EIC to local council out of date??

[Midwest]

If he’s paid for a service and not received that, he could reasonably expect a refund. What has happened, is both of you have not followed the procedures correctly.
I‘d get some legal advice.

 

[Vortigern]

For a £150 smackers I would just pay and keep good will. Call it your education fees, it's what you have to pay to learn who someone is and how to deal with them it's not worth the aggro for that pitiful amount.

 

[sparksfly]

28 days is a farce anyhow. If the builder got another to part P it without contacting you then that is his problem...go work for someone else.

 

[davesparks]

If he’s paid for a service and not received that, he could reasonably expect a refund. What has happened, is both of you have not followed the procedures correctly.
I‘d get some legal advice.

I would say he has received the service he paid for.
As I understand it the builder has paid the OP to carry out inspection and testing and issue an EIC, the OP has done this. The builder has sat on it for 18 months instead of sending it to the council within 28 days, so I'd say the fault lies with the builder.

 

[Midwest]

I would say he has received the service he paid for.
As I understand it the builder has paid the OP to carry out inspection and testing and issue an EIC, the OP has done this. The builder has sat on it for 18 months instead of sending it to the council within 28 days, so I'd say the fault lies with the builder.

Don’t think that’s the case if re read the OP posts. He has been certifying another electricians work, and previously the LBC has accepted this as notification, presumably via planning or building reg approval or notice. Would appear they’ve had a change of heart, and the builder wants his money back.

Don’t think the builder stands much chance of getting his money back, but think the OP should get that legal advice first.

 

[Vortigern]

I have to say to admin, the green on grey and gray on gray in quotes is nearly unreadable very poor colour combination.

 

[Simon47]

It has to be notified to the council, one way or another, within 28 days of completion of the work.
A certificate dated 18months ago is a long way overdue so they have a good reason not to accept it.

Err, not necessarily. The certificate has no expiration date, and in any case, the electrics might be done and then the rest of the work take some time - so even notifying within 28 days of completion of work could legitimately be some time after the certificate was issued.

This is totally on you I'm afraid Sparky, it's your responsibility to notify building control within 28 days of completion.

No, it is NOT the contractor's responsibility. It is the person ordering the work who is responsible for notifying, but he can subcontract that to the contractor if both agree. If he's just asked a sparky to do some work and not mentioned it, then it's not the sparky's responsibility.

Sounds like this work was part of an extension, which might of been under planning, certainly building reg approval or building notice.
For the former, sometimes an LBC will encompass the electrical works in the building reg approval. In that case, electrical works do not need a separate notification.

Correct, and doing as part of the whole project avoids the need to pay a separate fee just to notify the the electrical works.

As I understand it the builder has paid the OP to carry out inspection and testing and issue an EIC, the OP has done this. The builder has sat on it for 18 months instead of sending it to the council within 28 days, so I'd say the fault lies with the builder.

Me too.

It would be interesting to see what exactly the council used as a reason for rejecting the certificate. The certificate itself is not "out of date" so that cannot be it. If it is indeed that the window has passed for notifying completion that that is the builder's fault.
I'd be turning round to the builder and telling him in no uncertain terms to go forth and procreate. If the builder wants to go to court then fine - he'll lose and then be more out of pocket.

 

[andyb]

No, it is NOT the contractor's responsibility. It is the person ordering the work who is responsible for notifying, but he can subcontract that to the contractor if both agree. If he's just asked a sparky to do some work and not mentioned it, then it's not the sparky's responsibility.

I suggest that you read the part p document.


One of the following three procedures must be used.
So, is the electrician registered with a scheme?
Or did he use a registered third party
Or did he inform building control?

If you are an electrician, it’s up to you to know the building regs and do what’s necessary. You can’t just do the work and say ‘Oh, I thought someone else was notifying it’ Even if you did, you still have not compiled with part p if you do none of the above.

 

[Simon47]

What you have quoted is correct, but is not relevant. It says HOW things may be CERTIFIED, now go and read the building regs where it says WHO must NOTIFY.

It is the person commissioning the work who is responsible for notifying it. That's no problem if the spark is a member of a scam - the spark will notify through the scam as a matter of course, and the scam will issue a completion certificate. If not, then the person commissioning the work must notify the LABC before the work commences - or contract someone to do it on their behalf.
The process is clear: person commissioning the work, or someone acting on their behalf, notifies LABC before work starts; the work is done; LABC performs any inspections it deems appropriate (none if adequate EICs are provided); when notified the work is complete and it is satisfied that the work is satisfactory then the LABC issues a completion certificate.
Unless contracted by the customer, the spark is not under any obligation to notify the work. If the spark is in a scam then there'll be an implied contract for them to do so via the scam, but not otherwise unless the customer asks for them to do so.

 

[Midwest]

@andyb & @Simon47 you are both right I believe.

First, if a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them in the Magistrates' Court where an unlimited fine may be imposed (sections 35 and 35A of the Building Act 1984). Prosecution is possible up to two years after the completion of the offending work. This action will usually be taken against the person carrying out the work (builder, installer or main contractor).

Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the building owner requiring alteration or removal of work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.

With all building work, the owner of the property (or land) in question is ultimately responsible for complying with the relevant planning rules and building regulations (regardless of the need to apply for planning permission and/or building regulations approval or not).

Therefore, failure to comply with the relevant rules will result in the owner being liable for any remedial action (which could go as far as demolition and/or restoration). The general advice is to always discuss your proposals with the relevant local planning authority and building control service before starting work. Planning Portal

Prosecutions and enforcement

Your responsibilities

 

[Sparky692]

Hi All . I am awaiting the builders next reply and also from the Local council in regards this.Have been away for a few days but thanks for the input from all.