Cowboy problems

[Ed Turner]

I got asked to have a look at a house a couple of weeks ago that had just been "rewired". There are no end of snags, the first I noticed is the meter tails have been replaced with 10mm T&E (using CPC as earthing conductor). The main fuse has been pulled to swap the tails. There are cracked/damaged faceplates all over the house and still old red and black in the kitchen, visible because faceplates not screwed back. (I know if it tests fine it can still be used, but it clearly shows the house hasn't been fully rewired.)

The client has asked me for a bit of help/advice. She's been in touch with building control who had said the other sparky must be given the opportunity to complete the work. He's already written the certificate and been paid, to me that sounds like he has completed the work.

He used to be registered with a CP scheme but membership ceased 2 years ago.

She's got several addresses for him, none of which are recognised by any CP scheme.

Any ideas what to do next?

 

[Badged01]

If your sure hes not registered with a Part P provider and has done a re-wire which requires notifying under Part P then surely building control must have an interest. He's broken the law whether he fixes it or not!

I'd be speaking again to building control .....

 

[Octopus]

Give her help and support, within reason, then you will come out smelling of roses, unlike the prxck who did the work.

Could she write to trading standards? They may not be immediately interested, but the more letters they get, things may change

 

[Rockingit]

If your sure hes not registered with a Part P provider and has done a re-wire which requires notifying under Part P then surely building control must have an interest. He's broken the law whether he fixes it or not!

I'd be speaking again to building control .....

Unfortunately, no he hasnt. It's the duty of the homeowner to comply with Part P, not the contractor.

 

[Octopus]

Unfortunately, no he hasnt. It's the duty of the homeowner to comply with Part P, not the contractor.

I must disagree. If as claimed, he was a scheme member, then he has a duty to notify the client of the requirement of Part P

 

[Silly Sausage]

I must disagree. If as claimed, he was a scheme member, then he has a duty to notify the client of the requirement of Part P

The charmer isn't though (for the last 2 years, see the OP).
Sadly, I think the poor woman has been had.

 

[Octopus]

The charmer isn't though (for the last 2 years, see the OP).
Sadly, I think the poor woman has been had.

My point being is that he "was" a scheme member and therefore will understand Part P and couldn't claim they weren't aware.

 

[Rockingit]

I must disagree. If as claimed, he was a scheme member, then he has a duty to notify the client of the requirement of Part P

If he was holding out to be Part P registered and wasn't then that is a matter for Trading Standards, I read the OP as that it hadn't been specified either way. It's still the duty of the homeowner to either inform BC of the work or employ a registered contractor to do it for them - and THEY (homeowner) has the duty of due diligence to ensure that the credentials of the contractor are verified to all reasonable measures (that's an important fact in UK Law which often gets overlooked and applies to nearly all forms of contract and professions). That doesn't remove the contracting parties liability under fraud legislation, though.

 

[Iddy]

Building control take far too long to ressolve or worse even take an interest. Get the lady to contact cowboy builders probably get quicker response.

 

[Silly Sausage]

My point being is that he "was" a scheme member and therefore will understand Part P and couldn't claim they weren't aware.

Let's not do the 'Who's responsibility..' discussion again!
My point is, this "Installer" doesn't care less, unregistered, multiple addresses...

 

[Welchyboy1]

I would forget chasing him, your wasting your time

just do her an eicr and a cost for the remedials

 

[davesparks]

I'd say call building control and trading standards and insist something is done. Failing that write to your MP and the DCLG, this part P nonsense has gone on long enough.
Everyone needs to kick up a stink about these cowboys, just rolling over and putting their work right won't stop them.

 

[Sparkysoldman]

If your sure hes not registered with a Part P provider and has done a re-wire which requires notifying under Part P then surely building control must have an interest. He's broken the law whether he fixes it or not!

I'd be speaking again to building control .....

He he hasn't broken the law if he can prove he's competent
although if the work is as stated he won't be able to and claiming to be registered is probably fraud if you can prove he claimed he was
either way your friend appears to have been scammed

 

[Badged01]

Very true, its ultimately the homeowners responsibility! I made the assumption that he has convinced the homeowner he was Part P registered hence she used him unknown that he wasn't!

Either way (I'll assume again!) the work has not been registered under part P and so LABC should have an interest --- presumably a few other bodies such as trading stds as well.

Of course whether any of them will do anything is another matter .....

 

[Welchyboy1]

I'd say call building control and trading standards and insist something is done. Failing that write to your MP and the DCLG, this part P nonsense has gone on long enough.
Everyone needs to kick up a stink about these cowboys, just rolling over and putting their work right won't stop them.

Thing is unfortunately, it seems like no-one gives a hoot who's registered and who's not, and theres certainly no-one enforcing anything

round my way if an electrician is not registered and doesnt notify or cert works EVEN when building control are involved in the works, they only get another sparks to do an eicr, so what chance you got if there not involved?

me personally im just too busy to start getting involved, look on the bright side, you have got another client and a load of work out of it!

The shame of it is, unless someone dies or a house gets burnt to the ground, no-ones gonna be interested!

 

[davesparks]

Burying your head in the sand won't do anything!

Kick up a stink, involve trading standards, write to your MP, write to the tabloids, try bbc watchdog/rogue traders.

 

[R G]

In a way you could say Part P is to blame for the cowboy situation , anybody could claim to be approved or registered even though they are not , that in itself could get them work....

 

[davesparks]

Yes the part P culture started it, but we are all complicit in allowing it to happen.

 

[R G]

Well , I do think cowboys have always been around , but with the Part P stamp and with all the influx of untraceable foreigners its become much more a problem than ever , and together with the lack policing of the situation , its out of control,,,,

 

[davesparks]

Exactly, and now that some sparks have opened the governments eyes to the problems we need to carry on the fight.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

If your sure hes not registered with a Part P provider and has done a re-wire which requires notifying under Part P then surely building control must have an interest. He's broken the law whether he fixes it or not!

I'd be speaking again to building control .....

get real!!

the only thing they`l be interested in is why they havn`t been paid!!

lol...lol..

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Let's not do the 'Who's responsibility..' discussion again!
My point is, this "Installer" doesn't care less, unregistered, multiple addresses...

only thing he`l of installed in his life is a pint of ale and a bag of crisps down his gob....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

I must disagree. If as claimed, he was a scheme member, then he has a duty to notify the client of the requirement of Part P

for christs sake not this again mate...

ITS THE DUTY OF THE HOMEOWNER/PERSON ORDERING THE WORK TO NOTIFY LABC OF ANY WORKS CARRIED OUT THAT ARE NOTIFYABLE!!!


end of.

 

[Octopus]

for christs sake not this again mate...

ITS THE DUTY OF THE HOMEOWNER/PERSON ORDERING THE WORK TO NOTIFY LABC OF ANY WORKS CARRIED OUT THAT ARE NOTIFYABLE!!!


end of.

And I REPEAT. Its the duty of competent people to inform the public of the requirement. Ignorance is no defence.

END OF.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

And I REPEAT. Its the duty of competent people to inform the public of the requirement. Ignorance is no defence.

END OF.

well you cling to Part pis all you like fella...

i personally think it is pis....

 

[Silly Sausage]

only thing he`l of installed in his life is a pint of ale and a bag of crisps down his gob....

"Installer", I was being polite!!!

Oh aye, the City thing will be gone by Sunday night, it's a hobby of mine, winding up ManU fans. It's been a good year! :smilielol5:

 

[Ed Turner]

Update:
Just had an email from client saying she's not going to do anything about it. The cowboy turns out to be a friend's son and she doesn't want the hassle with her friend.
She's been told the intallation is dangerous, yet still isn't bothered because (wait for it).....
"..it's only a rental property!"

 

[Meggerman]

Update:
Just had an email from client saying she's not going to do anything about it. The cowboy turns out to be a friend's son and she doesn't want the hassle with her friend.
She's been told the intallation is dangerous, yet still isn't bothered because (wait for it).....
"..it's only a rental property!"

She should have said earlier if it's only a tenant!!

 

[Octopus]

Update:
Just had an email from client saying she's not going to do anything about it. The cowboy turns out to be a friend's son and she doesn't want the hassle with her friend.
She's been told the intallation is dangerous, yet still isn't bothered because (wait for it).....
"..it's only a rental property!"

Fantastic - lets hope nothing goes wrong as the bills could get rather high letting a sub-standard property to a tenant!

 

[Badged01]

She should have said earlier if it's only a tenant!!

True, they're expendable .....

 

[R G]

Well all I can say is make sure she gets a good deposit from the tenant , could be a pain in lost rent money if you loose one ,,,,,

 

[R G]

"Installer", I was being polite!!!

Oh aye, the City thing will be gone by Sunday night, it's a hobby of mine, winding up ManU fans. It's been a good year! :smilielol5:

My brother a Man U fan has never been so quite in the last year ,,,LOL,,,

 

[ferg]

Update:
Just had an email from client saying she's not going to do anything about it. The cowboy turns out to be a friend's son and she doesn't want the hassle with her friend.
She's been told the intallation is dangerous, yet still isn't bothered because (wait for it).....
"..it's only a rental property!"

I had something similar a while back.
Asked to do some alterations, after a quick look round I informed the landlord the existing install was dangerous and a fire waiting to happen. Therefore I wouldn't carry out any of the works he requested.

His reply... "I'll just put in a couple of battery powered smoke alarms then."

I did actually rewire the place a couple of years later for new owners and guess what... no smoke alarms and even more dodgy diy added to it.

In situations like this the best you can do is advise, issue danger notice / write letter and walk.