Many people worry about contravening Part P. What have been the practical consequences of ingoring it's rules?
i.e. Has anyone been penalised or has anyone refused to buy a property because there wasn't a certificate?
I'm just interested in how vigorously it's implemented, or is it effectively just a paper attempt to improve standards ?
Andy C
Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with standards. Just a way of trying to keep jobs for the boys. Same as the old CORGI registration, etc.
Apart from new builds/extensions, nobody is ever going to find out, and it
If you sell your property, there's usually a question regarding building work on it.
If work had been carried out, you don't declare it, and the work was non-compliant - you might be laying yourself open to litigation.
If the work was grossly unsafe (whether you declare it or not), and someone was harmed as a consequence, you might be prosecuted.
I believe one procedure to handle the situation where the seller declares unapproved building work is that the buyer (if mortgaged) has to buy extra insurance coverage against possible consequences.
I've certainly heard of buyers walking away when their surveyor warns them of significant non-compliant building work - but non-compliant electrical work on its own is pretty unlikely to be spotted or a show- stopper if it is.
How would 'they' prove you'd carried out the work yourself and not some cowboy contractor? Or do you think a home owner should be responsible for that too after selling? If so, that opens up a whole can of worms.
It's up to the buyer to satisfy himself as to the safety etc of all things when buying a secondhand house.
I sold my UK home in November 2008. On the seller's question sheet I answered all the questions honestly including saying that I had installed the boiler and had done multiple wiring changes including a new CU since the magic date. No problems whatsoever, no certificates requested. On the gas side before marketing the property I got a local CORGI guy to check it out the gas and issue a Landlord's safety certificate, but that was mainly for my own peace of mind.
I agree with you - but only up to a point. AIUI, from a legal viewpoint, a buyer would have no case against "obvious defects" that anyone, without specialised training, should notice.
In practice, it would come down to how much money the buyer has to shell out to rectify the problem - versus what their solicitor tells them is their chances of successful litigation.
If you've buried toxic waste in the garden (or maybe just had a contractor wire up all your sockets with bellwire) - I think you'd be on very dodgy ground (or rather the new owner would be!).
The new owner bought it off *you*, and had a contract with *you*, and
*you* have their money - not any contractor that might have done the dirty deed. You might be able to sue the contractor - but the new owner is going to go after *you*.Again, in practice I think it would have to be gross - not minor non- compliance or unapproved work.
But it's *you* as the seller that declare "no building work in the last 5 years" on the conveyancing paperwork.
As an example - I bought a very rural property with septic tank drainage from a little old lady - that made very clear and unambiguous statements that the system was working perfectly and only required a pump-out twice a year. 2 weeks after we moved in, the system backed up. We got the tank pump-out bloke round, who told us "Oh the drainage field is wrecked. The little old lady had me round every 2 weeks to pump it out"
We didn't take up the matter with her. It was quite obvious she was living hand-to-mouth and needed the money. With a different seller we might have pursued it - I'm pretty sure we could have recovered the several thousand cost of a new system.
Now this example isn't building work - but it is condition of the property being grossly different to that advertised - and in a way that the layman can't easily detect.
In selling a property, I wouldn't tell lies like that - both on principle, and because of the significant risk of facing litigation.
Most local authorities will send you a get of jail free card if you ask them. something along the lines of "it happened more than 12 months ago we have no interest in the matter" or that's what the head of building control told me.
As long as the work complies with BS7671 there is essentially nothing that can be done.
They can issue a S38 enforcement notice if work
There were a couple of legal cases early on, which tacked part p contravention onto other existing cases brought against some cowboy traders. Other than that, none that I have heard of.
Although contravention of the building regs is in theory a criminal offence that can carry up to a £5K fine, it does require the LBA to bring a legal case to start the ball rolling. Needless to say they have limited legal budgets and will spend those on the few serious cases of gross misconduct where their usual more softly softly approach has no effect. (think dodgy developer building death trap retirement flats with inadequate fire control and no banisters on the stairs, rather than Jo DIYer, adding a socket in his kitchen)
So the chances of there being legal action against a DIYer are vanishingly small. For work which is otherwise correct and complies with BS7671, but the violation was just procedural (i.e. failure to submit a building notice), the chances are even less so.
There was a little bit of interest by solicitors in the early days, but now that seems to have waned. Some may request the seller acquires insurance to protect against any future claims by the LBA. This is dirt cheap usually since its almost impossible for the LBA to do anything once the time window for action has closed.
It was never really about improving standards - that was just the "hook" to sell it to the public. From the government side it was almost certainly about attempting to drive the black and grey market into registration with organisations that would place them above the radar from the taxation point of view, plus the socialists usual desire to micromanage everything. From the other interested parties (i.e. those with membership fees to charge and training to sell), it was a combination of self interest and job protection - erecting some extra barriers to entry for those outside of the club.
Indeed. It seems that brutal honesty or simply "I don't know" are the best lines of defence.
So what if the seller is a little old lady who has to sell because she's going dotty and needs to pay for a old folks home? Is she too expected to remember what has and hasn't been done - and to what standard?
Buyer beware is the best advice.
Indeed, buyer beware is always the best advice.
I knew full well that I was buying a property where any building or maintenance that had been carried out, had been done to well below the cheapest diy bodgit standards.
However outright lies in relation to high value transactions may have very unpleasant repercussions.
I don't know exactly where the law stands in relation to mental incompetence in relation to contracts - but I would imagine it would be up to the defendant to *prove* they were incompetent at the moment they signed the contract.
I think there's only a very few people on this forum that could
*reliably* fall back on that defense.
Actually not. Case law on the issue has established that the compensation payable in such an instance is the difference in value of the property with/without the defect. This is often far less that the cost of repair.
tim
I'm sure from the government's point of view it was also the intention to stimulate/grow the economy by forcing people to pay for the work to be done, rather than DIY. Where the government expect us to get the money to grow the economy I have no idea - eventually people will stop lending it to us!
The NICEIC monthly newsletter usually lists one or two companies or individuals in each edition that have been taken to court for breaching part P.
Of course the mag gives little or no info (like most of it's content) :-)
File under "They would say that". NICIEC are about the only people in favour of Prat P so I'd be skeptical about anything they print.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.