L
lame plumber
and risk assess for tank installs, but god I hate going in after a plumber installs an oily boiler and tell the customer what needs to be done to commission it!!
Discuss True Story Oil Boiler prosecution in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net
- Status
- Messages
- 21,054
CD11 asks for completed CD/11 by oftec engineer or building control notification number.
- Messages
- 21,054
He knows he's done wrong, and as for beat em I only need an address. The op is a bell, and to be brutally honest deserves everything coming.
Oil needs to be taken as serious as gas, with a bit of luck the more idiots that go on like the op might just get us there.
B
Billy Bob Bob
i smell spam
- Messages
- 21,054
K
kimbo
The regulations are clear you either have to belong to a competent persons scheme( passing all the exams is not sufficient) such as Oftec to install and commission, if you arent you can still install but you must apply to building control first.( for a fee). When you have finished the install the building inspector will check to make sure it complies, you can then ask an oftec engineer to commission it, he will need your oftec registration number or building control number to fill out the cd/11
Simples
Simples
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bunker
im not being difficult but please back that up with a quote because I can't find that sort of clarity anywhere except in opinion.
L
lame plumber
british standards stipulate this and if you ask the oftec inspector he'll showyou the paperwork, coz i asked on his first visit and he showed me it in black and white. cant remember the number now though
K
kimbo
Check your oftec book you might find some other info that might be of use. Its surprising what you forget
L
lame plumber
which expensive waste of money oftec manual are you on about, 5 volumes that could be reduced to 1 without losing any information at all.
N
neily01
Not really what the thread is about but got some interesting info from a rep the other day,I think it was Titan are about to bring out a new tank that is metal outside and plastic inside that would ditch most of the regs for tank placement. Could be handy.
B
Bunker
So it's just opinion at the moment then. I found the following which, among other official type articles I've found, only uses the word "should" which is usually legally defined as non mandatory as opposed to 'must' or 'shall'.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/boilersheating/
I can feel a lot of you rolling your eyes but its so important. I'm OFTEC and fully support it should be further legislated, but I can't find any governing body saying installs MUST be this and that. These potential loopholes ought to be tightened up.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/boilersheating/
I can feel a lot of you rolling your eyes but its so important. I'm OFTEC and fully support it should be further legislated, but I can't find any governing body saying installs MUST be this and that. These potential loopholes ought to be tightened up.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 5,073
These competent person scheme providers will say & do almost anything to justify why you should join them paying a big fat fee, when if you read part L & the domestic heating compliance guide you clearly do not have to belong to there gang & there are other ways of complying (issuing a Building Notice to give notice & then using 3rd party forms for installation & commissioning).
Beware of inspectors showing you sections in there own manuals of what is required as this may not be what the Law states.
Not having a go, just pointing out that BS are code of practise not statute.
Beware of inspectors showing you sections in there own manuals of what is required as this may not be what the Law states.
Not having a go, just pointing out that BS are code of practise not statute.
L
lame plumber
and when it all goes wrong the legal eagles refer to the codes of practice when prosecuting you. the highway code is a code of practice and not law, but you still get prosecuted for not obeying the highway code!! just explaining how your downfall may occur one day if you get it wrong 
K
kimbo
If you check your tech book 3 annexe1 building regs state it in blak and white
- Messages
- 1,885
Tom has been installing the oil boilers for sometime and still not stumped up £600 to register, if your a legit business and honest tradesman you shouldnt rely on technicalities of not having to register, stump up the cash like the rest of us mugs, at least then you can sleep at night
- Messages
- 5,073
what does it state ?
E
ecoplumber
If i read it right, the department who requested Tom to go and install these boilers had arranged for inspections after they were fired up by the registered comissioner !
Does that mean he is getting prosecuted , on behalf of the council becasue they failed in their due diligence?
It says on their that they were given all the forms including the comissioning reports !
something not right here . Sureley they cannot be prosecuting teh sub contractor becasue the council who have taken charge of teh works have not completed their own responsibilities when asking for the sub-contractors surveys!
Does that mean he is getting prosecuted , on behalf of the council becasue they failed in their due diligence?
It says on their that they were given all the forms including the comissioning reports !
something not right here . Sureley they cannot be prosecuting teh sub contractor becasue the council who have taken charge of teh works have not completed their own responsibilities when asking for the sub-contractors surveys!
E
ecoplumber
dont let emotion get in the way of law, to me its sounds crazy as he hasn't actually done anything wrong. from what it says on their it seems that he has done everything he possibly could given the circumstances of not acting on behalf of teh private homeowner !
surely the statute cannot be enforced in this manner, reason being that a prosecution would have no casue of action, hmmm, how has Tom breached the law ? if its not law to be oftec registered then a permit needs to be applied for , but who has to apply for the permit ? in this case it looks like the council were responsible for the works !
anyone agree ?
what if there would have been a problem with the boiler ? sureley the council would be liable if Tom was approved by them, so in fact the council are in breach ...aren't they ? seing as he never dealt with the private homeowners.
E
ecoplumber
this guy asks a good question, has anyone ever been prosecuted for installing an oil boiler without a permit being in place ? even if they have complated the cd10 and got the oftec commissioner to complete the comissioning report.
What would building control do if they were to inspect ? sureley nothing different if it is shown that guidelines , what was within his power , was done and signed off.
To me it sounds like the council have not looked carefully enough at what they were doing , before doing works in private homes.
What would building control do if they were to inspect ? sureley nothing different if it is shown that guidelines , what was within his power , was done and signed off.
To me it sounds like the council have not looked carefully enough at what they were doing , before doing works in private homes.
E
ecoplumber
Im not defending anyone, just think its quite interesting . im just trying to understand the interpretation of the law upon what the poster has put in the pdf and what the poster put in post "33".
Ive just looked at the law and it would seem that if what Tom is saying is correct and true, then he has not breached any statute becasue he has done everything within his power , under the law, to abide by the provisions that he can only be responsible for.
I do think though that if he was acting on behalf of a private homewoner then it could be slightly different.
However, the engineer could have the argument that he is "competent" and that it is not for the legislature to deem if he is competent or not. That is probably why its rare that any engineer , who installs and oil fired boiler by following commom practice installation guidelines , then arranges for an oftec registered engineer to comission the work, will always have a rebuttal upon the interpretation of the statute and would be justified to claim no cause of action as the statute is only consentual.
But i understand that the statute is in place to make sure that anyone who is "responsible" for a boiler being installed should be the responsiblle to make sure its independently checked by an inspector or a registered commissioner .
I think thats why prosecutions are actually unenforceable against engineers who install oil boilers who have followed that process, because it actually inturn takes care of what the inspector is to confirm i.e thats its been comissioned by an oftec registered engineer.
so i can only deem its a notification issue, but if the installer doesnt notify via oftec, to which i think Tom couldnt possibly do, then it would have to come down to who's responsibility it is to apply for a building permit.
And that is where the law falls down ! because its not law for the engineer, competent or not , to apply for a permit. I think thats why alot of Offtec registered installars get the hump , i syphathise with oftec registered installers but the law is the law, until it is law for engineers to be registered with oftec the statute has no grounds for application if it can be proven that relevant processes have been follwed to which was in the power of the installer i.e arranged a oftec comissioner to comission the works.
But if this pdf is true it makes it even more bizzare , its say the government took on the responsibility to arrange for private inspectors and were responsible for the works in the homes , and that the boilers and they were again signed off for a 2nd time.
Ive just looked at the law and it would seem that if what Tom is saying is correct and true, then he has not breached any statute becasue he has done everything within his power , under the law, to abide by the provisions that he can only be responsible for.
I do think though that if he was acting on behalf of a private homewoner then it could be slightly different.
However, the engineer could have the argument that he is "competent" and that it is not for the legislature to deem if he is competent or not. That is probably why its rare that any engineer , who installs and oil fired boiler by following commom practice installation guidelines , then arranges for an oftec registered engineer to comission the work, will always have a rebuttal upon the interpretation of the statute and would be justified to claim no cause of action as the statute is only consentual.
But i understand that the statute is in place to make sure that anyone who is "responsible" for a boiler being installed should be the responsiblle to make sure its independently checked by an inspector or a registered commissioner .
I think thats why prosecutions are actually unenforceable against engineers who install oil boilers who have followed that process, because it actually inturn takes care of what the inspector is to confirm i.e thats its been comissioned by an oftec registered engineer.
so i can only deem its a notification issue, but if the installer doesnt notify via oftec, to which i think Tom couldnt possibly do, then it would have to come down to who's responsibility it is to apply for a building permit.
And that is where the law falls down ! because its not law for the engineer, competent or not , to apply for a permit. I think thats why alot of Offtec registered installars get the hump , i syphathise with oftec registered installers but the law is the law, until it is law for engineers to be registered with oftec the statute has no grounds for application if it can be proven that relevant processes have been follwed to which was in the power of the installer i.e arranged a oftec comissioner to comission the works.
But if this pdf is true it makes it even more bizzare , its say the government took on the responsibility to arrange for private inspectors and were responsible for the works in the homes , and that the boilers and they were again signed off for a 2nd time.
- Messages
- 21,054
This isn't a legal info forum and the pdf is one persons view of the events, possibly skewed to make one side whiter than the driven snow.
Personally, before I was OFTEC, I applied for a building notice and organised for an OFTEC engineer to commission, at a cost to me so therefore at a cost to the customer. More money for me now as I do it myself under OFTEC.
Now this issue is a contractual issue between the op, the person paying the op's bill and building control. It's just a shame we'll never find out which side the 'law' says is correct.
Personally, before I was OFTEC, I applied for a building notice and organised for an OFTEC engineer to commission, at a cost to me so therefore at a cost to the customer. More money for me now as I do it myself under OFTEC.
Now this issue is a contractual issue between the op, the person paying the op's bill and building control. It's just a shame we'll never find out which side the 'law' says is correct.
K
kimbo
The law is quite specific and I am not going to type word for word the building act of 1984 because you can look it up yourself or check the oftec book.
The building act 1984 says that it requires a person who is carrying out a specific work ie boiler installation must work under a building notice or building regulation approval. On 1st april 2002 an amaedment was made giving oftec engineers or other competent person (in the schem) to self certify their own work and therefore make them exempt from applying for a notice. So Tom is wrong the installer should have applied, the council should have checked to make sure he was able to fit the boilers but that is not an offence. Tom as the installer should notify the installation by way of a competent persons scheme but he cant because he isnt in one. The council then wont get a certificate to say it complies with building regs because tom cant notify. The Oftec engineer should not commission a boiler without the building notice number or the installers oftec number proving competence. Sorry tom there is no way of getting out of it. I do sympathise but there are loads of installs out there done by unqualified people without certificates. The problems comes when the propertys are sold and there is no paperwork for it.
The building act 1984 says that it requires a person who is carrying out a specific work ie boiler installation must work under a building notice or building regulation approval. On 1st april 2002 an amaedment was made giving oftec engineers or other competent person (in the schem) to self certify their own work and therefore make them exempt from applying for a notice. So Tom is wrong the installer should have applied, the council should have checked to make sure he was able to fit the boilers but that is not an offence. Tom as the installer should notify the installation by way of a competent persons scheme but he cant because he isnt in one. The council then wont get a certificate to say it complies with building regs because tom cant notify. The Oftec engineer should not commission a boiler without the building notice number or the installers oftec number proving competence. Sorry tom there is no way of getting out of it. I do sympathise but there are loads of installs out there done by unqualified people without certificates. The problems comes when the propertys are sold and there is no paperwork for it.
- Messages
- 5,073
Responsibility for compliance
1.11 It is important to remember that if you
are the person (e.g. designer, builder, installer) carrying out building work to which any requirement of building regulations applies youhave a responsibility to ensure that the workcomplies with any such requirement. The buildingowner may also have a responsibility for ensuringcompliance with building regulation requirementsand could be served with an enforcement noticein cases of non-compliance.
Copy & pasted from AD Part L1b Page 3, which would suggest equal responsibility on all parties involved.
1.11 It is important to remember that if you
are the person (e.g. designer, builder, installer) carrying out building work to which any requirement of building regulations applies youhave a responsibility to ensure that the workcomplies with any such requirement. The buildingowner may also have a responsibility for ensuringcompliance with building regulation requirementsand could be served with an enforcement noticein cases of non-compliance.
Copy & pasted from AD Part L1b Page 3, which would suggest equal responsibility on all parties involved.
Last edited:
K
kimbo
Interesting that the building owner MAY be responsible but the person carrying out the work definetly is.
D
Dotty
Stumbled across this in the van today and got me thinking.
I'm exempt of course!
I'm exempt of course!
B
Bunker
Well I must say its been very interesting and as many of you thought, but I was unsure of, you are bang on the money and here it is in easy to read proof:
Im sorry for not simply taking Kimbo and others word for it but I like to get to grass roots and see the evidence rather than opinion/ hearsay/ recollection. I owe you a beer:
Im sorry for not simply taking Kimbo and others word for it but I like to get to grass roots and see the evidence rather than opinion/ hearsay/ recollection. I owe you a beer:
Attachments
K
kimbo
Magners for me
E
ecoplumber
Its interesting, what if an engineer is working on behalf of his boss, and his boss is in contract with the homeowner.
The engineer isnt contracted to the homeowner , and therefore doesn't act on their behalf.
It would be like any building control application for prescribed building work, the subcontractors wouldn't be able to apply as they have no contract with the principal/applicant, and neither are they the agent acting on behalf of the homeowner as that is what his boss would be.
So therefore Tom surely has no duty to apply for a permit in law., and therefore the law is not applicable to him if he was just being instructed to do his job.
As anyone ever heard of someone getting done for installing an oil boiler , simply becausue there wasnt a building permit or if their boss didnt do his duty when dealing with the homeowner.
Or if the 3rd party wasnt oftec registered?
I cant see how a a building control would have grounds to prosecute a 3rd party who cannot apply for a permit as they have no authority.
The engineer isnt contracted to the homeowner , and therefore doesn't act on their behalf.
It would be like any building control application for prescribed building work, the subcontractors wouldn't be able to apply as they have no contract with the principal/applicant, and neither are they the agent acting on behalf of the homeowner as that is what his boss would be.
So therefore Tom surely has no duty to apply for a permit in law., and therefore the law is not applicable to him if he was just being instructed to do his job.
As anyone ever heard of someone getting done for installing an oil boiler , simply becausue there wasnt a building permit or if their boss didnt do his duty when dealing with the homeowner.
Or if the 3rd party wasnt oftec registered?
I cant see how a a building control would have grounds to prosecute a 3rd party who cannot apply for a permit as they have no authority.
Last edited by a moderator:
K
kimbo
You still dont get it
It is the duty of the installler that is the one who instslls it. Its got nothing to do with contracts. Just because no one else has been prosecuted doesnt make it right.
I suspect he is being prosecuted becsuse of the amount he has installed rather than just the one.
If I was him I would put in for retrodpective planning it will cost a fair bit with that amount but at least he will get paid. The customer will have the right to withold payment I would have tjought
It is the duty of the installler that is the one who instslls it. Its got nothing to do with contracts. Just because no one else has been prosecuted doesnt make it right.
I suspect he is being prosecuted becsuse of the amount he has installed rather than just the one.
If I was him I would put in for retrodpective planning it will cost a fair bit with that amount but at least he will get paid. The customer will have the right to withold payment I would have tjought
Last edited by a moderator:
E
ecoplumber
Hold on though, it says that Tom was not in contact with the homewoner and that he had no relationship with the homeowner.
So therefore he wouldnt be able to legally apply for a building permit as he was not acting on behalf of the landowner.
How can it be the duty of the installer ? if you have a homeowner, and the council have instigated boiler installations and Tom wouldn't have had any dealings with the homeowner.
I just think it sounds strange - as it says that the council arranged inspections of the boilers even after they recieved all of the comissioining reports.
It sounds like he is being fitted up, i would say that it could be justified if he was acting on behalf of the homeowner , but he wasn't.
eg , if i had my own company today, and i employed an engineer who wasn't oftec registered, then i instructed that engineer to go and replace a oil boiler in one of my customers homes, would it be my responsibility to make sure it was compliant? or my employee?
It says on the building permit "for an applicant and agent", surely Tom was neither ! he was just doing his job to make sure he followed bsi guidlines and also made sure he gave all the documentation to the council.
So therefore he wouldnt be able to legally apply for a building permit as he was not acting on behalf of the landowner.
How can it be the duty of the installer ? if you have a homeowner, and the council have instigated boiler installations and Tom wouldn't have had any dealings with the homeowner.
I just think it sounds strange - as it says that the council arranged inspections of the boilers even after they recieved all of the comissioining reports.
It sounds like he is being fitted up, i would say that it could be justified if he was acting on behalf of the homeowner , but he wasn't.
eg , if i had my own company today, and i employed an engineer who wasn't oftec registered, then i instructed that engineer to go and replace a oil boiler in one of my customers homes, would it be my responsibility to make sure it was compliant? or my employee?
It says on the building permit "for an applicant and agent", surely Tom was neither ! he was just doing his job to make sure he followed bsi guidlines and also made sure he gave all the documentation to the council.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 1,885
ecoplumber, you have continued to tell us that 'Tom' has not broken any laws. If he hasnt, and the side of the story we have heard is the whole truth, then 'Tom' has nothing to fear. If he hasnt broken the law, he will be found not guilty and he will not be prosecuted
So what are you and 'Tom' so worried about?
So what are you and 'Tom' so worried about?
E
ecoplumber
What you talking about Gasmanxx , "worried " ?, i just thought this post was interesting.
i was just reading the laws that some other forum members posted. thats all!
Im interested in law too , as my wife is a lawyer
i was just reading the laws that some other forum members posted. thats all!
Im interested in law too , as my wife is a lawyer
- Status
Reply to True Story Oil Boiler prosecution in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net
Similar plumbing topics
Hi all I'm hoping someone can shine a light on this for me
Since our stop tap on the pavement has now been filled with sand for whatever reason, we are relying on our property fitted stopcock (this is outside on our garage wall)
Unfortunately turning this to the closed position only reduces...
Creating content since 2001. Untold Media.
Newest Plumbing Threads
-
Trying to source a dual-flush valve
- Started by Thomas J Marshall
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
What constitutes a Commercial Appliance and thus a Commercial Kitchen?
- Started by FozzieBear
- Replies: 3
-
POTTERTON PROMAX 28 COMBI Boiler - Hot Water Issue
- Started by boiler101
- Replies: 4
-
Hole in copper pipe, solder under floor, T coupling & protection- Started by dreikher
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-