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...