Builder left house with fire and electrocution risk

[lullabelle3]

Hi there

I had a bathroom and cloakroom installed last year (much trauma but too boring to detail). It was finished at the beginning of october and we realised there was a leak towards the end of November (the floor is stone so the water had gone into the wall and the hall floor). Due to delays caused by the insurance claim, the true nature of the leak was only discovered last week. It was while my new, reliable and honest plumber was fixing the problem (malfunctioning shower pump caused by the original builder connecting it to the mains water supply) that he voiced concern about the way the shower pump and the spa bath had been wired in. I then got his recommended electrician to check everything: he told me that because of incompetent and dangerous wiring I had a fire risk in my hall cupboard where the fuse box is (open connectors above fuse board which were live, the shower pump rated 5 amps and the spa bath rated 5 amps protected by 30 amp fuse and no RCD protection). He said I also had a fire risk in the bathroom and risk of electric shock whilst using the shower or the bath - a live joint under the bath in a zoned area , no separate fuse protection for shower pump or whirlpool). Phew.


I spent yesterday trying to talk to people about this - but there was very little interest in what the builder had actually done. Trading Standards referred me to consumer direct who were not helpful - I don;t want consumer advice as I'm a broadcast journo and I'm on that road for my personal claim against the builder. I want to make sure that the relevant trade bodies are informed about the scandalous way my family were put at risk.

So who do I speak to? This guy is claiming to be qualified to carry out electrical work (and plumbing, and gas fitting) yet he clearly doesn't really know what he is doing. Furthermore I know that he is working on various residential homes in the area and does work for the local council.

Where should I go from here? I really don't want other people to be put in such a dangerous situation.

Many thanks in advance for your information.

[Redone]

Regarding the local authority, contact the building control department, offer them the info, they should only employ approved contractors, if they don't sit up, send the details to there insurers, if you get no joy there, give the care home manager(s) and there regional manager and H&S rep a call, that should stir up enough hassle for action to be taken.

If the LA don't drop them, your local Councillor should be helpful at opening ears..

[Chris Houston]

Did you use a NICEIC approved contractor to do this work?

http://www.niceic.org.uk/

[Goodsparks]

The local authority building control department. Being a dwelling, and the works being within a bathroom, it falls within the scope of approved document P of the building regulations. The builder will either need to be a member of a competent persons self certification scheme (NICEIC, ECA, ELECSA, NAPIT) or will need to notify the LABC and have the job signed off.

Paul

[John Dragon]

Any domestic work in bathrooms etc is required BY LAW to be carried out by a competent person registered with a "part P" organisation (NICEIC, ECA, ELECSA or NAPIT) if your builder is not, he should be reported to Building Control in the first instance and Trading Standards in the second.
If he is registered you need to report him to his organisation i.e. NICEIC etc.

Its immaterial that he is working in a res home, most of them do not fall under part "P" as domestic premises do.

[kurnal]

Your first step should be to ask an electrician who should be a member of the NICEIC to carry out an inspection and test of the wiring installations in accordance with BS7671. The report will identify any discrepancies and categories them in terms of risk- 1,2,3,4. Items classified 1 or 2 should be dealt with immediately.

Armed with this evidence you then obtain a work sheet or order to prove who carried the work out and take it to either trading standards or the local environmental health officer, and depending when the work was carried out, the local building control officer.

Trading standards will look at consumer safety and legality of trade or business carried out
Environmental Health will consider whether any breaches of H&S law occurred and should investigate these
Building control may place a notice on the person responsible for the building to remedy the poor work, depending when it was carried out (IE was part P of building Regs in place) and their powers expire 12 months after the completion of unsatisfactory work.

[lullabelle3]

Thankyou

I will be investigating all those trade bodies you have mentioned.

I already have had a certified electrician round to assess the work - that's how I discovered it was all unsafe. He is putting his findings in writing for me.

Many thanks for your helpful repsonses

Louise

[Gel]

Sounds disgraceful.

On his invoice is he showing trade body membership; NICEIC as mentioned,
and/or ECA another respected body?
Or perhaps he has web site.


If not on invoice, may be on his ad in Yell Pages/local rag etc.

May be one for WATCHDOG too, as they have regualrly exposed incompetent
gas fitters/some claiming CORGI certification falsely?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/

Local government are keen to take your taxes but disappointingly
show no customer service ethic.

[Ken Taylor]

I'm surprised that Trading Standards simply referred you on. You appear to have been put at risk by a 'rogue' or incompetent trader and that's a matter for their attention.

[Chris Houston]

The ECA is a contractors association.

The NICEIC is an independent regulatory body.

They are not the same.

[John Dragon]

Are you saying that NICEIC members are in some way more respectable than ECA / SELECT / NAPIT / ELECSA members?
What legal powers does NICEIC have that the others do not?

[Chris Houston]

With regards to ECA/SELECT/NAPIT (I'm not sure what ELECSA are) then, in my personal opinion, yes (and I know that opinion is shared by people I used to work for, who looked into this, but I cannot speak on their behalf) because essentially the NICEIC are an indepedent regulatory body, while the others take membership fees from members and essentially they are answerable firstly to their members.

I'd be interested to hear any differing views..........

[Chris Houston]

The NICEIC don't have any legal powers (as far as I know) but they are more akin to BRE certification, their primary function is that of an inspectorate rather than a trade body.

[Chris Houston]

Further, NICEIC are UKAS registered (which is the standard I would suggest specifiers would expect of an accreditation body) while the ECA appear not to be.  Examples of other UKAS registered accreditors are BM TRADA, National Britania, Underwriters Laboratories Inc, FM Approvals Limited, BSi, CORGI, BRE Certification Limited Incorporating LPCB & WIMLAS etc.

http://www.ukas.com/about_accreditation/accredited_bodies/certification_body_schedules.asp

[John Dragon]

With regards to ECA/SELECT/NAPIT (I'm not sure what ELECSA are) then, in my personal opinion, yes (and I know that opinion is shared by people I used to work for, who looked into this, but I cannot speak on their behalf) because essentially the NICEIC are an indepedent regulatory body, while the others take membership fees from members and essentially they are answerable firstly to their members.

I'd be interested to hear any differing views..........

You appear to be saying that NIC don't take fees from their members?  Of course they do.

You also seem to be saying that NIC are an enforcement agency as opposed to a contractors association?

ELECSA were one of the original government approved part "P" competent person scheme providers, now having been taken over by ECA.