Doctor Drivel wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Ah, so what you are saying then,
Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third
world levels,
We have plenty of "rules" - I think you will find that is partly the
problem. They are so inane, pointless and unenforceable that it
encourages people to ignore them. By extension however it also devalues
the building regulations that do have a good purpose.
I agree that this is a poor state of affairs that will result in falling
standards overall.
I don't see how any of this strengthens your assertion that people face
jail time for non compliance with part P...
The fiest test case will set the agenda on that.
There have actually been three just recently. See:
http://www.iee.org/Forums/forum/mess...VIEWTMP=Linear
Contains a direct link to the Newcastle case:
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/e...story_continue
All three were acting as professional electricians to the public.
As far as I can see all three cases involved not working to IEE Wiring Regs,
including some fundamental and dangerous bodgery and using a NICEIC logo
without being actually members.
The Newcastle case, both men got fined 8050 each plus costs for a total of
23 offences.
The Bath case, man fined 1500, work not in accordance with British
Standards.
Carlisle case: 5000 fine, 5 offences at 2 sites. Lack of bonding, exposed
live wires plus more.
=======
So, my analysis: In the cited cases, they deserved it. I'm surprised that
the Newcastle and Carlisle case didn't result in gaol time, personally.
I would also summise that the ODPM has been suggesting that LBAs find
someone to nick as these cases all came to light together, recently.
I also stand by my earlier point that LBAs aren't interested in going to
court except in extreme cases. All 3 cases seem to classify as relatively
extreme. Bear in mind, that's 3 prosecutions of tradesmen in over a year -
not a high percentage of all the "illegal" work that probably going on.
No DIY prosecutions (yet) and I don't really forsee any, unless someone does
something stupid and dangerous, in which case it might just be used as a
chargeable offence where someone gets a shock of the house burns down. In
all 3 cases, it would appear that Wiring Regs were not followed. If the
work had been to standard, but not notified, I wonder what the magistrates
would have done? Thing is, that I doubt that the LBA would bother bringing
such cases to court unless they've had a really bad day.
I agree with John's point about devaluing the Building Regs. There are
breaches such as these, which on the face of it, deserve the full force of
the law - and there are technical breaches where someone, in their own
house, knows well enough what they are doing, and just can't be bothered
with the excessive beaurocracy.
It's not just about filling out a BNA and coughing up 100+VAT. It's about
there being no real standard procedure for handling Part P. One LBA has
told me that they want a 1st fix inspection - which is often more than
inconvenient in electrical work, which like plumbing, is often done in an
incremental fashion. There's the cost - 100+VAT for 40 quids worth of parts
to do a few minor alterations. There's the waiting for the BCO or contract
agents to turn up.
None of these things are such a problem in a large project like building an
extension - the job itself is expensive and involves much time, and the BCO
often acts as a source of useful information.
I also notice that Tonbridge BC have declared a specific procedure for Part
P:
http://www.tmbc.gov.uk/cgi-bin/buildpage.pl?mysql=610
In short the fee is 105+VAT and is *in addition* to any other Building
Notices - hmm - when did each section ever attract it's own charge before?
Tim