Can someone clarify this please...Part Pee

[Dustydazzler]

So I was on a small job today changing a consumer unit and they customer just a few weeks ago had a brand-new luxury bathroom / showroom done by a local plumber. The plumber fitted all new LED lights , 2 new mains towel rails , electric shower and new shaver socket. No testing done whatsoever and no RCD present at the time was was an old re-wireable fuse box.
I told the homeowner this wasn't acceptable. They rang the plumber who I spoke to on the phone and he was adamant his work was fine and its the homeowners responsibility to comply with Part Pee and not his!!!! So I did some looking on the interwed and apparently he is correct, It is the homeowners responsivity to inform building control. And if a penalty notice / proscution was issued agains the work it would be the Homeowner liable for the fine and not the plumber who did all the work.

Is this correct ?

 

[suffolkspark]

So I was on a small job today changing a consumer unit and they customer just a few weeks ago had a brand-new luxury bathroom / showroom done by a local plumber. The plumber fitted all new LED lights , 2 new mains towel rails , electric shower and new shaver socket. No testing done whatsoever and no RCD present at the time was was an old re-wireable fuse box.
I told the homeowner this wasn't acceptable. They rang the plumber who I spoke to on the phone and he was adamant his work was fine and its the homeowners responsibility to comply with Part Pee and not his!!!! So I did some looking on the interwed and apparently he is correct, It is the homeowners responsivity to inform building control. And if a penalty notice / proscution was issued agains the work it would be the Homeowner liable for the fine and not the plumber who did all the work.

Is this correct ?

Yes, i believe that is correct, it is the home owners responsibility to ensure its compliant, which is crap as how would they know, but the plumber sounds a dick and probably isnt insured to be doing electrics, and clearly not competant, and if the worst happened would perhaps be in warm water. That said arent we allegedly open to fines for late notification. All such a scam

 

[DPG]

He's playing a technicality around Part P to avoid having to bother testing, certifying or notifying his work. All work should be tested and certified by the person doing the work.

He probably does this regularly. It will allow him to avoid using an electrician and thus he can maximise his profits.

 

[snowhead]

The homeowner may be fined if the work was not notified but the person carrying out the work, whether it had been notified or not by themselves or the homeowner, WILL be prosecuted if faulty / non compliant work caused death or injury.
And it's not for the homeowner to test work done by others and to issue certificates for that testing to make sure it would comply, that's the responsibility of the competent person carrying out the work.

The customer needs to write (not phone) to the plumber and ask for the test certificate that he/she completed after testing as proof that their work is "Fine" so that they (the customer) can notify the L.A.
The customer should say, that if the plumber says he/she won't / can't / doesn't need to complete and or provide a certificate that they (the customer) will notify the L.A of that refusal and will have the work tested by a competent electrician.
Any work completed by the plumber that is found to be substandard / non compliant will be quoted for and the plumber given the opportunity to pay for the work.

 

[LukeD]

Another farce as usual in the business/country .So many other countries just do things so much better .

 

[DPG]

Another farce as usual in the business/country .So many other countries just do things so much better .

And many do things much worse!

 

[LukeD]

And many do things much worse!

No excuse for us though..

 

[James]

The homeowner may be fined if the work was not notified but the person carrying out the work, whether it had been notified or not by themselves or the homeowner, WILL be prosecuted if faulty / non compliant work caused death or injury.
And it's not for the homeowner to test work done by others and to issue certificates for that testing to make sure it would comply, that's the responsibility of the competent person carrying out the work.

The customer needs to write (not phone) to the plumber and ask for the test certificate that he/she completed after testing as proof that their work is "Fine" so that they (the customer) can notify the L.A.
The customer should say, that if the plumber says he/she won't / can't / doesn't need to complete and or provide a certificate that they (the customer) will notify the L.A of that refusal and will have the work tested by a competent electrician.
Any work completed by the plumber that is found to be substandard / non compliant will be quoted for and the plumber given the opportunity to pay for the work.

A well thought out and useful piece of advice.

 

[Julie.]

So I was on a small job today changing a consumer unit and they customer just a few weeks ago had a brand-new luxury bathroom / showroom done by a local plumber. The plumber fitted all new LED lights , 2 new mains towel rails , electric shower and new shaver socket. No testing done whatsoever and no RCD present at the time was was an old re-wireable fuse box.
I told the homeowner this wasn't acceptable. They rang the plumber who I spoke to on the phone and he was adamant his work was fine and its the homeowners responsibility to comply with Part Pee and not his!!!! So I did some looking on the interwed and apparently he is correct, It is the homeowners responsivity to inform building control. And if a penalty notice / proscution was issued agains the work it would be the Homeowner liable for the fine and not the plumber who did all the work.

Is this correct ?

Sort of.

The council can/will prosecute/fine the homeowner, as strictly speaking they are the ones at fault.

However there is also an implied contract between the homeowner and the contractor to do compliant work.

If the appropriate information has not been provided to either the homeowner or the council (via the part p routes) then this could be seen as a failure on the contractor.

But ultimately it means:

Council fines the homeowner.

Homeowner sues the contractor to recover all costs etc.

So technically the contractor is "on the hook" but it isn't really going to happen.

 

[LukeD]

Ive told many clients they can legally be "Contractors " and held responsible . In someways it should be this way . Client has to check legality of person working , their insurance and payment process to show no money laundering or "cash in hand " work .This would soon see many leaves falling of the tree !

 

[plugsandsparks]

Funny how you are there to change the CU, and suddenly make the installation electrically safe, lol

I smell a rat

 

[Midwest]

I’ve not read of many actions taken by LBC in pursuance of the regulations, as highlighted in this instance, and indeed of other circumstances. In my experience, LBC‘s, do not know or are not mindful whether to proceed. If they did, there wouldn’t be people like this carrying out such works.

 

[Markyd]

Name him, pond life
...................................

 

[Dustydazzler]

Out of morbid curiosity if I go to a house and fit a new gas boiler is it my responsibilty or the home owners to tell the council ?

 

[SparkyChick]

I would argue that the plumber is not correct, that we are liable for the failure to notify and not the home owner.

I've looked into this and having read the approved document a few times, unless I'm much mistaken, the wording implies that the "persons intending to carry out the works" are responsible for ensuring things are notified and compliant.

Since we are intent on carrying out the works I would say that puts the responsibility firmly with us.

 

[Dustydazzler]

I would argue that the plumber is not correct, that we are liable for the failure to notify and not the home owner.

I've looked into this and having read the approved document a few times, unless I'm much mistaken, the wording implies that the "persons intending to carry out the works" are responsible for ensuring things are notified and compliant.

Since we are intent on carrying out the works I would say that puts the responsibility firmly with us.

Just playinging devils advocate

If the homeowner asked the plumber to install XYZ and the plumber said 'okay I will install XYZ under your instruction but YOU need to notify the council'

?

 

[SparkyChick]

Just playinging devils advocate

If the homeowner asked the plumber to install XYZ and the plumber said 'okay I will install XYZ under your instruction but YOU need to notify the council'

?

As has been pointed out... it's the usual mess of badly worded garbage that lacks clarity regarding the actual responsibilities.

 

[goasis]

What a ridiculous, but probably all too common scenario. Builders, plumbers, kitchen fitters, handymen etc, happy to do unregulated, uninsured and unsafe work. Customers (the general public) are grossly uninformed about what should (and who should) be doing this work.

 

[Midwest]

I would argue that the plumber is not correct, that we are liable for the failure to notify and not the home owner.

I've looked into this and having read the approved document a few times, unless I'm much mistaken, the wording implies that the "persons intending to carry out the works" are responsible for ensuring things are notified and compliant.

Since we are intent on carrying out the works I would say that puts the responsibility firmly with us.

Ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the property. Person carrying out the work and the owner must ensure that building regulations are complied with. It is the owner who would be served with any enforcement notice, if the work does not comply with the regulations. Peron carrying out the work, can be prosecuted in Magistrate's Court (sections 35 and 35A of the Building Act 1984).

The only enforcement notices I've read about, are in regard to large projects, I've never read such about as in this instance.

 

[mainline]

So I was on a small job today changing a consumer unit and they customer just a few weeks ago had a brand-new luxury bathroom / showroom done by a local plumber. The plumber fitted all new LED lights , 2 new mains towel rails , electric shower and new shaver socket. No testing done whatsoever and no RCD present at the time was was an old re-wireable fuse box.
I told the homeowner this wasn't acceptable. They rang the plumber who I spoke to on the phone and he was adamant his work was fine and its the homeowners responsibility to comply with Part Pee and not his!!!! So I did some looking on the interwed and apparently he is correct, It is the homeowners responsivity to inform building control. And if a penalty notice / proscution was issued agains the work it would be the Homeowner liable for the fine and not the plumber who did all the work.

Is this correct ?

What's the standard of his work like ? Other than the obvious lack of RCD.
I'm assuming he knew that the CU was getting changed, so basically he knew that his work was going to be tested.

 

[DefyG]

If the homeowner asked the plumber to install XYZ and the plumber said 'okay I will install XYZ under your instruction but YOU need to notify the council'

Thats fine as long as the plumber/contractor issues the necessary certification to the homeowner for the homeowner to notify the LA within the specified timescale (30days) within Part P.

 

[Midwest]

Thats fine as long as the plumber/contractor issues the necessary certification to the homeowner for the homeowner to notify the LA within the specified timescale (30days) within Part P.

I've often wondered what would happen if they didn't? Can't see my LBC give a damn.

 

[Dustydazzler]

I've often wondered what would happen if they didn't? Can't see my LBC give a damn.

Exactly , I could do a board change tomorrow hand the homeowner a scribbled EIC and say please submit this to the council for PartPee

If they don't , then what....?

 

[Midwest]

Exactly , I could do a board change tomorrow hand the homeowner a scribbled EIC and say please submit this to the council for PartPee

If they don't , then what....?

Agree. However, as been said before, it can put off potential buyer’s should you try to sell your house.

 

[brianmoooore]

We all know that no one, LBCs included, is going to give a flying about EICs until there is a fatality or other very serious incident at the property in question. It's all about a signature to pin the blame on.
Living in the rural area that I do, a good proportion of the work I have done is on jobs where no planning permission has been applied for, with the home owner preferring to rely on the soon to be abolished 'four year rule' instead, so it wouldn't go down too well if I submitted paperwork to the authorities.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Agree. However, as been said before, it can put off potential buyer’s should you try to sell your house.

No one cares about that in the real world

I have brought 2 houses with missing paperwork one a missing Fensa for windows and one a missing cert for a small extension

60 quid a pop for a indemnity and everything went through without a hitch

 

[Dustydazzler]

We all know that no one, LBCs included, is going to give a flying about EICs until there is a fatality or other very serious incident at the property in question. It's all about a signature to pin the blame on.
Living in the rural area that I do, a good proportion of the work I have done is on jobs where no planning permission has been applied for, with the home owner preferring to rely on the soon to be abolished 'four year rule' instead, so it wouldn't go down too well if I submitted paperwork to the authorities.

You could ask for some cash for Not submitting any paperwork

 

[brianmoooore]

All testing completed and paperwork filled in - then left with the householder.

 

[Dustydazzler]

All testing completed and paperwork filled in - then left with the householder.

Exactly how it should be , let them decide if they want to send to the council or not

 

[Midwest]

No one cares about that in the real world

I have brought 2 houses with missing paperwork one a missing Fensa for windows and one a missing cert for a small extension

60 quid a pop for a indemnity and everything went through without a hitch

I think building a property or an extension without planning or notice, is something LBC will go after, depending on its impact.

All an indemnity policy will cover is the legal action. If it’s found against you, it doesn’t include the cost to put right.

When I sold my house a few years ago, I only had one interested buyer, who was (or his solicitor was) very interested in my Compliance docs.

That said, no one would give a scobby about a bathroom refurb with no Part P.

 

[brianmoooore]

I think building a property or an extension without planning or notice, is something LBC will go after, depending on its impact.

All perfectly legal after four years (or ten, depending on circumstances), as long as all building regs have been complied with.

 

[Midwest]

All perfectly legal after four years (or ten, depending on circumstances), as long as all building regs have been complied with.

Think the time limit on enforcement is actually 12 months after works completion in general? And I've read there is scope for a LBC to take out an injunction.