No Certificate For New Electrics And Local Authority Demands

[ruston]

The piece relevant to us would be:

"Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve a special installation and consists of:

• Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit [Only if the existing circuit protective device is suitable and provides protection for the modified circuit, and other relevant safety provisions are satisfactory.]
• Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit [Only if the existing circuit protective device is suitable and provides protection for the modified circuit, and other relevant safety provisions are satisfactory.]"

However, as the ring was extended around the room and thus new cable was run to these sockets, does this not go against the following:

"Replacing any fixed electrical equipment (for example, socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses) which does not include the provision of any new fixed cabling."

IF you altered the circuit then that s a different situation . Did you alter it:devilish:.

 

[TMess]

i can't understand why they want any certificate if the electrical work is non-notifiable. the home owner should have a Minor Electrical Works Installation Certificate, but that's all.

But can anyone issue a Minor Electrical Works Installation Certificate, even if they had not undertaken the installation themselves?

 

[morph]

But can anyone issue a Minor Electrical Works Installation Certificate, even if they had not undertaken the installation themselves?

technically no !

 

[TMess]

IF you altered the circuit then that s a different situation . Did you alter it:devilish:.

Here is a very rough sketch of what work was carried out. Is this classed as 'alteration' in terms of the Part P regulations?

 

[Guitarist]

But can anyone issue a Minor Electrical Works Installation Certificate, even if they had not undertaken the installation themselves?

As I have already said, I think this is what BC are getting testy about. Any competent person can carry out non-notifiable work, but it must be that person who certifies it. As this has not happened, they want to check it themselves.

 

[Guest55]

However Building Control was, which we paid for and organised on behalf of the client.

really ???
then you've already paid the fees and all that is required now is the paperwork.
if it was me , i'd get a EICR done for the circuits that were worked on by a part p spark.
give report to homeowner and get him to hand it over to BC and do nothing.
you've complied with regs so sit back and let them take the next move.

 

[TMess]

As I have already said, I think this is what BC are getting testy about. Any competent person can carry out non-notifiable work, but it must be that person who certifies it. As this has not happened, they want to check it themselves.

In which case, do they have a leg to stand on in terms of forcing us to use their own sub-contractors and charging a ridiculous amount for the 'privilege'?

And when you say "that person who certifies it", are you referring to issuing a Part P cert or something along the lines of an EICR?

 

[morph]

dont even need to be a part p spark , cant see why this has become such a big deal
as said get a EICR done

 

[Bradzz]

Building control have to foot the bill not the house holder. Section 1.26 of part P says this. but for some reason when you download this its blank just in that section ? look on line at this link
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf



page 11
bottom right

 

[TMess]

really ???
then you've already paid the fees and all that is required now is the paperwork.
if it was me , i'd get a EICR done for the circuits that were worked on by a part p spark.
give report to homeowner and get him to hand it over to BC and do nothing.
you've complied with regs so sit back and let them take the next move.

If at all possible, we would rather get everything signed off on behalf of the client (homeowner), as that is what we agreed to do and is part of our entire building service.

Can we just confirm that the electrical work is in deed not notifiable? (I have attached a diagram above)

 

[Guitarist]

In which case, do they have a leg to stand on in terms of forcing us to use their own sub-contractors and charging a ridiculous amount for the 'privilege'?

And when you say "that person who certifies it", are you referring to issuing a Part P cert or something along the lines of an EICR?

There is no such thing as a "part P cert". When we carry out notifiable work, we log it with our scheme provider, and the scheme provider notifies LBC and sends the homeowner a certificate. The electrician does not issue any kind of certificate himself, just test results.

 

[ruston]

No if you have paid the notification fee it is down to them , it's in the document if you have another look.

 

[TMess]

Building control have to foot the bill not the section 1.26 of part P says this. but for some reason when you download this its blank just in that section ? look on line at this link
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

page 11
bottom right

Hmmm, 1.26 of Part P which includes the 2010 amendment (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/AD_P_wm.pdf) states otherwise:

"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 to carry out the work on its behalf. Where the building control body is a local authority it cannot require the building owner to undertake this work. However, under the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010, the authority may charge a higher building control charge when first notified the work or levy a supplementary charge later, based on the recovery of its costs."

 

[morph]

No if you have paid the notification fee it is down to them , it's in the document if you have another look.

only if the electrical work was listed in the job description

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Having spoken to Building Control, they will only accept having the work 'tested' by their own sub-contractor and want a fee of £380 for this 'regularisation' work. We queried whether our newly found electrician can undertake the same 'tests' that their sub-contractor would and obviously at a much more sensible price. Their response was a firm 'no'.

Do we have any options available to us other than pay Building Control this extortionate fee? Surely they can't get away with charging such disproportionate amounts for work that any other competent person could do at the correct market price?

The term 'regularisation' work is used by many LABCs for notifying the work after it has been carried out.
Under Part P there are three methods for notification.
One is to pre-notify the work and pay the appropriate fee, the LABC will usually inspect the work once or maybe twice, and as long as the work is satisfactory, issue a Building Regulations Compliance Certificate.
In many cases the LABC will waive the inspections if they are happy that the tradesman is suitably qualified, and that the tradesman will issue an EIC/MEWIC upon completion.
The preferred method is to employ a tradesman who is registered with a Self Certification or Competent Persons scheme. The tradesman will then issue the Building Regulations Compliance Certificate.
The third and most expensive method is to notify retrospectively. The LABC will usually arrange for an Inspector to conduct an inspection and issue an EICR. The LABC then if the report is acceptable issue the Building Regulations Compliance Certificate.

Although the additions listed are not notifiable under Part P, it appears that either a planning application was made, or some form of notification was made to the LABC for the whole extension.
If the wiring additions were included in either a planning application, or LABC notification, then the LABC would apply the same criteria as if the work was notifiable under Part P.
As such if inspections have been waived and an EIC/MEWIC is expected and you are unable to produce one, the LABC will treat this as a retrospective notification, and will charge the fee accordingly.
It is not just the EICR that you wil be paying the LABC for, but also for regularising the retrospective notification.

You could argue extenuating circumstances, and that the electrical work is not notifiable under Part P, but you are still left with work that does not have an EIC/MEWIC and as such does not comply with the Electrical Regulations.
You will have to convince the LABC that the work is not notifiable, and without an EIC/MEWIC, that is going to be very hard to do.
Do the initial plans indicate that the existing circuits are to be extended rather than new circuits installed?