Part P / BC question

[coloumb]

Can someone remind me if it's still BC's responsibilty to find a contractor to test any notified work a "diyer" might have done or is it the case that they can now insist the diyer has the pir issued at their own expense? Looking around it seems they still need to find a contractor but now they can charge what they want, as opposed to what the part p doc says...

Thoughts?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't know if they can insist that the applicant provides test results from an electrician himself, but with respect to charging, read the 2nd half of this para in the Wiki article: //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:diy-electrical-work-and-the-law#labc-issues.

I suspect that theres a good chance that even if they weren't allowed to force an applicant to provide his own test results, anyone who insisted that they organise a 3rd party to test would be financially punished...

 

[Geps]

In Part P:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf


See section 1.26

They pay - not you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

with respect to charging, read the 2nd half of this para in the Wiki article: //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:diy-electrical-work-and-the-law#labc-issues.[/b]

 

[Geps]

Please explain where the misunderstanding is?

Part P says the LABC pay for testing. The regulation says the LABC set the fees to cover the cost of testing.

Either document you look at they pay.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please explain where the misunderstanding is?

It's your confusion so you should do the explaining.

Part P says the LABC pay for testing.

No, Part P says this:

The regulation says the LABC set the fees to cover the cost of testing.

Either document you look at they pay.

OK - they physically pay the subcontractor, but it is not at their expense.

They include the full cost of that payment in the fee they charge you, so from an expense POV it is now the applicant who bears the cost of third party testing which used not to be the case.

That's what the OP was asking about, and referring him to what it says in 1.26 of the Approved Document does not provide a correct answer.

 

[Geps]

I feel you're being pedantic....the point I made and still make is that you pay them, they pay for testing. Who is actually covering the cost is by the by since you can argue we all pay (as tax payers).

My LABC insist on 3rd party test results that are then checked by their own subcontractors.

 

[coloumb]

Today I was talking to some BC doughnut who was adamant I had to supply my own third party pir having had them turn down my own EIC. I told him this was ****** but now it looks like i'm half wrong. In any case, they will accept my EIC after seeing my 2381/2391 so it's all accademic.

ps, some things never change eh BAS? Pedantic eh? lol

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah - accusations of pedantry - the last resort of someone who is incorrect but wants to make it look as if it's really someone else who is in the wrong for insisting on correctness.

It's not pedantry at all, who is actually covering the cost is not by the by, it is what this is all about.

Read the OP's question again.

Looking around it seems they still need to find a contractor but now they can charge what they want, as opposed to what the part p doc says...

Thoughts?

In Part P:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf


See section 1.26

They pay - not you.

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.

The part I have highlighted is no longer true, so to respond to "it seems ... now they can charge what they want, as opposed to what the part p doc says. Thoughts?" with "See section 1.26. They pay - not you" is simply wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Today I was talking to some BC doughnut who was adamant I had to supply my own third party pir having had them turn down my own EIC. I told him this was **** but now it looks like i'm half wrong. In any case, they will accept my EIC after seeing my 2381/2391 so it's all accademic.

Well good news on that.

I don't think you are half wrong - you've always been able to insist that they organise their own I&T on the basis if the guidance in the Approved Document, it's just that now if you do that you can bet that they will really sting you on the charges.

 

[Geps]

Considering I'm about to start a full rewire of a semi detached property within the coming weeks and envisage myself asking questions, I shall defer to BAS judgement.

 

[coloumb]

Considering I'm about to start a full rewire of a semi detached property within the coming weeks and envisage myself asking questions, I shall defer to BAS judgement.

If your not a qualified sparx you better get this checked out. I nearly lost out £200 odd on having some numpty come a access MY OWN WORK which I know was perfectly to 7671 having already absorbed BC notification fees.

I'm acctually getting to the point where I think TT had a point! PART P, It's made feck all difference to anything really, except to the wallets of dicks like me who try to stay on the right side of law.

 

[Geps]

No i already asked my LABC and they said I can provide my own test results and they're inspectors/subcontractors will just come round and do spot tests and look over the test results.

Agreed about part P!

 

[ericmark]

Before the new document came out I also had problems getting the LABC to accept my certificate.

From what I understand they don't have to inspect and test you must do that either you or some one you employ. But they do not have to accept your findings and if they think your document is wrong they can test it themselves at their expense.

Since new rules not sure who has to pay if they test. Can't see how they can charge if your results are correct. But where they prove your results are not correct then it could be very different.

Being fair there is a huge difference in looking at some ones results selecting one item at random and confirming the results are correct to testing and inspecting the whole job.

What I can't understand with LABC having watched some of the builders from hell things on TV is why the LABC is not taken to court where they allow sub-standard work to be carried out. If the part of the LA looking after babies make a mistake they end up in court but the LABC seems to be exempt from any responsibility so one has to ask what is the point of having a LABC if they don't take responsibility for what they are paid to do? I am not just talking about electrical work.

 

[bernardgreen]

What I can't understand with LABC having watched some of the builders from hell things on TV

which are often selected and enhanced for best viewing figures

is why the LABC is not taken to court where they allow sub-standard work to be carried out.

They cannot prevent sub-standard work if they are not aware of the work being done.

On some of those builders from hell TV programs the house owner has done nothing to check on the builder and has not contacted the local authority to check that building control are aware of the work being done.

My experience is that when building control become aware of work that has not been submitted they will take action to ensure the work is done to the correct standard.