Enforcing Part P

[Guitarist]

Last week it was discussed how nobody is taking ownership of enforcing Part P. Just thought I'd quote this except from the "Electrician's guide to the Building Regulations".

"The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the Building Regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work. If electrical installation work is non-compliant, the local authority will usually take action against the electrician...."

Has anybody ever known LBC take action against such an electrician/pretend electrician?

 

[Mark_Burgess]

Nope, a customer of mine had a large extension done and the electrics were not signed off, building control came round for a final inspection and asked him for the EIC, he said he did not have one. Building control said, get an inspection done then. Thats it, they did not want to know who did it or anything.

 

[sedgy34]

They are not bothered they all want an easy life in the council offices so they won't pursue anything they would probably refer anything to trading standards

 

[Guitarist]

Isn't it an odd society we live in when the Government will hound you if you owe a pound of income tax, yet they turn a blind eye when it involves someone's safety....

 

[Des 56]

they would probably refer anything to trading standards
​

I would be surprised if they even go that far,Part p is of no importance to them
I have met a building inspector who hardly knew of its existence

​

 

[sedgy34]

If that's the response from labc WHY are we paying scams money

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I think they are only likely to take action if non compliant work actually caused an accident/incident.....the cost and hassle involved in persueing someone who has just wired a socket in their kitchen just wouldnt be worth their while. Part P is really there to keep tabs on the honest and professional electricians who do notify and comply,to make it harder to do cash jobs,and so that the scams can empty our wallets,nothing more.

 

[KFH]

On two jobs recently involving extensions and the LBC I was asked to provide a copy of the EIC for the LBC. On one occasion I was there when the LBC guy was inspecting a flue and he was very keen to ensure I was registered. Don't know what would have happened if I was not registered though.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The quote from the electrician's guide is misleading.
It is the Householder or person ordering the work, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with Building Regulations, not the tradesman.
The LABC will issue any instructions or enforcement orders, and if necessary take legal action against the householder, not the tradesman.
The Local Authority will take action against the tradesman (at the householder's request) through Trading Standards.
However by the time Trading Standards have decided that there is no action they can take, Building Control will have arranged demolition of the house (charging the householder the cost) for non-compliance.
The LABC's job is to ensure that the Building Regulations are complied with, not to ensure the householder employs competent persons to carry out the work.

 

[Guitarist]

Misleading or not, that's what it says. It does go on to say...

"Alternatively or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner of the building."

I agree that the person ordering the work is responsible for employing someone who complies with the regs, however, the primary responsibility for achieving compliance rests with the person carrying out the work.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That's just so not the case.
Think about it.
If an electrician conducts work that doesn't comply, then refuses to put the work right, for whatever reason, the LABC have the authority to demolish that work.
Someone pays out to have an extension added to their property, they employ a buider to do the work, who in turn employs an electrician.
Because of a disagreement over pay or work schedules, the electrician walks off site.
BC attend the property, are not happy with the height of the socket-outlets, do you really think, they will contact the electrician to put them right?

 

[Guitarist]

That's just so not the case.
Think about it.
If an electrician conducts work that doesn't comply, then refuses to put the work right, for whatever reason, the LABC have the authority to demolish that work.
Someone pays out to have an extension added to their property, they employ a buider to do the work, who in turn employs an electrician.
Because of a disagreement over pay or work schedules, the electrician walks off site.
BC attend the property, are not happy with the height of the socket-outlets, do you really think, they will contact the electrician to put them right?

No, I don't mate. I was merely quoting the building regs, which are the law. How BC interpret the law, or indeed their obligations are an entirely different matter.
What I'm saying, is that the law is there to ensure that "the person who carries out the building work" complies with all the regs. We all know that BC turn a blind eye and tell the owner to get an EICR. I think it's purely a lack of understanding which is causing this mess within the industry.

 

[Engineer54]

I think they are only likely to take action if non compliant work actually caused an accident/incident.....the cost and hassle involved in persueing someone who has just wired a socket in their kitchen just wouldnt be worth their while. Part P is really there to keep tabs on the honest and professional electricians who do notify and comply,to make it harder to do cash jobs,and so that the scams can empty our wallets,nothing more.

I would also image it'll be very easy for Inland Revenue to check-up on your Tax returns to find out if what your declaring is accurate, ...or Not!! ...lol!!!

 

[Dave 85]

I would also image it'll be very easy for Inland Revenue to check-up on your Tax returns to find out if what your declaring is accurate, ...or Not!! ...lol!!!

If you are willing to carry out tax evasion you'd have to be a bit simple to actually notify the jobs you are evading tax on.

 

[jimmymac]

Never thought of it like that dave.................. i'm worried now, :sweatdrop: