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

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100 Tim S wrote :
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

Because such a person is unlikely to stay in business for long. People are
always suing surveyors which is why their indemnity insurance is so high. I
have never heard of a car buyer suing a garage for issuing a dodgy MoT
certificate, though I know that garages do lose their testing status if
complaints are made and upheld.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
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.

A BCO would not be doing the test.

... 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.

That is why they changed the MOT rules and prosecuted dodgy dealers.

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.

I read it was is under review. Intially it was to be fully blown check, but
the estate agents, surveyors, etc objected (sharks the lot of them), so it
was rolled back.

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.

Yes the 40ish office working lady will notice all this of course. Duh!.
Get real House selling is con mans dream. These checks to cut that crap out
and protect these people from sharks.

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.

She is not an electrician and can't even wire a plug.

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.

Understand what an MOT is.

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,

What it needs is proper house MOT to ensure the buyer gets a fully
serviceable house and is not ripped off by sharks. Those who are against
such schemes are...............sharks?

Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

A BCO would not be doing the test.

No, (s)he is the one signing off the job. How he arranges tests OR NOT
is up to him. It is not unknown for the job to be signed off with no test.

That is why they changed the MOT rules and prosecuted dodgy dealers.

Maybe - I've not aware of any dodgey MOT stations near me, then I haven't
been looking. But how can you be certain that there is not longer any such
thing as a bent MOT cert issued on at least one car these days?

If I commission the MOT, I can choose an MOT station known to be thorough
and watch the test being carried out. If I see an otherwise valid MOT cert
on a vendor's car, I have no way of knowing if the tester had a bad day,
was half asleep, or was a friend of the vendor and slightly bent with it.

I read it was is under review. Intially it was to be fully blown check,
but the estate agents, surveyors, etc objected (sharks the lot of them),
so it was rolled back.

So the government gave in and allowed to to become a pointless exercise.
Do it properly or not at all.


Yes the 40ish office working lady will notice all this of course. Duh!.
Get real House selling is con mans dream. These checks to cut that crap
out and protect these people from sharks.

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.

She is not an electrician and can't even wire a plug.

Whilst I don't expect the buyer to know everything, I reasonably expect them
to be aware they don't know everything and bring a mate/instruct a surveyor
at their own cost to check it as much as they like. Stop expecting me to
cotton wool the incompetent/ignorant/lazy.

I can deal with a fair amount myself, why do I want to pay (indirectly or
directly) for something I can deal with? If a HIP was going to cost
600-1000 pounds, I could get a damn good drains inspection and a PIR if I
wished for less than that.

snip

Understand what an MOT is.

Yes, it's that thing I need to drive a vehicle on public roads etc. I do not
need an MOT to exists on a car I'm buying or selling.


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,

What it needs is proper house MOT to ensure the buyer gets a fully
serviceable house and is not ripped off by sharks. Those who are against
such schemes are...............sharks?

The Kremlin just called for you:

they said they want their ideology back when you have a moment... :|

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

A BCO would not be doing the test.

No, (s)he is the one signing off the job.

The point is a house MOT. The BCO is not involved. Boy are some people
dumb.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100, Tim S wrote:

snip

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.

I agree. It makes a lot of sense to select which items to have a really
close look at. A survey (even a 'full' structural survey) is fairly
shallow. You can decide for yourself which aspect you need to investigate
more closely even if you only have a basic understanding.
In fact a flat in a block, that are properly occupied not all on
the market at once, then a survey may be really useless looking at the
management companies account and the service charge accounts would be much
much more important.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100, Tim S wrote:

snip

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.

I agree. It makes a lot of sense to select which items to have a really
close look at.

Are you people sane? The middle aged spinster is going to know if the
drains are dodgy, so get in all the relevant experts? What world are you
plantpots in?

Anyone who disagrees with a house MOT in principle is someone who is hiding
things.