Pete's Videos I know it's old hat.

[Pete999]

I found the very subtle digs at Ms Clancy's presentation very amusing, the pictures of wads of cash appearing everywhere, the Chap sat behind Her right shoulder, smiling in what I thought was disbelief, worth a watch.

 

[Rpa07]

I could smell the rain earlier now all I can smell is
REVOLUTION!

 

[Midwest]

Disagree all you want.
The fact is, that Part P is part of the Building Regulations.
As such, all that can be policed, is that the Building Regulations are complied with.
The method used is to serve improvement and enforcement orders on the householder.

Ok I will.

It seems the primary method, would be the local building control requiring improvement. However they could also use Sec 36, to require removal or alteration of offending work. The council could have that carried out, and recover the costs from the building owner.

They could also use Sec 35 to carry out a prosecution 'If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations' (and Sec 7, compliances or non compliance of approved documents).

Whilst the building owner is ultimately responsible for complying with planning rules and building regulations, the section & act above allows for prosecution of persons, i.e. builder, installer or main contractor, not just the building owner.

Part P is only one of the approved documents.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok I will.

It seems the primary method, would be the local building control requiring improvement. However they could also use Sec 36, to require removal or alteration of offending work. The council could have that carried out, and recover the costs from the building owner.

They could also use Sec 35 to carry out a prosecution 'If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations' (and Sec 7, compliances or non compliance of approved documents).

Whilst the building owner is ultimately responsible for complying with planning rules and building regulations, the section & act above allows for prosecution of persons, i.e. builder, installer or main contractor, not just the building owner.

Part P is only one of the approved documents.

Building Control have the authority to issue improvement orders, enforcement orders, even engage a contractor to remove whatever doesn’t comply.
However about all they can do with regards Part P, is do the householder for failure to notify.
Other than notification all that is required, is for an installation to be safe.
As the majority of LABCs don’t employ electrically qualified persons, how would they know whether an installation is safe or unsafe?

 

[Midwest]

Building Control have the authority to issue improvement orders, enforcement orders, even engage a contractor to remove whatever doesn’t comply.
However about all they can do with regards Part P, is do the householder for failure to notify.
Other than notification all that is required, is for an installation to be safe.
As the majority of LABCs don’t employ electrically qualified persons, how would they know whether an installation is safe or unsafe?

You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes.

One thing we disagree on; you case is that only the building owner or a person ordering the work can be prosecuted for contravening building regulations.

Whereas my case is that a person (other than the building owner) can be prosecuted for contravening building regulations.
Some examples;

Part P prosecutions begin with fines of more than £16,000. - The Power Service - https://www.thepowerservice.co.uk/hotel-owner-fined-for-five-breaches/
Successful Building Regulations Prosecution - https://www.fareham.gov.uk/latest_news/pressreleases/pr-130713-3.aspx
Electrician and bathroom fitter prosecuted for breach of PART P of the building regulations - https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/electrician-and-bathroom-fitter
Builder prosecuted for unsafe electrical work | South Gloucestershire Council - http://www.southglos.gov.uk/news/builder-prosecuted-for-unsafe-electrical-work/

If you have a read of the Part P document, you'll see that in addition to Notifiable Work as a legal requirement from the regulation, there is also a Design & Installation requirement, as a legal requirement from the regulation.

As per how a LBC would build its case for a successful prosecution (contravening Part P), I do not know. But it appears they may use other electrical contractors as expert witnesses (EICR's).

As per the question on the amount of successful prosecutions (Part P), and how active councils are on this matter, I can only agree they appear few & far between. But that does not preclude that the intention is to prevent sub standard installations.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have read the Part P document.
I have also read the Statutory Legislation.
All that is required, is for the work to be notified (which is the responsibility of the Householder or person ordering the work and for the finished installation to be safe.
Yes tradespersons can be prosecuted if they fail to comply with Building Regulations.
However with regards to Part P, it would have to be shown that the work done had resulted in an unsafe installation.
It would be more likely that an Electrician would be prosecuted for failing to comply with one of the other parts of the Building Regulations than for failing to comply with Part P.

 

[Midwest]

I have read the Part P document.
I have also read the Statutory Legislation.
All that is required, is for the work to be notified (which is the responsibility of the Householder or person ordering the work and for the finished installation to be safe.
Yes tradespersons can be prosecuted if they fail to comply with Building Regulations.
However with regards to Part P, it would have to be shown that the work done had resulted in an unsafe installation.
It would be more likely that an Electrician would be prosecuted for failing to comply with one of the other parts of the Building Regulations than for failing to comply with Part P.

This is going on somewhat, I don't see why you cannot except (or agree) that an individual (other than owner) can be prosecuted under Part P regs for either failing to notify or incorrect design or installation (the later uses BS7671 as the standard). There are examples of each in the links from my previous post.

 

[Des 56]

I read one of them links towards the end and almost burst a gut laughing,here is part of a statement at the end of the case by the local authority

This is a great result for us; we are the only council in the country in three years to achieve a successful prosecution under electrical safety regulations contained with the building regulations. The building regulations are there to protect householders from cowboy builders, and this result sends a very clear message to contractors that local authority Building Control are here to protect the interests of householders



Is that not a big incentive to stick 2 fingers up to the part P procedure

 

[Midwest]

I read one of them links towards the end and almost burst a gut laughing,here is part of a statement at the end of the case by the local authority

This is a great result for us; we are the only council in the country in three years to achieve a successful prosecution under electrical safety regulations contained with the building regulations. The building regulations are there to protect householders from cowboy builders, and this result sends a very clear message to contractors that local authority Building Control are here to protect the interests of householders



Is that not a big incentive to stick 2 fingers up to the part P procedure

Yep I was waiting for someone to comment on that; but when you get people having a slap on the wrist for serious physical assaults, and blind eye turned to other criminal offences, what else should you expect these days?

Not that good are gooling such stuff, but at least there are some prosecutions. Right at the beginning of this discussion, I said there are some nefarious contractors in the commercial & industrial sector (that I've come across), but that part of the industry seems to police itself? Domestic market might be more infested with those that have poor standards?

 

[Midwest]

I know this is a contentious issue, but its the limited best we have at the moment. The Approved Document must stay in my opinion, the process for Notification it that Document needs revision.

But bearing in mind we have already had one Select Committee spending tax payers money deliberating the subject and not ending with a 'Part P Brexit'; would the removal of Schemes make things better or worse? For me it would mean me (removal of Schemes) remaining in the industry as a sole trader, but I can't help thinking, it goes someway towards policing the domestic side, I think £50 to be in a Scheme seems fair, Ms Clancy?

I'm off to look for other work.

 

[westward10]

One scheme then no competition which was the original intention. Then as you say the yearly fee of £50.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This is going on somewhat, I don't see why you cannot except (or agree) that an individual (other than owner) can be prosecuted under Part P regs for either failing to notify or incorrect design or installation (the later uses BS7671 as the standard). There are examples of each in the links from my previous post.

Because only the householder or the person ordering the work can be prosecuted for failing to notify.
When I say person ordering the work, I’m thinking housing associations, Local Authorities, private landlords, etc.
An Electrician could be prosecuted if in the course of their work, they drill through a support beam and compromise the structural integrity of said beam.
Another scenario could be if the Electrician compromised the the fire protection or the sound insulation.

 

[Midwest]

Because only the householder or the person ordering the work can be prosecuted for failing to notify.
When I say person ordering the work, I’m thinking housing associations, Local Authorities, private landlords, etc.
An Electrician could be prosecuted if in the course of their work, they drill through a support beam and compromise the structural integrity of said beam.
Another scenario could be if the Electrician compromised the the fire protection or the sound insulation.

I give up.

I've given published examples, but you still will not except it. I think you have your own personal agenda.

 

[Toneyz]

One scheme then no competition which was the original intention. Then as you say the yearly fee of £50.

In this respect, this is how for gas with Gas Safe they have got it right although I have never understood how or why Corgie was done away with. The NICEIC would have been best placed to take on this role at the time all these schemes are here to make a profit.