.

peter_the_piper

Nutellover wrote: »

OK thanks guys. I think I'm going to suck it up, pay him money he isn't owed, get my certification then leave him atrocious reviews everywhere I can.

Appreciate all your advice.

Is the rest of the work ok? If so then an atrocious review is not really fair. You disagree over 1 point, by all means state that and be concise.

ceredigion

Nutellover wrote: »

Thanks but I'm not paying someone to fix their mistake.

Are you or have you ever been employed? In that time can you honestly say you have never made a mistake? Did your employer try and recover the costs of your error from you ?

davidmcn

thearchitect wrote: »

No. But I've know Loss Adjusters ask, when processing the claim. Which, frankly, is the important bit.

But unless the proposal form or the policy said something about electrical certification, it doesn't affect the insurers' liability to pay out. If it mattered to them, they'd ask the question before insuring. The vast majority of properties don't have electrics which comply with current regulations, it doesn't mean their insurance cover is in jeopardy.

shaun_from_Africa

davidmcn wrote: »

But unless the proposal form or the policy said something about electrical certification, it doesn't affect the insurers' liability to pay out. If it mattered to them, they'd ask the question before insuring. The vast majority of properties don't have electrics which comply with current regulations, it doesn't mean their insurance cover is in jeopardy.

It may not only be to do with the proposal or the fact that some electrics may be out of date with current regulations.
If there was a house fire and the loss adjuster or fire inspector thought that the cause of that fire may be faulty electrics, one of the first things they would probably ask is has there been any recent electrical work carried out on the property.
If there had, they would then want to ascertain that this work was done by a competent person and if required, had been certified as being compliant.

If they found out that work had been done and not completed nor signed off, I can see that this would give them more than enough of an excuse to refuse to pay out.

I'm sure that most, if not all policies have this or similar in the proposal:

You must maintain your property in a good state of repair, as not doing so could invalidate your insurance. If we determine that your property hasn't been maintained to a good state of repair, we may refuse to pay any claims, and cancel your policy, giving you 21 days' written notice sent to the last known email address we have for you.

And they could rightfully argue that unfinished, uncertifed electrical work meant that the property wasn't maintained in a good state of repair.

Knowing how many insurers use any excuse to avoid paying out, is it really worth taking the risk?

thearchitect

Since 2005, all electrical work in dwellings in England and Wales, whether carried out professionally or as DIY, must meet the requirements of Part P of the Building Regulations. In addition there are circumstances where prior approval must be sought, typically as part of wider costruction works. The situation in Scotland is not disimmilar, although their technical standards are generally tighter.


Now, if the cause of a claim arises from work which was undertaken by the occupant but which did not knowly obtain approval or comply with the building regulations then the insurers are, generally, entitled to make an appropriate deduction in the event of a claim.


That is completely seperate from an existing property which complied with the regulations at the time of construction but which, due to subsequent legislative changes, no longer does. The law (and hence associated statutory instruments) does not work retrospectively.


So what we're talking about here is the risk, albeit modest, that there is a claim arising from failure of the electrics and the homeowner is at risk due to the absence of testing and certification.


Personally, however, having a poorly earthed system should be of greater concern to the householder given the potential implications for someone in the event of a short. It's not the sort of thing you want to cut corners on.

davidmcn

thearchitect wrote: »

Now, if the cause of a claim arises from work which was undertaken by the occupant but which did not knowly obtain approval or comply with the building regulations then the insurers are, generally, entitled to make an appropriate deduction in the event of a claim.

Do you have a citation for that?

shaun_from_Africa

davidmcn wrote: »

Do you have a citation for that?

Why would you need a citation?
It's a basic tenet of any insurance that the insured person must take reasonable care of the property that is insured and failure to do so can result in a claim being denied.

Leave the keys in your car whilst it's unattended and if stolen, no payout.
Leave your house unattended with doors or windows open and if burgled, no payout.

If you have electrical work carried out on your property and this causes a loss at a later date then if you can't prove that the work was done to a satisfactory level and you can't show that the legally required certification had been completed, why should the insurers pay out?

If the T&C's of the policy state that the insured property must be kept in a good state of repair otherwise the policy may not be valid then having unfinished or uncertified electrical work would IMO mean that it's no long in a good state of repair.

thearchitect

David


I've been involved in fire insurance claims where questions have been asked, but am unable to share confidential information with you I'm afraid.

Shaun's outline is perfectly adequate and covers the principle well.

davidmcn

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Leave the keys in your car whilst it's unattended and if stolen, no payout.
Leave your house unattended with doors or windows open and if burgled, no payout.

Yes - because in both cases, those conditions will have been stated in the policy.

If you have electrical work carried out on your property and this causes a loss at a later date then if you can't prove that the work was done to a satisfactory level and you can't show that the legally required certification had been completed, why should the insurers pay out?

There's a difference between merely failing to have the paperwork certifying the work (which seemed to be what the OP is concerned about), and the property actually being in such a poor state of repair that that clause would come into play.

Given how commonplace it is for work relevant to building regulations being done to properties, if insurers genuinely cared about such things why do they never ask the question on proposal forms or have any specific caveats in their policies?

thearchitect

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes - because in both cases, those conditions will have been stated in the policy.

There's a difference between merely failing to have the paperwork certifying the work (which seemed to be what the OP is concerned about), and the property actually being in such a poor state of repair that that clause would come into play.

Given how commonplace it is for work relevant to building regulations being done to properties, if insurers genuinely cared about such things why do they never ask the question on proposal forms or have any specific caveats in their policies?

But here we've been told there is an earthing problem. The homeowner knows there is a defect incomplete work which requires attention.