On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:33:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:24:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):

Matt, it is not commissioned by the
vendor. It would be "mandatory" and the
vendor pays.

That argument is semantic.

Matt, like an MOT tester. Does your do dodgy deals? They cleared up the
MOT system as at one time it was joke.

If one house MOT is required covering structure and all services and notes
where they are behind to current standards (old inefficient boiler that
gobbles fuel, no RCD, for instances), then that is what is required.

No it isn't.

If I buy a car, I certainly don't rely on the MOT as evidence of condition.


I don't with a house either.

I will make my own assessment, with appropriate professional advice if I
choose, and pay for it myself.

Certainly I don't need, want or expect to pay for the government's choices on
what it thinks is important among my decision making criteria.