**won** Hello, and woe! - Court Claim for 'dangerous' DIY...

[charitynjw]

I can't claim that I know much about this area, but I believe that when a house is sold etc, at the time of conveyancing the purchaser is usually advised to obtain their own independent report re the structural & safety aspects of the property?

[swiss_toni]

Jaguar (I know this isn't your full posting name!) Thanks - I really appreciate the amount of time & effort put in there. Does not feel nice; but, as it happens it genuinely was my parent no longer with us that 'ran the house' when it came to not only finances but without question clerical issues.

Charity (as above) Yes, he admits in the particulars he considered this but did not do it wrt electrical works (e.g. get his own) because he had sight of my one.

But, off to work again now...

[ostell]

But your certificate was valid AT THE TIME and not years later. Why did he not get another report after the recommended 5 years?

[swiss_toni]

But your certificate was valid AT THE TIME and not years later. Why did he not get another report after the recommended 5 years?

Oh, I know, would have been part of my defence / WS (pls forgive me at this stage for not quite getting the difference on the hop); if he was SO CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY he would be minded to spend £3k on a whim... why not spend £300 at the recommended retest...???

Really is off to work now

[2222]

Sorry, I am probably being dense here, but isn't there a professional liability issue for you here? The facts, as I understand them:

1. You wrote an expert report on the wiring, giving it the all clear, presumably.
2. You did that to help with the sale, and on the understanding that it would be shown to prospective buyers.
3. You did not disclaim liability to other parties relying on the report (presumably). Even if you did, it might not help, given 2 above.
4. That report was allegedly negligent. I, of course, have no idea whether it was.
5. I don't think the claim is statute barred.

They may possibly have a case along those lines, I'm afraid, but I think they ought to be suing based on the report, not the work you did.

[charitynjw]

Caveat emptor?
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk...property_sales

[swiss_toni]

Sorry, I am probably being dense here, but isn't there a professional liability issue for you here? The facts, as I understand them:

1. You wrote an expert report on the wiring, giving it the all clear, presumably.
2. You did that to help with the sale, and on the understanding that it would be shown to prospective buyers.
3. You did not disclaim liability to other parties relying on the report (presumably). Even if you did, it might not help, given 2 above.
4. That report was allegedly negligent. I, of course, have no idea whether it was.
5. I don't think the claim is statute barred.

They may possibly have a case along those lines, I'm afraid, but I think they ought to be suing based on the report, not the work you did.

(OK, so I know people don't always like comments that don't chime with opinions that suit them, but, it's not so much that as me just wanting to throw these thoughts out there...)

How long would a professional liabilty last though? And why liable for financial redress, as opposed to simply a safety/duty of care, to a 3rd party? Whilst I accept not directly related to what you are saying, note that the Part P scheme controllers wash their hands of any redress at 6 years (AND, you must be the direct customer, AND you must leave an alledged poor work untouched before an independent inspection). Should the inspecting electrician be held liable long past the suggested 1st (and 2nd if the 1st was carried out as directed) retests? I accept that anything truly dangerous could always be a potential HSE matter, but suspect as below, it isn't.

1. 'Satisfactory' - which is dependent on certain standard caveats (the model forms include this as an 'n'th page, 'n' being the last page), and as has been discussed, subject the the edition appropriate to the installation, which is where I think a lot of the recent arm waving has been generated by.

2. But did I? Back in the day I was often simply asked by a customer for a PIR, PIR produced. Reason? - not always stated, or simply 'Domestic Test', though on modern forms its sometimes more detailed e.g. 'Landlords Safety Test'. After all, I had no financial interest in the sale, and did not live there at the time of sale. Claimant has assumed it was produced 'to help sell the house', but I don't even remember if I ever was asked for it. I likely may even have just done it off my own back as I had just aquired a new multi-test set and wanted to put it through its paces, perhaps?

3. But I would have thought standard conveyancing documents would? I know ours did e.g. 'the buyer should ensure own checks, etc...' Which I know has been mentioned by earlier posters.

4. That will be the hardest one for claimant to prove, obviously and foremost I deny it was negligent, but, should I wish to, surely I could deny any specific work done to the house, would be next to impossible to prove what was done by who, when, especially given the house is nearly 100 years old, was rewired before my birth (plenty of circuits, sockets, and the correct size PVC/PVC wires, so no reason to rewire that part just for the sake of it), then had a large garage added & wired & extended whilst I was still watching Thomas The Tank Engine (the bulk of which rewire also remained unaltered at sale), etc... etc.... Which I know is what you say as report vs. work.

5. But if so, when would it be 'unreasonable'? 10, 20, 30 years later? Especially if the claimant has neglected to follow advice re. testing?

[2222]

"How long would a professional liabilty last though?"

The usual period is 6 years. However, where there are latent defects, it's three years from the earliest date on which the potential claimant knew, or reasonably ought to have known, material facts necessary to bring an action alleging negligence, subject to an overall limit of fifteen years. I don't know enough to say more than I suspect that that applies here.


1. I understand that the house was not to current standards. Anyway, I agree that I was a bit inaccurate when I said 'all clear'.

I'm struggling a bit with some of the other points you made.

2. It seems a bit strange to produce a written report just to test out your gear. Especially if that report was then handed to the buyer. The judge may take some convincing.

3. Caveat emptor and the conveyancing forms. That applies to any legal actions against your parents. They're not being sued, though.

4. There may have been something in the 'conveyancing documents' form TA6. That asks about works done (but not who did them). You could check out exactly what the latest version of the form asks:
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppor...form-specimen/

I don't suppose your parents still have a copy of their completed version?




The practical course is to ask the court to strike out the case on the basis it's time-barred. The judge may agree that it is, and you're in the clear.

[swiss_toni]

(Just to clarify about the report the 'new test gear' thing was just a silly example, my point is inspections & reports are often carried out for selling houses or more often again renting them, but not exclusively, they should be common and every house should have one, just that most don't. The house would have had a valid PIR previously, e.g. after c.1997 (when I qualified); though where that would be would be up to the claimant, we would have left it with all the manuals etc... if it could be located. What I am saying is that it was not produced for 'the buyer' after they had shown interest in the property; it was produced because it was asked for by 'the householder', before marketing was even commenced. We have an EICR (current name for PIR) currently for our house and we have no intention of selling it or renting it in the near future.)

The conveyancing documents are almost certainly still available, as I mentioned my late parent was very good at this sort of thing, I suspect I can find them in the week.

Sorry to ask something that feels like I could google it, but; if I apply for strikeout, and not agreed by judge, obviously it's bye-bye £200 odd; but if it then proceeds to a hearing and claimant loses; can I then easily apply to get that fee back, or only at judges discretion if claimant has been considered 'unreasonable'?

[2222]

Costs generally go with the case, but judges have a lot of discretion.

Generally, unless an expert report disclaims liability to third parties, they may reasonably rely. The cases are all about reports that do contain disclaimers but third parties can still rely! For example a valuation produced for a lender and addressed to the lenders could be relied on by the buyers. Do you have a copy of the report?

I expect you have a good chance of striking this out or winning in court if you get that far, but I would not bank on it. Maybe one of the lawyers here can help you?

[swiss_toni]

I was going to go to Citizens Advice in the morning (they don't do appointments in our area and this is the earliest I can attend), but, I suspect they will be understandably, rather out of depth with non debt type advice, I am not doing them down, just suspecting their advice and knowledge will be based on the most common scenarios. Is that a fair assumption and would I probably be wasting my time and theirs? (They can refer you for a free half hour with a solicitor but some of them around here offer that off the bat to anyone anyway)

[meellis]

Liability and length is something that has always concerned me being a gas engineer. When more details were being requested for house sales, ie in the case of gas records, I was receiving requests from estate agents to test properties prior to completion. I didn't do many because they didn't want to pay too much, didn't want you to spend too much time and didn't want you to be too invasive so I decided it wasn't worth doing against the liability you might be held to. I have always viewed these certificates to be viewed as MOT certificates, ie a snapshot at the time of testing, and also limited to what can be tested at that point to a required standard. Twelve years seems too long for liability for me especially when NHBC only offer ten years on new builds. I really don't think that the NHBC would only offer ten if the legal requirements were longer but maybe it has never been tested before. If you can find any copies of certificates you were using just see if there were any prescribed terms or responsibilities all ready covered, I am presuming you used a proprietary duplicate book of certificates. As for dangerous works carried out then unless he has hard evidence to the contrary how can he prove it was you and hasn't been tampered with or worked on by others over the 12 year period. As for testing, when testing gas pipes we would be expected to test for leaks, visually inspect where possible but we wouldn't be expected to uncover them from the building structure just to visually inspect for installation quality or condition. In the normal property testing and maintenance cannot be made mandatory, imagine how long a government would last if they made it a legal requirement, so it is only a recommendation but I always state to my clients that they are giving there insurance policies a bona fida way of invalidating any claims due lack of due diligence on their part so if there is a guideline that says it is recommended to have the wiring inspected over certain periods make sure you have that to hand so you can question why he hasn't taken an action before.

[swiss_toni]

Twelve years seems too long for liability for me especially when NHBC only offer ten years on new builds. I really don't think that the NHBC would only offer ten if the legal requirements were longer but maybe it has never been tested before. If you can find any copies of certificates you were using just see if there were any prescribed terms or responsibilities all ready covered, I am presuming you used a proprietary duplicate book of certificates. As for dangerous works carried out then unless he has hard evidence to the contrary how can he prove it was you and hasn't been tampered with or worked on by others over the 12 year period. As for testing, when testing gas pipes we would be expected to test for leaks, visually inspect where possible but we wouldn't be expected to uncover them from the building structure just to visually inspect for installation quality or condition. In the normal property testing and maintenance cannot be made mandatory, imagine how long a government would last if they made it a legal requirement, so it is only a recommendation but I always state to my clients that they are giving there insurance policies a bona fida way of invalidating any claims due lack of due diligence on their part so if there is a guideline that says it is recommended to have the wiring inspected over certain periods make sure you have that to hand so you can question why he hasn't taken an action before.

Without trashing 2222's input, it's true that NHBC's ten years is a good indicator for 'reasonableness' I think, notwithstanding the 6 years of the Part P insurance. Yes, back then it was a duplicate book - I almost certainly have the counterpart somewhere but very buried so will only be minded to dig it out if the copy/copies the claimaint states they have don't turn up as per request within the next 7 days.

Whilst, again, I think it unlikely there is anything actually 'dangerous', what he seems (deliberately?) not to realise, just as you say about hidden wires / pipes, is that I did not turn up every floor board in the place just because I lived there and who knows which pre-Part P builders, kitchen, alarm or bathroom fitters over the years from the 1970s onwards have done something less than proper that I've just never found in my time there, that would not have affected test readings at the fuseboard? The standard caveat for a wiring test does mention this. By rights he should have had it restested twice since purchase. I suspect the 'dangerous' tag has been passed onto, for example, a garage consumer unit which being the 80s used cartridge fuses and did not have a local RCD - perfectly compliant even today as it met the regulations *at the time*, even though that method would not be allowed in a new build now... Although, actually cartidge fuses, technically, would, though IIRC 'not recommended for domestic use', indeed rewireable fuses are NOT 'illegal' even on a new build, they simply state that all wire csa's must be DOUBLED to put you off! So that means 6mm2 ring mains!

I see what you are saying about insurance - alarms are the worst as there is absolutely no discount with insurers for a non-NSI/SSAIB maintained and/or monitored alarm, but the minute you've told them when they ask at quote time, they now have an excuse if you are burgled! ('Didn't set the alarm that day Mrs Smith, oh dear... my collegue in the non-paying-out department will be contacting you shortly!). However, I am sure your Gas governing body would encourage regular safety testing in the same way my former one does.

Interestingly you say about government interference, my understanding is that in Australia a lot of plumbing activity other than gas is regulated in the same was as the gas industry here, e.g. as I understand it the average joe is not even so much allowed by the book to change a washer, but as Part P discovered, there is no point regulating something almost impossible to prove, e.g 'who changed this outside light and when...', hence the massive relaxation of Part P in 2013.

[2222]

Hi Toni. I absolutely agree with you that the report/certificate may have been valid, correct, and not at all negligent. I think the claimant has a mountain to climb to prove negligence. The test is whether an ordinary competent electrician would have reported differently.

Also, as you say, the system has had quite a few years to deteriorate since you tested it. The claimant will presumably say no further work has been carried out since he purchased.

I was dealing with the theoretical question of whether the claimant could conceivably have a case and whether any claim is time-barred. I'm not entirely convinced it is time barred. Rather than seeking legal advice whether it is, it may be cheaper just to ask the court to strike out, and that will answer the question.

[swiss_toni]

Hi Toni. I absolutely agree with you that the report/certificate may have been valid, correct, and not at all negligent. I think the claimant has a mountain to climb to prove negligence. The test is whether an ordinary competent electrician would have reported differently.

Also, as you say, the system has had quite a few years to deteriorate since you tested it. The claimant will presumably say no further work has been carried out since he purchased.

I was dealing with the theoretical question of whether the claimant could conceivably have a case and whether any claim is time-barred. I'm not entirely convinced it is time barred. Rather than seeking legal advice whether it is, it may be cheaper just to ask the court to strike out, and that will answer the question.

Agreed and, as one of my 2 jobs constantly reminds me, life is too short to try anything else right now.

I'll write a striking out order using the model one provided earlier but perhaps with another line along what you've added and post it up here for comments...

p.s Do you agree a trip Citizens Advice is not really going to add anything?

p.p.s I assume at this stage the 'name of court' is still to be listed as 'Northampton CCBC'?

*added later...*

OK, so, I was just saving the N244 form as a PDF to my computer, which is generally quite 'tidy' with folders, when I spotted, you couldn't make this up, a lonely PDF called 'electrical test 2007' in the root directory!

So, it seems I used a demo copy of a PC package do the report, as all my other ones in this era were still carbon copy types. So I now have an exact copy without having to wait or rifle through boxes of old paperwork.

Firstly, for all the bleating in the particulars about 'work done to outbuildings' etc..., it clearly states under Extent and Limitations, 'All visible, excluding garage and outhouses.'. It also includes the model statement

"This inspection has been carried out in accordance with BS7671:2001(IEE Wiring Regulations), as amended. Cables concealed within trunking and conduits, or cables and conduits concealed under floors, in roof space and generally within the fabric of the building or underground have not been inspected." as part of the report, nowadays this is an added page or has to be manually added.

It states the purpose of the report is 'Report requested by householder.'

It states that the whole installation should be retested in April 2012

It states that the fuseboards (and sockets) are thought to be from the early 1990s but that the underlying wiring is 'estimated to be 23 years old' (in 2007) and that nothing of note was carried out after 2004.

Both my parents are mentioned e.g. 'Client: Mr and Mrs Smith, Occupier: Mr and Mrs Smith' but it would have been one parent who asked me for it, as they were the one that looked after all things clerical.

Assuming this does not change things, my WS is so far...

"On or around 20^th April 2007 I was employed by Mrs. Smith, my mother, to carry out electrical testing on 10 The Street, Anytown.

I provided a Periodic Inspection Report to confirm that the fixed electrical wiring and switchgear within the dwelling, specifically excluding the Garage and Outbuildings, was at the time in;

‘”Satisfactory” condition’ for an ‘estimated 23 year [in 2007] old installation’ with ‘switchgear replaced in the early 1990s’, and subject to the standard statement regarding concealed wiring being unable to be visually inspected, and recommending a further testing in 2012.

to Mrs. Smith who is now sadly deceased.

I had no contract with Mr. CLAIMANT.

My parents subsequently sold 10 The Street, Anytown to Mr. CLAIMANT, completing in 2008, and I believe the certificate was presented to him during the sale.

Any alleged loss to the Claimant has arisen out of that contract between them for the sale and not from me, a person with no financial interest or agency in the sale of the property.

The claim has not been brought against the correct Defendant and for that reason the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

Furthermore, even if there were such a contract, which is explicitly denied, I believe that the claim would be statute-barred.

There is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.

Pursuant to CPR 24.2 I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed and costs of this application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant."