Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:35:31 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Tim Morley wrote:
Anyone know where I stand with this scenario?
Started ripping kitchen apart to rewire it before part P came into force. I
have now completed it and some of the cabling is in new colours etc. Also 06
production dates on some of the MK Chroma gear used on 2nd fix. As you have
to inform building control before the work starts and get them to visit etc,
am I then excempt if I sell the house and somebody sees the dates on cables
etc.
My understanding is that the exemption which applied to projects which
commenced before Part P started only lasted for a few months - until 1
April 2005 IIRC?

Given that if you inform Building Control you might have to end up neing
told to re-expose the cabling etc (oo-er) I'd have thought your best bet
was to keep schtum - or perhaps better, get a PIR done by an independent
sparks? You could also show that to a future buyer of your house.

I'm in a very similar situation myself actually; with a rewiring
project... one 'precaution' I have been taking is to take about a
zillion digital photos at 1st fix stage - hopefully they'll never see
the light of day but if the sh*t ever does hit the fan, hopefully they
might help my case!

David

Kinda connected, would someone like to comment on when this requirement of Part
P conformity comes into play.

For example the house next door is up for sale and although there has been lots
of work done on the property, I very much doubt any of it has been signed off
officially.

Now people are looking around and as I understand it are pretty impressed by
what they see and no doubt the house will be sold quite quickly.

Personally I would not walk away from a property that I wanted on the grounds
that it did not have Part P certification.

Is the only downside, that those not in know so to speak, might indeed not
follow through with the purchase or is there some other sanction?

Andy


Essentially, there is no sanction on any lack of paperwork or standards
when selling a house.

IANAL BUT my understanding is that a house that fails to meet arbitrary
standards

- can be condemned as unfit for habitation. Stream water and a bucket
out the back to crap in are typical things.. This is a health department
issue...

- may be uninsurable...wiring that is frankly dangerous for example and
a fire risk..open fires in old chimmneys that allow flue gasses into
wooden structures or thatch.

- may be subject to reverse gazumping as the surveys reveal 'negotiation
points' that are used to bargain teh price down after commitment in
principle.

The BCO's powers are restricted to new work only: If new work is done
the department can, and has, refused to sign off and insisted on
re-working to standards. Lack of a BCO certificate for new work means
that you would be buying a house that might need to have an extension
torn down, and rebuilt for example. *This can only happen if the BCO is
involved in the first place*. Usually because the work is so obvious and
extensive that planning permission has to be applied for.

In practice, you don't need approval for anything that the BCO doesn;t
get involved in.

And, provided no one spots the work, its not an issue either.

The Regulations are of course used by every single snake oil salesman to
try and persuade people that they need new this or that - my mother's
house had an old boiler in it - certified SAFE, but mentioned as 'would
not meet modern regulations' Took me two lawyers letters to say 'so
what: It's safe, and its your problem to replace it if you want'

Likewise the original 1950's wiring.

Most people who buy a house that hasn't been touched for 50-60 years
expect to have to rewire and re-plumb it, anyway. That is reflected in
the price. Lack of certification this case is utterly irrelevant.