SWA and Building Control

[Midwest]

A lot of the tick boxes come with 3 options

yes
no
not sure

just tick the box and move on, if you aren’t sure tick not sure. If you don’t ‘think’ the cable to the shed constitutes electrical work then tick no.
you aren’t telling an untruth you are just ticking the box you believe is nearest to to truth

But the OP knows the latter two to not be true, and I guess most other people will know exactly what is true or not, in similar circumstances.

In these situations someone will 'move on', but someone will also move in to the property. Is honesty such a bad thing.

 

[pc1966]

I would avoid Building Control really.

As you are looking to get the wiring sorted anyway, see if you can get an electrician in for the garage CU stuff and to also check the rest of it out (EICR style). That way the new work is certified with BG and the old stuff you can ignore safe in the knowledge that it is safe.

 

[Midwest]

I would avoid Building Control really.

As you are looking to get the wiring sorted anyway, see if you can get an electrician in for the garage CU stuff and to also check the rest of it out (EICR style). That way the new work is certified with BG and the old stuff you can ignore safe in the knowledge that it is safe.

As the original work was completed in 2005, which appears should of been notified (OP’s interpretation). However, as this is now more than two years ago, the BC would have no enforcement powers at its disposal, and I would suggest even if they had, they would be unlikely to use them in such circumstances.

Ive found my BC being sensible in their approach, when I’ve asked guidance for carrying out notifiable work in my own property. They suggested an EICR, although I’ve decided to go the 3rd party route.

As said, the only real issue the OP has, is if the property be sold, with no appropriate certification in place.

I would seek guidance from BC, I think the worst could happen is paying for a regularisation. I suspect they would advise an EICR.

 

[Soi disant]

As the original work was completed in 2005, which appears should of been notified (OP’s interpretation). However, as this is now more than two years ago, the BC would have no enforcement powers at its disposal, and I would suggest even if they had, they would be unlikely to use them in such circumstances.

Abbosolootely.

Has anybody ever heard of anyone ever being prosecuted for failing to notify electrical work when they should have done?

As said, the only real issue the OP has, is if the property be sold, with no appropriate certification in place.

Telling the truth about that is the key, otherwise it's potentially fraud. If buyers were really concerned about uncertificated shed supplies the housing market would sieze up.

I would seek guidance from BC, I think the worst could happen is paying for a regularisation. I suspect they would advise an EICR.

Seriously I'd say do nothing. No good can come of it. Regularisation would cost more than an EICR, an EICR could be done at time of sale if the buyer asks, and in the meantime not only can Building Control do nothing, they'd have no desire to do anything.

 

[DM Construction]

Thanks all for the responses and guidance. Given that the work was done so long ago now, and is no longer notifiable, I've decided not to bother BC.

I had talked to BC about my plans circa 2002, and at that time they said it was all Schedule 2 exempt. No BC involvement required.

When I come to sell I will disclose this work to a buyer. I've learnt that if it was recent work their solicitors could take out an indemnity insurance policy (which I would end up paying for - probably £200 or so). If anyone notified BC of the work prior to the policy being taken out, then the policy would be void. But it's a moot point given that the work is far more than 12 months old so the local authority can't take any enforcement action.

And as has been highlighted in this thread, and confirmed by a Sparky I know, there's no real benefit in involving BC especially as the work isn't notifiable any more. I know the work was done correctly. Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale, so the buyer can then be sure the circuit is still safe.

Cheers.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale,

You would be better off leaving it to a buyer to decide (and pay for) an EICR should they want one. Most will take the usual bland report that a house buyers survey gives them.
If you decide to do an EICR, the report might throw up some substantial and expensive things that should be done. You would have to disclose this to the buyer. What will happen is that the buyer will use it as a lever to chop the price, or you will get it done, at your expense (plus making good of decorations etc) and you will get zero benefit.

 

[Soi disant]

When I come to sell I will disclose this work to a buyer. I've learnt that if it was recent work their solicitors could take out an indemnity insurance policy

Because they get commission?

Those policies are complete and utter con.

If anyone notified BC of the work prior to the policy being taken out, then the policy would be void.

So when you're selling, the instant their solicitor suggests it, "innocently" tell BC and ask what the situation is.

Then you can disclose to their solicitor that you can't take out insurance.

But in any event, without reading back on p1, hasn't it been established that you didn't do any notifiable work? There was an official transition phase when work already begun didn't become notifiable.

But it's a moot point given that the work is far more than 12 months old so the local authority can't take any enforcement action.

And as has been highlighted in this thread, and confirmed by a Sparky I know, there's no real benefit in involving BC especially as the work isn't notifiable any more. I know the work was done correctly. Much better to get an EICR done at time of sale, so the buyer can then be sure the circuit is still safe.

Cheers.

 

[DM Construction]

There was a transition period - but only if you had submitted plans or a building notice prior to 1 Jan 2005. Because BC had previously told me - some time in 2003 - that everything I was planning to do was exempt (and it still was in 2005, apart from Part P coming into force), I didn't submit any plans or a notice as I wasn't required to. Catch 22.

I wasn't aware of Part P until much later. I don't recall ever hearing about it at the time. While ignorance of the law is no defence, I didn't deliberately try to flout it. As was the case for many people at the time.

Anyway, enough said.