Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Do you think a Part P inspector ...

No such person.

There is. Certified Electricians who will test a house and give a
certificate saying it conforms to Part P. It is now big business.


In an ideal world. I've also seen reports of someone from the BC office
turning up, having a quick look and signing the job off without
any sort of formal tests. The BCO doesn't need to possess any qualifications
to sign off a Part P notification, though most do subcontract a PIR as
supporting evidence.

... pulls back on the rules because of the person paying?

Yes, actually - and very definitely.

I can't account for your cowboy dealings.

Get real. Years ago, I went to an MOT station, where your MOT was issued
in 20 minutes, the engine was cold and the car suspiciously parked exactly
as I left it. Why should it not be the case that a vendor finds a similarly
bent HIP inspector. I as the buyer have had no opportunity to assess the
inspector so my natural inclination is to regard a HIP as untrustworthy.

To my mind the whole HIP/HCR thing - which, as has already been said,
wasn't going to include testing gas or electrical installations in any
case - is fundamentally flawed. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It should include all services.

If the government was going to bother at all, then I agree, it should.
Caveat still applies though. And it wasn't going to bother - in reality it
was going to be an assessment carried out by a failed hairdresser or
suchlike. I have more competence to assess a building than the shower of HI
trainees that I was listening to on the radio last year.


You probably do. I suppose you think the same about MOT inspectors
too.

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO.

It isn't at all. A certified NCR inpector is the equiv to an MOT tester.

If the MOT test items we

a) Are the documents in order;

b) Report on the paintwork.

c) The MPG rating based on looking up the engine and manufacturer in a set
of tables.

Then maybe.

is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

Parts may be failed like electricity and gas which should be included.

They wouldn't. Remember this was a half-arsed implementation anyway.

But any focus points should be brought up: old inefficient gas boiler,
poor shower performance, lead water mains, etc.

Who gives a rats arse? Any buyer with one good eyeball can see these.

I knew a girl who bought a house thinking all the electrics were new. A
new
CU and, socket and switches, The wiring was 55 years old and falling
apart.

Didn't look very hard then. I've saw a house exactly like this - new
fittings, new CU, total (quick and dirty) makeover. Took me 2 minutes to
spot a cable that was patently not new and raise the question about the
entire state of the wiring.

It is cons like this that these reports should bring to the surface. If
a rewires is £3K, then a price can be negotiate on the house price, but it
must be done before occupation by the new owner.

Why? I've been quite prepared to take on a house with 40 year old knackered
wiring and replace it post-haste if I bought.

The NCR is in principle a good idea. Reviewing it is what is needed and
then implementing.

You'll be wanting guarantees from blokes at car boot sales next. Get a
grip - selling a house is a private matter between two parties. It needs
less government interference, not more. If someone is too stupid to take
due care and pay attention when buying a house, which includes not
bothering to commission a proper survey themselves and relying on the
lender's, why is that my problem?

Last house I looked at I wouldn't have bothered with a survey. I would
however have paid for a detailed inspection of the drains because I had
cause for concern. I'd rather spend my money on specialist reports about
things I've flagged up than pay someone to tell me less than I already
know.

Tim