On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:03:35 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being
done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well
established.

I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people
will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be
inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today.

Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules"
into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with
the consequence that you may be asked to remove
any work done if you haven't gained approval?


I suppose that it could, but I was simply thinking about the
practicalities. If wiring were being done as part of work that was
otherwise being inspected for building regulations purposest then it
would perhaps be noticed by the building inspector.

Otherwise, how would building control departments ever know about it?
The only scenarios I can think of are if they did spot inspections on
people's property (not likely) or if a neighbourhood busybody cared
to report something. However, an addition of a circuit or even a
complete rewire is not going to be as externally visible as a new
brick built extension.


Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must
have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before
the new regs came in?

Who knows? I was simply remarking on the (lack of) enforceability
which makes the whole caper pointless anyway. Remember that the
whole thing was not based on sound evidence in the first place and the
RIA used information selectively to arrive at the desired political
conclusion. Therefore, trying to apply logic to the situation is
going to be difficult anyway.

There are not that many scenarios:

- The person who DIYs, doesn't have a clue, and makes a dangerous mess
of the job. It's doubtful that he would take any notice of any new
legislation, even if he became aware of it. This work would likely
be picked up at conveyancing time in a survey and corrections,
including ripping out and redoing the work requested by the buyer.
It may even involve a regularisation application for building
regulations purposes, but since a buyer might well specifiy that an
approved contractor is used, then that becomes a non-issue.
In the meantime, something bad could happen, resulting in loss of
property or life. There is little or no evidence that this happens
from fixed wiring issues, but from portable appliances.
If it does, non-compliance with building regulations is going to rank
rather lower in the person's problems than the other effects thereof.

- The person who DIYs and does a competent and conscientious job.
Three choices here. a) He submits a building notice, pays the charge
and gets it inspected. b) He waits and goes for regularisation at
some point in the future at virtually no extra cost. c) He waits
until conveyancing time.

- The person who employs a non-registered contractor to do the work.
If said contractor wears spurs, then he is not likely to advertise to
the customer that testing and certification is required. The
householder is likely to be blissfully unaware anyway.

- The person who employs the registered contractor and pays the
unregulated stealth tax.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl