Firstly, I'm aware of Part P clause 1.26 etc, and Anne Hemmings'
letter to all councils dated 30/3/06 advising that the costs in
testing are at the councils expense and not the homeowners.

A local council is asking for a regularisation fee to certify the
electrics done on an extension which was done under full plans route.
Having been asked to clarify their position regarding the authority to
charge any extra fee for the electrical testing, the councils written
response states a number of points to support their right to charge.

1. Local Authorities must fully recover the costs in carrying building
control functions and they must ensure that any charges for checking
full plans/building notices are pre-fixed in their charges scheme as
required by the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998.

2. The full plans application was accompanied by a statement that "All
electrical work must be designed, installed and tested by a person
competent to do so".

3. Supervision of Part P electrical installation work was not included
in the fees levied at the time the application was deposited. Had it
been stated at that time of that the electrical work was to be carried
out by someone not registered to self-certify, a fee would have been
levied.

4. The electrical installation should have been notified to the
Council before work commenced and the appropriate fee paid in
accordance with the scheme of published charges

All these seems nonsense to me as it is all factually correct, but
does not actually explain the councils authority to charge extra to
check the electrics. It is obvious that the extension would include
electric work, and the council are saying that they would have charged
an additional fee at the time of checking the plans "had they of
known" that they would be checking the electrics - which is blatantly
contrary to Anne Hemmings clarification.

Any pointers as to how to respond?

dg

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
dg wrote:

Firstly, I'm aware of Part P clause 1.26 etc, and Anne Hemmings'
letter to all councils dated 30/3/06 advising that the costs in
testing are at the councils expense and not the homeowners.

A local council is asking for a regularisation fee to certify the
electrics done on an extension which was done under full plans route.
Having been asked to clarify their position regarding the authority to
charge any extra fee for the electrical testing, the councils written
response states a number of points to support their right to charge.

1. Local Authorities must fully recover the costs in carrying building
control functions and they must ensure that any charges for checking
full plans/building notices are pre-fixed in their charges scheme as
required by the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998.

2. The full plans application was accompanied by a statement that "All
electrical work must be designed, installed and tested by a person
competent to do so".

3. Supervision of Part P electrical installation work was not included
in the fees levied at the time the application was deposited. Had it
been stated at that time of that the electrical work was to be carried
out by someone not registered to self-certify, a fee would have been
levied.

4. The electrical installation should have been notified to the
Council before work commenced and the appropriate fee paid in
accordance with the scheme of published charges

All these seems nonsense to me as it is all factually correct, but
does not actually explain the councils authority to charge extra to
check the electrics. It is obvious that the extension would include
electric work, and the council are saying that they would have charged
an additional fee at the time of checking the plans "had they of
known" that they would be checking the electrics - which is blatantly
contrary to Anne Hemmings clarification.

Any pointers as to how to respond?

dg

Ask to see a copy of the scale of fees which applied at the time and showing
the additional fee for electrical testing. If there is no such document,
you'll have called their bluff in one go.

If they *do* produce it, you can challenge its valididy in the light of Anne
Hemmings' letter - taking it up with your MP and with the ODPM (or whatever
it's called today!) if necessary.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

The message

from dg contains these words:

Any pointers as to how to respond?

Given that the local council appears to be in conflict with central
government perhaps a complaint to your MP might provoke a bun fight. At
the very least your MP should be able to establish whether the
Government has the power to make the council toe the line even if it
lacks the inclination.

--
Roger Chapman

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember dg saying
something like:

"had they of
known" that they would be checking the electrics - which is blatantly
contrary to Anne Hemmings clarification.

Any pointers as to how to respond?

If the council genuinely used 'of' instead of 'have' I'd be sitting them
down and instructing them in the use of worms.
--

Dave

On 23 Feb, 22:46, dg wrote:
Firstly, I'm aware of Part P clause 1.26 etc, and Anne Hemmings'
letter to all councils dated 30/3/06 advising that the costs in
testing are at the councils expense and not the homeowners.

That isn't conclusive, as councils are entitled to recover their BC
expenses through the fee structure.

A local council is asking for a regularisation fee to certify the
electrics done on an extension which was done under full plans route.
Having been asked to clarify their position regarding the authority to
charge any extra fee for the electrical testing, the councils written
response states a number of points to support their right to charge.

1. Local Authorities must fully recover the costs in carrying building
control functions and they must ensure that any charges for checking
full plans/building notices are pre-fixed in their charges scheme as
required by the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998.

That's true.

2. The full plans application was accompanied by a statement that "All
electrical work must be designed, installed and tested by a person
competent to do so".

In which case you can see why they want to revisit the basis on which
they assessed the fee.

3. Supervision of Part P electrical installation work was not included
in the fees levied at the time the application was deposited. Had it
been stated at that time of that the electrical work was to be carried
out by someone not registered to self-certify, a fee would have been
levied.

I don't see anything prohibiting that, provided the LA did actually
have a scheme in place at the time of the application which set a
fixed fee for electrical inspection and testing. It seems consistent
with the legislation and SIs.

4. The electrical installation should have been notified to the
Council before work commenced and the appropriate fee paid in
accordance with the scheme of published charges

Seems fair enough, if the application did say it would be done by an
approved person.

All these seems nonsense to me as it is all factually correct, but
does not actually explain the councils authority to charge extra to
check the electrics. It is obvious that the extension would include
electric work, and the council are saying that they would have charged
an additional fee at the time of checking the plans "had they of
known" that they would be checking the electrics - which is blatantly
contrary to Anne Hemmings clarification.

I am not sure it is obvious that the comment in the 2006 Circular
meant that LAs cannot recover the expenses through a valid fixed fee
scheme. It could just have been intended as a statement that they
can't pass on the cost of an invoice for an electrical test directly
to you. Even if the Circular did mean to say that LAs can't recover
those expenses from BC fees, it isn't legally binding. It's just one
person's interpretation of the legislation, and that person wasn't a
judge. I've looked at the legislation, and I can't see what would bar
the recovery of testing and inspection expenses via a proper fixed fee
scheme, and the rules for those do not appear to preclude a special
'part p' charge provided it is on a fixed scale of some sort.

Any pointers as to how to respond?

Your best chance is if you can show that there was no relevant fixed
fee for non-approved person electrical works in place at the time of
your application. I don't think the Circular is going to assist you
very much.