New Electrical Regs - Again

Page 3 of 10  
<snip>

Second small snag - LAs are likely to charge 100 quid upwards for processing notices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:32:35 +0100, Mike Harrison
Furhter info available on that.
I spoke with the building control manager of our local council about this a couple of days ago. He and his department will be responsible for carrying out these tests. And he wasn't aware that from next April this is going to land on his plate.
Re costs, he wasn't able to give exact guidance but did say that for carrying out window inspections the standard cost is 70. If the electrical inspection is broadly the same amount of work then that's what the bill is likely to be. However I intimated that perhaps the testing might have to be more thorough and take more time - and he didn't flinch when I said maybe the bill would be 250 or more.
So I carry out a general DIY type job for a householder to fit a new light fitting and charge him 30 for the job. Then the council come along and stiff the householder for another 250. If it weren't for the requirement to be an NICEIC member I might have been able to carry out those tests and issue a certificate for an all in cost of say 40 (a 10 uplift - I'm already on-site so no call-out charge to issue the certificate). So the householder will get badly stiffed by this new legislation.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:58:21 +0100, PoP

I think that this would be a minor work, but I take your point.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 13:08:43 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

What if it is a kitchen light fitting?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:56:12 +0100, John Armstrong
It was. As explained in another reply, if I had not needed to remove the light fitting from the ceiling then it would not have been covered by the new regs, but because I disturbed the electrical installation then it would have been.
I wonder about the idiocy of the rule regarding a kitchen/diner? Presumably (unless it is blatantly kitchen) I can pretend it is in the dining room to avoid the certification. Or a kitchen if I want to protect my arse from litigation.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It may not be. I did a job recently for a householder where a bulb was smashed in the kitchen light fitting, leaving the wire element of the bulb poking out at a dangerous angle - it was one of these shrouded light fittings with 3 bulbs and lampholders. The only reasonable way of fixing this was to take the light fitting off the ceiling and dismantle it, re-assemble, then put it back.
Being in the kitchen (or bathroom) and having physically disturbed the installation means that this work would be covered by the new regs, and I would expect to be charging in the region of 20-30 pounds for that job (from memory I think I actually charged 10 pounds because I was working on some other minor jobs around the house).
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In this sort of situation I really don't see how anyone will ever know that a certificate should have been issued, and thus in most cases it won't be.
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Oct 2003 08:14:25 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In the event that the householder suffered casualty or death some time after the work was carried out then there may be a paper trail of an invoice and/or sales receipt generated from the work undertaken. That will lead Plod to your front door sooner than sharpish.
One assumes that the householder might be found smouldering on the floor (when the ceiling fixture has been touched) by a family member. That family member might well remember "oh yes, he/she had that fitting looked at by someone last year". And in the particular case that I refer to I was doing the job on behalf of a landlord - the landlord is definitely going to remember they paid to have the light fitting sorted, otherwise the landlord would become liable (probably).
I don't think it is safe to assume that non-compliance won't be traceable.
What it is bound to do however is to increase the black market racketeering, and dear old Gordon Brown is most likely going to see less tax dollars, not more, as electrical practitioners trouser the cash rather than get the electrics tested. That will become even more likely because if the householder phones an electrician who says "that'll be 150 quid with the test certificate", and phones another who says "50 quid in readies without test certificate", guess which one the householder is going to go for?
That first sparky might have done the job originally for say 70 quid, not a huge increase on the 50 quid and the householder might not feel inclined to get a 2nd quote. Gordon would have got his tax on the 70 quid being properly declared - instead he gets SFA because the money goes into the black economy.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was thinking much more of the D-I-Y case where the householder has removed and replaced the kitchen light him/herself. Obviously if the work has been paid for then there is, as you say, a paper trail to follow.
I have, over the years, rewired large parts of our house. How could anyone possibly decide which bits I have done and which I haven't? (Except, hopefully, that my bits look better than the original)
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Quite.
especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red cable.....
So, these regs will actually create an incentive for the DIYer not to comply with regs.
Great.
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi RichardS In you wrote:

This may be a really stupid question, but what is black and red being replaced with? Why do you need to stock up on black and red?
--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you wrote:

IIRC Brown and Blue (or some other colours for three phase) (it was posted here a month or so ago)

Um, so you can pretend that the work was done, before both the rules changed and the colour of T&E changed at about the same time.
Tim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Fishter" wrote | > especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red | > cable..... | This may be a really stupid question, but what is black and red being | replaced with?
Blue and brown - like flexes
| Why do you need to stock up on black and red?
Because if you use blue and brown, it will be obvious that it is new work and comes under the regulations. If you use black and red it will look like old work put in before the regulations came into force.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:40:27 +0100, "Owain"

Pity the home owner who moves into a new house after next April then! There he will be, making out the wiring was done before April 2004 because it is black and red, and his wiring sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the blue and brown ;)
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Owain In you wrote:

Cheers Owain and tim.
--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Would someone post a URL for a fuller explanation of what is happening?

-- Alan G "The corporate life [of society] must be subservient to the lives of the parts instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life." (Herbert Spencer)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you want the government version or the truth?
This is the government version.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_023509.hcsp
1) Check the way that the statistics have been gathered and (mis)represented. There is little or no basis on grounds of safety based on actual data to support this legislation
2) Note also the way that no account has been made of the opinions of the public. Those who did bother to write to their MPs have been ignored, very blatantly.
3) Try to work out how it might be enforced.
Then tell us your conclusions.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Very few incidents in view of the millions of installations

I'm surprised any member of the public got to hear in the first place. This is a stitch up closed shop.

It cannot be enforced except when a house changes hands and the seller is going to have to shell out for a gas safety certificate and an elecrical safety certificate.

The country is getting more like ancient china every day. You are going to need a chit to shit soon.
-- Alan G "The corporate life [of society] must be subservient to the lives of the parts instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life." (Herbert Spencer)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. I suspect that that will happen and also that people will go for regularisation certificates from building control departments at local authorities.
From a quick scan at a few local authority web sites, it appears that a regularisation fee is the same as a building notice fee and that the first does not carry VAT whereas the second does. Ergo, it would appear to cheaper to do nothing at the outset and apply for regularisation later.

Quite.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

eg_023509.hcsp
The country under this fascist dictatorial regime is now becoming well beyond a joke. If any f......g government jobsworth tries to enter my house and dictate to me what I can or cannot do in my own home, he'll be leaving on a stretcher!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.