Introduction

We know there are Building Regulations (BR) and Gas-News has always advocated observing the BR. The snag has been trying to nail down exactly what is and what is not mandatory under BR; The ODPM website is a nightmare to navigate.

In the old days I used to subscribe to HMSO and received hardcopy updates under various headings by default. E.G. Housing and Building Regulations etc. There are too many other expenses now.

Certain works are notifiable under BR and that we recommend you do. For the purposes of this paper we’ll assume the work concerned can all be carried out on a Local Authority Building Notice. Under the latter scheme you give notice of intention to proceed with certain works and pay the whole of the appropriate fee up front. The fee is based on work value and is roughly the same as if you deposited full plans. Plus VAT on the fee as usual.

On completion, Building Control (BC) come and inspect the work. What that means I’ll get back to later. The authorities (documents) say however that you will not get a ‘completion certificate’, which may be required by a lender if you have borrowed money to have the work done. A report and safety certificate from the Registered Gas Installer (RGI) would obviously suffice. That is ultimately what they all have to rely on anyway as you will see.

An alternative, which avoids the Building Notice system, involves RGI being registered with a recognised Self Certification Scheme (SCS). Currently the only recognised SCS is operated by Corgi. What I have not been able to identify is the precise instrument relating to the Self Certification Scheme (note scheme). It appears there isn’t one at this point in time, and that is what I have been struggling with.

There is plenty of reference to competent people self certifying, which existed long before April 2005, but the current SCS appears to be an informal arrangement for the convenience of ODPM. Although the existence of SCS is informal, the operation of SCS is carefully controlled, but we are not concerned with that yet.

NB: There is clear reference to SCS for Part P work (only), in a statutory instrument. That emerged in time for January 1 2005.

DATA

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has confirmed, as expected, that CORGI “has no building control functions”. Corgi are only administrators. They simply collect information and pass it on electronically to the local authority.

ODPM was adamant they only ask for minimal information. That point was forcefully made when I questioned it. The information requested by ODPM:

147 Waterloo Road (House number and street)
M79 3TT (Post code)
Flued gas fire (they tick a box indicating the installation type)
Lounge (Location of installation in the home)
XXXXXX (Installer reference)
Completed 25.05.2005 (Date completed)

Reason ? – The information is stored on a database which may be accessed in the future in connection with the Home Information Pack. That is intended to provide proof to a prospective purchaser, if the information is sought. As an aside, searches in support of house sales will ultimately be an online process.

Who actually checks the work ? – You do of course, you’re the only one in the whole of these arrangements who is sufficiently qualified. What they term First Party Certification.

Why can’t I ...

As I see it you can. At the present time, there is no reason why we cannot do the work and notify BC directly on completion giving the same basic data for their database. You must of course have the necessary competence for the work involved, but as long as you do they must accept it.

I put that to Building Control before ODPM and they would not refute the claim. Reason I suspect is that they cannot. No law says you have to be a member of a SCS specifically and if you sign as competent, that appears to comply with BR. You can of course still issue certification yourself in the usual way to the all important customer.

Bear in mind you must be competent for the work involved, that you undertake yourself. That would not stop you bringing in a competent electrician to do their bit and you should get certification off them.

ODPM had an observation. He pointed out that I would not have the necessary software to notify BC, which allegedly costs “tens of thousands of pounds”. True, but there is no mention whatsoever of electronic notification being mandatory in the BR. Red herring ?

Interestingly, there is no instrument that I can find which actually supports the process of delivering information to the local authority for HIP purposes anyway. Don’t forget HIP is proposed for 2007. It is not yet law. However we will let that one lie on file for now.

Unless someone can identify specific rules I intend to test the theory myself in due course. The reason for that is I vehemently object to being denied the whole truth at the outset as we have been. I object to being manipulated and I object to being led by the nose.

Corgi simply certify that you have done the job. Corgi also check that you are legally competent for the work concerned. I can’t imagine anyone being daft enough to submit their name anywhere, if they do not have the necessary competence claimed.

And if we are legally competent to do the work, and nobody actually checks the work, then I reckon we are legally competent to confirm that is the case; That was the case before April 2005 and it appears it still is, except for Part P.

Please note that competence must include the energy efficiency qualification, though at the time of writing the Corgi website suggests people have until April 2006 to obtain that. How we are affected in the interim I don’t know as the ODPM Advice to Householders leaflet (111KB) says it is required. That document I accept is not a statutory instrument but it has been published by ODPM and is dated April 2005.

My best guess is that as (we know) only a small percentage of people hold the necessary energy efficiency qualification, limiting installation of boilers (etc) to holders of that qualification would cause the industry to grind to a halt. I got mine in 2000 but no one has asked for confirmation. I imagine everyone has been granted a pardon for 12 months ?

According to my Corgi card I am deemed competent in:

BUILDING REGS SELF CERT (No time limit)
Energy Conservation (Until March 2006)
Gas Appliances (Until March 2006)

Privacy

ODPM confirmed as stated before, that work which is subject to Building Control must be notified. But ODPM was adamant they do not need a name. They are only interested in an accurate address, for reasons given. He was also adamant they do not need appliance serial numbers and pleasantly ridiculed the suggestion.

In practice, as stated before, I would always point out at the outset, any work subject to BC and what that involves for the customer. Given the sort of work I have been involved with in the dim and distant, careful builders would insist customers obtain the necessary consents and present approved plans to builders, before submitting a quotation. That was and still is routine.

This does not apply to work which is not subject to Building Control. In my view customer permission must still be sought first, for the separate purposes of GWN. One example is cookers but more work appears actually notifiable to BC than we previously supposed (post April 1 2005). That arrives through Part J which principally is concerned with products of combustion, ventilation and anything which may affect that.

It appears all heat producing appliances are notifiable from April 2005. ODPM suggested flueless gas fires were not notifiable but the ODPM Building Regulations Explanatory Booklet (1192KB) clearly identifies “fixed flueless appliances” as subject to BC ? The same booklet refers to “any type of fuel burning appliance” but that is just a guide and does not refer to cookers or presumably leisure appliances used outside.

Mandatory notification of gas fires may only be so, for people who are not competent to self certify. That is not yet abundantly clear. I suspect the current SCS route, albeit of questionable authority, is primarily intended to ensure compliance with Part L1 (condensing boilers) rather than gas safety issues. What concerns me throughout is the singular lack of profile to the subject of controls, insulation, system cleaning and other noble causes that really would help C02 reduction (Part L 2002).

If you opt to deal directly with Building Control under a Building Notice or otherwise, privacy advice is still to be advised in relation to GWN issues, referred to Corgi separately.

DIY

I asked a Building Control Department how a DIY project [e.g. gas boiler] should proceed via a Building Notice. In particular I asked how it would be inspected. The answer was that they will make a “visual check” on the job then ask to see relevant certification from someone duly qualified. Why then the fee if they do not employ the expertise to check ?

It sounds good and is a positive step towards reducing unregistered installers ? But it naively assumes DIY (or unregistered installers) will submit a Building Notice. An unlikely contingency and he confirmed no one had ever submitted such a request. As another Principal Building Control Officer once said to me “you know how the building trade works”.

Obviously such jobs will not make it onto the HIP database but that would not stop a house sale. House-builders selling part-exchange properties simply rip out any suspect appliances rather than risk a hefty bill investigating suspect installations. A house seller could do the same if necessary.

Gas fires

ODPM was sure that gas fires – including balanced flue - have been notifiable under Building Regulations “for years”. Prior to April 2005 we of course could self certify. That may no longer apply. Virtually anything with a flue is notifiable under Part J. Including cookers with a flue. And according to the ODPM Advice to Householders leaflet (111KB), flueless gas fires are also notifiable, presumably under ventilation rules.

We have to wonder if that is why Corgi spectacularly moved the goalposts between August 2004 and April 2005 on GWN.

Gas Work Notification (GWN)

Corgi clearly state that notification of work to Building Control is free of charge. As I see it on the basis of the above information, many appliances may be notifiable anyway. But certainly not all. GWN is still a separate matter, as confirmed by the much publicised existence of the fee payable.

Arguments against GWN therefore now appear to me to be weakened but are they ? I have no doubt the altruism suggested by the absence of a fee for Building Regulations notification can be explained by modern technology. Technology as used in multimedia and news media.

News agencies are moving towards similar systems which can distribute information to different sources through content management systems, both software and hardware. Selected information may therefore be distributed automatically to appear on websites, mobile phones, 3G, servers and PDAs. Given an address postcode, that could deliver local authority details and automatically update any register.

It is not free at all, GWN is paying. Ironic when you realize that the original basis for BC charges was to ensure that only the people who built, actually paid for the local authority infrastructure in support.

BR Evasion

One ODPM document sourced and downloaded recognises openly that people who have hitherto evaded the BR, will undoubtedly continue to do so. I believe that the new provisions will sadly drive more people underground, which they must surely come to recognise in time. That will make it harder for Installers who really are Installers of appliances, and not just limited to servicing and repairs.

Gross inequality in trading conditions is set to get worse. It is inevitable and less than two months into the new era, I am already seeing evidence of that.

Part L 2005

I know now that the new requirements (979KB) for condensing boilers will cause some stress. The assessment procedure (1259KB) is fundamentally flawed as it only takes account of technical problems arising from issues relating to the boiler itself (flues and condensate drainage) and those will not often apply in my opinion.

The real problem in a few cases, will be inordinate costs arising from the need to make significant heating and hot water system alterations. Re-piping some of the system being an example. Those jobs may now go underground. I have evidence of that already.

Tip

I re-piped my system last year in anticipation of installing a condensing combination boiler. I converted my open vented system to unvented, as the boiler I have permits that (not all do). That was done while floors were ripped up and other work was being carried out. The system has had 12 months to prove itself.

You do not need consent to re-pipe a system, clean it, add controls or insulation. Keep that cost separate when using BC rather than the Corgi SCS. You can legitimately do all the preparation and then submit a Building Notice just for the boiler.

Changing over to a condensing combi will therefore be a simple job and much cheaper if a Building Notice is applied for.

Conclusion

As we’ve always said, you can’t argue with Building Regulations. They are set in stone, like it or lump it. However, it would appear the SCS notification process itself is not yet set in stone for any purpose other than Part P. If anyone has proof otherwise (statutory instrument), please pass it on.

We are being urged to submit information (BR) which may not even be legally required. That would be a travesty if proven. It may have been facilitated by the oblique tactic of GWN. That is legal or rather not illegal at this point in time. ODPM can’t backtrack on self-certification as that would ridicule their own assertions dated around 1997 which are worth a read.

Whatever the supposed merits of HIP, that could never justify a sector of industry being misled into co-operating with any arrangement that does not have the support of statute. Are decent law abiding trades-people being cajoled by the illusion of regulation into acting in a way they might not otherwise, given the freedom of choice ?

Information on the Corgi website relating to warranty insurance refers only to Part P. At the time of writing the Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged that the warranty insurance required is not commercially available as Gas-News investigated earlier this year and reported on:

(Accessed 25.05.2005):

Warranty Cover - the Situation to Date

To help with the introduction of Part P of Building Regulations, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allowed a transition period, whereby installers can sign up to the CORGI Part P scheme without having to hold a consumer insurance backed warranty.

The ODPM acknowledge that currently there is a lack of suitable warranties available to installers, to enable them to offer this service to customers.

It remains a requirement for installers to offer a warranty as part of their registration to a Part P competent persons scheme. Installers must be able to offer this warranty to consumers as soon as the insurance policies become available.

Corgi remain on the ODPM list to become a Self Certification Scheme (Parts L and J) provider though that status is not yet confirmed on the ODPM website. Why is that ? Could it be that at present no such scheme exists other than to serve Part P ? If there is we can’t find it. Warranty insurance provisions will apply equally elsewhere as well as Part P, so why is that not mentioned ? Strange indeed.

There appears to us to be a strong case to answer and enquiries are continuing.