go on and may be you want that persons work checking too.

I have wondered what would happen if I issued a form to say I have tested it and it's OK but did not enter any results? But BS 7671 is not law so I suppose I could?

I would as I have said write to MP.

 

[electronicsuk]

I would like to see someone go to court and set a precedent, as there seem to be all too many people coming onto these forums with complaints about their LABC's notification procedures. Makes you wonder who anyone bothers...

 

[davelx]

I would like to see someone go to court and set a precedent, as there seem to be all too many people coming onto these forums with complaints about their LABC's notification procedures. Makes you wonder who anyone bothers...

I wonder if registering a complaint against them with the Local Government Ombudsman might be a better path than the courts? Certainly cheaper as it's free.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/

 

[stargazer]

Yes, that is a good first option if you get nowhere with the Council.
The Ombudsman will not investigate your complaint if you launch legal proceedings against the Council first.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It might also be worth complaining to the District Auditor, as there is an element of financial impropriety here - basically you've got council employees taking your money and not providing the service that you've paid for.

As for what the council should do regarding testing - it's not crystal clear. The law only requires you to make reasonable provision for safety etc, so an important question is what did you tell them you would be doing in order to ensure that your work complied with P1?

AD P says this:

1.25 The amount of inspection and testing
needed is for the building control body to decide,
based on the nature and extent of the electrical
work. For relatively simple notifiable jobs, such
as adding a socket-outlet to a kitchen circuit,
the inspection and testing requirements will be
minimal. For a house re-wire, a full set of inspections
and tests may need to be carried out.

Personally I'd disagree with that final "may"....

But if they want a PIR, it's quite clear that they are responsible for doing that.

1.26 The building control body may choose to
carry out the inspection and testing itself, or to
contract out some or all of the work to a specialist
body which will then carry out the work on its
behalf. Building control bodies will carry out the
necessary inspection and testing at their
expense, not at the householders’ expense.





However - and I can see this being a contentious point -

Before I get too far, I've started to wonder what, if any, testing I will never get with things done this way, and what I should/could do about it?

Are there tests that need to be done before final connections, for example ring continuity, insulation tests, etc etc, or could anything that needs doing be done on completion?

Any other tests that should be done on a new install that wont be part of the PIR, and should I consider getting in a spark to do these before/along with the PIR?

That to me says that you should not be doing the rewire. A full rewire is a non-trivial task, and if you didn't have the knowledge and the tools to be able to test it yourself, and issue an EIC yourself, then you should not have taken it on.

 

[Cremeegg]

The Council should have its own corporate complaints system. Use this first - citing the OPDM circular on the fact that LABC cannot charge for testing and that they should do it.

If you get nowhere with this then go to the Ombudsman with a complaint of maladministration.

You could always try your local Councillor and MP as most Councils fast track complaints from such worthy people.

 

[Click-Sure]

I raised the issue of charging for I&T above their building notice fee at my last ELECSA assesment, the assesor informed me that it all boils down to guidance and they can still, essensially do whatever they like, regardless of guidance documents.

Its a sham. Full stop.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure it does all boil down to guidance - there's also the matter of

"Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced."

It would be interesting to know if the LABCs who choose to ignore the guidance in Approved Document P are equally happy for ell of their "customers" to ignore any provisions in it, or any of the other Approved Documents.

And assuming that the situation with Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 is unchanged it might be worth anyone suffering such an imposition to point out the following to their LABC:

• The Building Act does not say that you can make me do that.
• Approved Document P says that you must bear all the costs yourself.
• Section 7 of the Building Act says that a failure to comply with an Approved Document may be relied upon as tending to establish liability for a contravention of the Building Regulations.

 

[LiamPope]

Sigh - I had wanted this to be about testing rather than naughty LABCs

Well since it's been brought up - this is the last email I recieved from the helpful (but powerless) Ian Drummond at the DCLG (formerly ODPM)...

"Dear Mr Pope

Thank you for your further e-mail. I am sorry that I have now been able to reply until now.

Guidance in Approved Documents is not part of statute law. Where the guidance is on legal matters it gives what the Department considers the correct legal position. However, only a court can decide whether the guidance given is directly applicable to an individual circumstance.

The Department is aware that a few local authorities in England and Wales continue to act as if the powers in section 33(2) of the Building Act was in effect in respect of electrical installations in dwellings. As well as in the Approved Document we have given guidance on this in a Circular Letter sent to all building control bodies. However, the Building Act does not allow us to direct local authorities in individual cases.

There are four possible remedies open where someone believes that a building control department is not carrying out its proper functions:

1. Write to the Chief Executive of the local authority concerned;

2. Contact the councillor for the ward in which the building is located;

3. Make a complaint of maladministration to the local government ombudsman (but the ombudsman may not choose to investigate and decide on a case which turned on the interpretation of the law rather than maladministration; or

4. an application for judicial review that a body is acting ultra vires (i.e. is exercising powers which it does not possess). This would be a very expensive option and the Department would not recommend that it be followed unless expert legal advice was sought.

I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.

Ian Drummond"

Pretty well sums up the situation and outlines my routes for further squabbling. We'll see how far down that list I can stomach getting .

As for the testing, I think I'll try to get a spark in to do a quick Ze test for piece of mind, just in case there are any nice surprises waiting for me (like the guy in that other thread who discovered his whole street is dubiously earthed through the water pipes). I'll then hope to discuss the rest of the test schedule and doing the PIR I'll most probably need to keep LABC happy.

And oh well - it had to happen in the end! But I think as far as DIYers go, I've lasted a relatively long time on this forum before it being suggested I shouldn't be doing this work! Had to be B-A-S, too . Don't worry though - I'm well aware full rewire is non-trivial! On the other hand, the regulations, and the procedures for correctly designing and installing circuits are the same whether one is doing a full rewire or a single circuit or minor addition. So then are you really saying no unqualified DIYer should really be doing any electrical work at all? (OK perhaps you are, and perhaps you share this opinion with many many electricians, and with significant justification too ). I'll still have to politely disagree though.

Cheers for the comments.

Liam

 

[ericmark]

I have watched you post with interest.
As a member of a local radio club I realise although I may be the only official electrician many of the members are far more queued up than me on many of the finer points especially on transmission lines. And there is no way I would suggest these people were unable to complete a simple house rewire. In fact many would do a better job than me having the time to do things which I could not afford to spend.
Many of course hold engineering degrees as well as passing their RAE well before the tick the box exam was used. And near every engineering subject requires the same high maths standards so moving from a sound broadcast degree to working on another type of electric system would be quite easy.
Although some DIY people may be thick we have to remember some are very able and we can’t tar all DIY people with same brush. Under the Part P it is up to the LABC to vet the applicant and decide if they can complete the task safely.
They must have decided you do have the skills required or you would not have been allowed to start.
Many electricians do not have their own test gear and rely on what they firm provides and if they were doing their own house may require the LABC to complete the final tests.
Because my son was self employed for a time I have access to the test gear but I have never bought my own so now if it were not for my son I would have to hire it if required so would if I had paid the Part P fees expect the LABC to complete the tests.
What is not made plain is what happens if the tests do not reach the required standard.
To retest once is reasonable but there must be a limit to how many times you are allowed to call the LABC to re-test should anything fail.
There is no such thing as a perfect installation and if one gets nasty with the LABC I am sure they can find enough to fail the installation by being pedantic on most installations. With a failure it is unclear what they can do but likely they can ask for a re-test fee in some way.
So I would be wary of what I did. If my house I would hire the meters and test myself if my sons gear was not available. Mainly for my own piece of mind to know it was A1. However using an earth loop impedance meter can produce danger and the LABC is responsible for site safety so if I was LABC not sure I would let anyone without the paper work to test there own house.
I don’t know your skill and I can’t advise as to how you should do it. Neither do I know the skill of anyone else reading this post who may take it upon them selves to act on this information.
Hence it would be possibly dangerous to offer advice.
Yours truly, Eric

 

[stargazer]

... an application for judicial review that a body is acting ultra vires (i.e. is exercising powers which it does not possess). This would be a very expensive option and the Department would not recommend that it be followed unless expert legal advice was sought.

I launched an application for judicial review against my own Council back in 2002, acting for myself. The Council refused to allow a dropped kerb outside our house – their guidance insisted on 5 metres of parking space and we had 4.8.
I claimed fettering of a statutory discretion amongst other things. It took a lot of work on my part preparing bundles of documents and serving legal papers on the Council.
The High Court judge threw out our case at the preliminary stage, stating that the Council could exercise its discretion as it wished. I fear the same principle may apply with your case Liam, and if your application goes through to a full hearing then you will bear the Council’s legal costs if you lose, potentially £1,000s...
I can see you having to pay for that PIR, and as has been stated, it makes you wonder why people bother.
As a coda to my story above, 3 months after my application was kicked out by the High Court, the Council relaxed their guidance on dropped kerbs and allowed us to construct a vehicle crossover! Go figure…

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.

Ian Drummond"

Am I the only one who thinks that Ian Drummond has every sympathy with Liam, and all others in the same boat, and that he too firmly believes that councils are wrong to behave in this way?

I think to his list I'd add contacting your MP.

And also writing to the council's chief legal officer, clearly stating your case - the fact that Section 33(2) of the Building Act has not been commenced, the fact that the council has been given guidance in a Government circular, the fact that Approved Document P says the council should pay and the fact that Section 7 of the Building Act says that a failure to comply with an Approved Document may be relied upon as tending to establish liability for a contravention of the Building Regulations.

Then ask him on what legal basis the Council are behaving how they do. You never know, he might just toddle round to the head of Building Control and say "you really should stop this".

On the other hand, the regulations, and the procedures for correctly designing and installing circuits are the same whether one is doing a full rewire or a single circuit or minor addition. So then are you really saying no unqualified DIYer should really be doing any electrical work at all?

I'm certainly not saying that. Just that jobs as major as a rewire should not be done by people who don't have a full understanding of it.

People regularly replace consumer goods purely because they are not the latest and greatest, and at the same time say "I can't afford proper test equipment". They regularly blow more than the cost of a copy of the Wiring Regs, OSG and EGTTBR on a couple of weekends drinking and eating out.

My position is simple, and applies to professionals as well as DIYers (of which I am one) - if you're not prepared to do it properly then don't do it.