"Reduction in red tape for SEMEs"

[Justin Smith]

The Time's (3 Oct p35) reports that "40,000 medium sized businesses will be freed from future red tape".
How many times have governments, particularly Tory governments, claimed "there will be a bonfire of red tape" ?

But Sir William Sargent, who served as a permanent secretary of the Better Regulation Executive (tasked with reducing red tape / regulations) until 2009, has been quoted :

"the essential difficulty of removing or undoing regulation is that it increases risk, but society has been increasingly risk averse for at least a century".

Sargent is undoubtedly correct, the response to Covid being the ultimate example, my prediction is red tape will actually get worse, and continue to do so, forever..... Sooner or later everything will be banned unless specifically allowed, and I am not joking.

 

[MikeJ]

By far the biggest increase in red tape this century has been caused by Brexit. Anybody importing or exporting anything to the EU is swamped.

 

[Deleted member 335660]

Yes it seems to me that this is mere propaganda. I set up several small businesses and quite easy. Main legal needs were annual returns, health and safety.

 

[estwig]

Overly pedantic pencil necks are a real pain, I'm wrapped up with far too much of that.

The vast majority of what I'm involved with, various aspects of planning and building control, seems to be about making work for their mates, more paper to shuffle about, that serves no purpose at all.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes it seems to me that this is mere propaganda. I set up several small businesses and quite easy. Main legal needs were annual returns, health and safety.

The trend for more and more regulation and edicts is unmissable, it is putting people off being landlords for instance. A 5 yearly EICR is now required, a yearly gas check, an energy performance certificate, the involvement of a bond company etc etc
What is worrying is it is all one way, they introduce more and more regulations and laws but hardy ever, if ever, get rid of any of any, and the reason is what Sir William Sargent said (in the opener). Society is becoming more and more risk averse and expecting to be "kept safe" pretty much regardless of the cost. The concept of "reasonable care" has gone, never to return. It is now absolute safety at any cost.

 

[Newchodge]

Overly pedantic pencil necks are a real pain, I'm wrapped up with far too much of that.

The vast majority of what I'm involved with, various aspects of planning and building control, seems to be about making work for their mates, more paper to shuffle about, that serves no purpose at all.

In your line of work, perhaps Grenfell should stand as a reminder of the need for proper and properly enforced regulation?

 

[Newchodge]

May I suggest that de-regulation sounds like a wonderful idea, until you think what it means for genuine, professional businesses, who would have to compete with even more cowboys who would be able to undercut them even more because their amateurish work practices will be permitted.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

40,000 medium sized businesses will be freed from future red tape

That's under 1% of all Uk businesses - whooppee dee! DOes this mean there won't be any red tape for them?

 

[estwig]

In your line of work, perhaps Grenfell should stand as a reminder of the need for proper and properly enforced regulation?

What a horrible thing to say.

There are times when I wonder what's the matter with you.

 

[Newchodge]

What a horrible thing to say.

There are times when I wonder what's the matter with you.

I am a realist.

 

[The Byre]

In your line of work, perhaps Grenfell should stand as a reminder of the need for proper and properly enforced regulation?

Not applicable in that case - Grenfell complied with most (but not all) regulations - it's just that the regulations are/were idiotic and conflicting. They allowed for cheap EXTERNAL insulation that linked all floors, using materials only really suitable for internal insulation in isolated rooms.

Four points -

• External insulation is generally fairly useless, as it still requires the structure of the building to be heated up before any heating benefit is felt by the occupants.
• External insulation should be totally incapable of burning. That means that wood, aluminium and PU foam is out. The regs state that fire resistance is sufficient - it is not!
• The regs on fire doors and fire escapes were not complied with.
• Many of these regs are actually dangerous and by complying in certain ways, but to the minimum, increases risk considerably. For example, the use of fire-resistant materials where non-flammable would be the only truly safe option - or the mandatory use of a mains ring for multiple electrical sockets (only the UK has this dangerous rule!)

What we need is not more regulations, but to go back to proper apprenticeships and master's certificates. And if something happens that is down to improper work by trades, the master responsible who signed off that work will have that work investigated by his/her guild. If they are found to have signed off a poor installation or used the wrong materials, they can lose their certificate and become unable to sign off any work.

Performing a risk assessment before climbing a ladder to a height above 2m achieves nothing.

 

[Bob Morgan]

Not applicable in that case - Grenfell complied with most (but not all) regulations - it's just that the regulations are/were idiotic and conflicting. They allowed for cheap EXTERNAL insulation that linked all floors, using materials only really suitable for internal insulation in isolated rooms.

Four points -

• External insulation is generally fairly useless, as it still requires the structure of the building to be heated up before any heating benefit is felt by the occupants.
• External insulation should be totally incapable of burning. That means that wood, aluminium and PU foam is out. The regs state that fire resistance is sufficient - it is not!
• The regs on fire doors and fire escapes were not complied with.
• Many of these regs are actually dangerous and by complying in certain ways, but to the minimum, increases risk considerably. For example, the use of fire-resistant materials where non-flammable would be the only truly safe option - or the mandatory use of a mains ring for multiple electrical sockets (only the UK has this dangerous rule!)

What we need is not more regulations, but to go back to proper apprenticeships and master's certificates. And if something happens that is down to improper work by trades, the master responsible who signed off that work will have that work investigated by his/her guild. If they are found to have signed off a poor installation or used the wrong materials, they can lose their certificate and become unable to sign off any work.

Performing a risk assessment before climbing a ladder to a height above 2m achieves nothing.

Fifth Point: Fire-Stopping! The Fire Characteristics of Grenfell were almost identical to previous similar fires (and construction) around the Middle East. Fire-Stopping is essential, yet is a PIA in terms of Construction Detailing and Progress of Work - In many instances it was simply not included.

 

[Newchodge]

Not applicable in that case - Grenfell complied with most (but not all) regulations - it's just that the regulations are/were idiotic and conflicting. They allowed for cheap EXTERNAL insulation that linked all floors, using materials only really suitable for internal insulation in isolated rooms.

Four points -

• External insulation is generally fairly useless, as it still requires the structure of the building to be heated up before any heating benefit is felt by the occupants.
• External insulation should be totally incapable of burning. That means that wood, aluminium and PU foam is out. The regs state that fire resistance is sufficient - it is not!
• The regs on fire doors and fire escapes were not complied with.
• Many of these regs are actually dangerous and by complying in certain ways, but to the minimum, increases risk considerably. For example, the use of fire-resistant materials where non-flammable would be the only truly safe option - or the mandatory use of a mains ring for multiple electrical sockets (only the UK has this dangerous rule!)

What we need is not more regulations, but to go back to proper apprenticeships and master's certificates. And if something happens that is down to improper work by trades, the master responsible who signed off that work will have that work investigated by his/her guild. If they are found to have signed off a poor installation or used the wrong materials, they can lose their certificate and become unable to sign off any work.

Performing a risk assessment before climbing a ladder to a height above 2m achieves nothing.

I did say proper regulation.

 

[IanSuth]

And I think that is the issue

If everyone did business thinking "I want to make money but won't compromise on doing the job right" we wouldn't need the regs BUT as business has become more cut throat (and in my view bigger and less personal) there are more and more people willing cut corners in the pursuit of efficiency and cost saving.

Business/economics has no conscience - in the uk that is provided by regs.

In the US they don't have as many regs but they have huge punitive damages (to act as the conscience of business)

You need to have one of the other - so either you have regs to theoretically reduce risk up front or you have the fear of massive cost to dissuade it from an economic perspective

Which would you prefer ? Do you think the cowboys would be dissuaded from cutting corners by the threat of fines after the event more than by whatever regulatory framework exists in their industry?

 

[The Byre]

Do you think the cowboys would be dissuaded from cutting corners by the threat of fines after the event more than by whatever regulatory framework exists in their industry?

No, because it is very easy to transfer risk to others. Every time that a company builds a housing estate on a floodplain, they transfer the risk onto home-buyers who in turn, seek to transfer the risk onto insurance companies. These then have exception clauses and renewal conditions, thereby transferring much of the risk back onto the house owners. By the time a major flood occurs, the building company has dissolved long ago and reappeared as something else and the government has to help the victims - so part of the risk is transferred to everybody.

Then there is the issue you touch upon with the idea of business being without a conscience - so someone buys shares in a company, not because it is ethical, but because they are a fund manager for Vanguard and must make a return for tens of thousands of pensioners. They don't know that they are holding shares in a company that is cutting corners and could end up killing people. They are just pensioners who paid into a pension fund, possibly as part of a company scheme over which they had no control.

We all have rechargeable devices and these all contain batteries made in part with lithium and cobalt - children die digging for cobalt, four thousand every year in the DRC alone. If our children and grandchildren were the ones down those narrow shafts, we would think twice about buying rechargeable batteries and EVs. But because of our economic privilege, we can transfer that risk onto others.

As for punitive damages - that just causes prices to inflate. You only have to look at the absurd sums paid out by US medical insurance companies and see how that inflates the cost of every device and every medication and the hourly costs of every doctor and hospital. Even the NHS spent £2.2bn (and rising!) last year on negligence claims.

The insurance companies are happy to go along with high damages for very obvious reasons - but the true cost falls on the consumer of that service or the purchaser of a building.

I never tire of telling people that risk is never a percentage game. Most people think of calculating risk in percentages and that is fundamentally wrong. It is always a fractal. In other words, it's not if, but when. They are happy to play the lottery, knowing that the chances of winning big is one in X-millions, but trust to luck when out in the car, wiring the house, or walking the dog.

A house in the nearest village burnt down last year as a direct result of a fault in a mains ring that was wired in compliance with UK regulations - the owners no doubt played the lottery. You can wire the mains with far higher-rated cable, drive more carefully and avoid all obvious risks - but that just moves the calculation for the underlying fractal to produce fewer accidents. But they still must happen.

It's when and not if!

 

[IanSuth]

No, because it is very easy to transfer risk to others. Every time that a company builds a housing estate on a floodplain, they transfer the risk onto home-buyers who in turn, seek to transfer the risk onto insurance companies. These then have exception clauses and renewal conditions, thereby transferring much of the risk back onto the house owners. By the time a major flood occurs, the building company has dissolved long ago and reappeared as something else and the government has to help the victims - so part of the risk is transferred to everybody.

Then there is the issue you touch upon with the idea of business being without a conscience - so someone buys shares in a company, not because it is ethical, but because they are a fund manager for Vanguard and must make a return for tens of thousands of pensioners. They don't know that they are holding shares in a company that is cutting corners and could end up killing people. They are just pensioners who paid into a pension fund, possibly as part of a company scheme over which they had no control.

We all have rechargeable devices and these all contain batteries made in part with lithium and cobalt - children die digging for cobalt, four thousand every year in the DRC alone. If our children and grandchildren were the ones down those narrow shafts, we would think twice about buying rechargeable batteries and EVs. But because of our economic privilege, we can transfer that risk onto others.

As for punitive damages - that just causes prices to inflate. You only have to look at the absurd sums paid out by US medical insurance companies and see how that inflates the cost of every device and every medication and the hourly costs of every doctor and hospital. Even the NHS spent £2.2bn (and rising!) last year on negligence claims.

The insurance companies are happy to go along with high damages for very obvious reasons - but the true cost falls on the consumer of that service or the purchaser of a building.

I never tire of telling people that risk is never a percentage game. Most people think of calculating risk in percentages and that is fundamentally wrong. It is always a fractal. In other words, it's not if, but when. They are happy to play the lottery, knowing that the chances of winning big is one in X-millions, but trust to luck when out in the car, wiring the house, or walking the dog.

A house in the nearest village burnt down last year as a direct result of a fault in a mains ring that was wired in compliance with UK regulations - the owners no doubt played the lottery. You can wire the mains with far higher-rated cable, drive more carefully and avoid all obvious risks - but that just moves the calculation for the underlying fractal to produce fewer accidents. But they still must happen.

It's when and not if!

And that is why we have regulations in this country

The trouble is we have removed a lot of regulators teeth (when i started in recruitment in the early 90's even recruitment agencies had to be licenced by the DTI and could have their licence removed for infractions - now it is the wild west)

We NEED regulations for things that matter (basically anything to do with safety of life/health/vulnerable people/money/fauna&flora) and those regs need to be enforced by bodies with the power to issue sanctions that matter

There is no other alternative unless you you remove the concept of a limited liability company and attach ownership of risk to the owners personally (which i doubt anyone here would want)

 

[Justin Smith]

In your line of work, perhaps Grenfell should stand as a reminder of the need for proper and properly enforced regulation?

That's a ludicrous and totally disproportionate thing to say. You're playing to the audience there, hoping your readers don't look into your claim in an objective manner. But that's what a lot of left leaning poster on forums do !

Here we discussed EICRs, their gargantuan cost (possibly a quarter of a Billion pounds a year, maybe more) v their minimal possible benefits (very few people get killed by electricity, and of those who do many will be killed by stuff like faulty mains flexes which cannot even be covered by EICRs).

 

[Justin Smith]

May I suggest that de-regulation sounds like a wonderful idea, until you think what it means for genuine, professional businesses, who would have to compete with even more cowboys who would be able to undercut them even more because their amateurish work practices will be permitted.

You are correct in a way because more regulation discourages competition, esp new competitors coming into the market.

 

[IanSuth]

You are correct in a way because more regulation discourages competition, esp new competitors coming into the market.

I would agree with that HOWEVER the flip side is when the delicensed recruitment saying it would be self-regulated but created no enforcement body and the ONLY means of recourse is for individuals to make a private prosecution or for instance an agency following the law who lose out to one who didnt can theoretically sue for loss of earnings what happened was a lot of new entrants who had zero idea of the law or even that it existed.

They would write terms of business saying things like "the act of reading the attached CV or candidate particulars is treated as an introduction" and on their ads write "by applying to this role you give us permission to hold your details on file and pass to employers who would be interested" neither of which are actually allowable under the conduct regulations 2000 but in combination allowed fast and loose agencies to hoover up vast numbers of cv's and spray them out indiscriminately then claim "ownership" scaring companies into accepting an introduction through them rather than risk possibly paying 2 fees if they took via the agency who had actually properly briefed the applicant, gone over the role etc.

Most people didnt even know that until this summer it was illegal for an agency to supply temporary workers to take the place of striking workers or even to cover for staff covering for striking workers (as long as an official industrial action) and had been since 1974

 

[UKSBD]

That's a ludicrous and totally disproportionate thing to say. You're playing to the audience there, hoping your readers don't look into your claim in an objective manner. But that's what a lot of left leaning poster on forums do !

I would say you are totally wrong there when you consider what estwig does (used to do)

Loft conversions was probably one of the most abused aspects of building when it came to turning a blind eye to building regs.

I would assume/hope it is better regulated now, but when I was involved in it 20+ years ago it was a joke.

 

[Justin Smith]

The trend for more and more regulation and edicts is unmissable, it is putting people off being landlords for instance. A 5 yearly EICR is now required, a yearly gas check, an energy performance certificate, the involvement of a bond company etc etc

Hah hah !
This is a timely and CLASSIC example of what I was saying : they'll keep adding regulations, more and more and more, forever, and rarely, if ever, get rid of any.
A friend of mine rents out a house and her letting agent has just informed her that "a new law came into place on 1st October whereby these [CO2 alarms (sic)] need to be present in the same room as a fuel-burning appliance. If there isn’t one we will not be able to move the tenant in".
One wonders how far that little pearl will go, for instance, will the landlord have to gain entry every few months to check the soddin' battery, after all that'll keep these people (who are apparently incapable of looking after themselves) even safer......
Worse still, if the landlord does not live nearby and has to use a managing agent I can tell you that all these apparently minor things start costing big money, thus putting people off becoming landlords, i.e. negatively affecting the growth of the economy (to say nothing of the supply of rented accommodation).
Why not ban buildings with more than one floor, after all falling down the stairs is (statistically) quite dangerous. And it genuinely as actually, far more so then than the minute chance one might get electrocuted or even die from CO poisoning !

 

[IanSuth]

Hah hah !
This is a timely and CLASSIC example of what I was saying : they'll keep adding regulations, more and more and more, forever, and rarely, if ever, get rid of any.
A friend of mine rents out a house and her letting agent has just informed her that "a new law came into place on 1st October whereby these [CO2 alarms (sic)] need to be present in the same room as a fuel-burning appliance. If there isn’t one we will not be able to move the tenant in".
One wonders how far that little pearl will go, for instance, will the landlord have to gain entry every few months to check the soddin' battery, after all that'll keep these people (who are apparently incapable of looking after themselves) even safer......
Worse still, if the landlord does not live nearby and has to use a managing agent I can tell you that all these apparently minor things start costing big money, thus putting people off becoming landlords, i.e. negatively affecting the growth of the economy (to say nothing of the supply of rented accommodation).
Why not ban buildings with more than one floor, after all falling down the stairs is (statistically) quite dangerous. And it genuinely as actually, far more so then than the minute chance one might get electrocuted or even die from CO poisoning !

Except her letting agents are fibbing a bit - this is the actual rule (and ps reg12 excludes low cost ownership accommodation) - all you have to do as a landlord is put one in a CO alarm in a room that has a gas fire/boiler and keep it working - they are £17 from toolstation so hardly break the bank time and there is provision for it being repaired (which i guess includes battery) if you are TOLD it isnt working - no need to go proactively checking

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...e-private-rented-sector-landlords-and-tenants

The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 will come into force on 1 October 2022. From that date, all relevant landlords must:

1. Ensure at least one smoke alarm is equipped on each storey of their homes where there is a room used as living accommodation. This has been a legal requirement in the private rented sector since 2015.

2. Ensure a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers).

3. Ensure smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are repaired or replaced once informed and found that they are faulty.

 

[Justin Smith]

Except her letting agents are fibbing a bit - this is the actual rule (and ps reg12 excludes low cost ownership accommodation) - all you have to do as a landlord is put one in a CO alarm in a room that has a gas fire/boiler and keep it working - they are £17 from toolstation so hardly break the bank time and there is provision for it being repaired (which i guess includes battery) if you are TOLD it isnt working - no need to go proactively checking

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...e-private-rented-sector-landlords-and-tenants

The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 will come into force on 1 October 2022. From that date, all relevant landlords must:

1. Ensure at least one smoke alarm is equipped on each storey of their homes where there is a room used as living accommodation. This has been a legal requirement in the private rented sector since 2015.

2. Ensure a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers).

3. Ensure smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are repaired or replaced once informed and found that they are faulty.

>>all you have to do as a landlord is put one in a CO alarm in a room that has a gas fire/boiler and keep it working<<

Two things :

1 - This is classic "regulation creep". It's only one more minor regulation........

2 - It is rather more the a £17 cost if the house is being managed by a letting agent in a different city, far more than £17, and it all needs organising and checking it's been done. The house in question actually belongs to a woman with dementia in a care home and is being rented out by her daughter to help pay for the huge care home fees. It's a 1hr 15 min drive e/w to get to it.

Quick supplementary point, if CO alarms are only £17 and are mobile, why shouldn't the tenant be responsible for their own safety in this regard ?
I'll tell you why : this modern society expects regulations (i.e. other people) "to keep us safe". Personal responsibility is a thing of the past, the world's response to Covid typifies this.

Final point, my friend is so ****ed off with all the hassle of being a landlord she is wanting to sell the house as soon as possible, though the fact it is not actually hers rather complicates the issue !

 

[estwig]

I would say you are totally wrong there when you consider what estwig does (used to do)

Loft conversions was probably one of the most abused aspects of building when it came to turning a blind eye to building regs.

I would assume/hope it is better regulated now, but when I was involved in it 20+ years ago it was a joke.

Still plenty of 'Dad loft conversions' out there, bit of chipboard on the ceiling joists, board the rafters and bodge a staircase in. Dangerous as fook, some poor sod gets trapped up there if a fire starts in the kitchen, they got no chance!

I get a lot of calls from people who've bought a house with one of these bodged lofts already done, they think a few bits of 4" x 2", a new staircase and it'll pass the building regs. They are very disappointed to hear everything has to be ripped out and start again.

 

[IanSuth]

Still plenty of 'Dad loft conversions' out there, bit of chipboard on the ceiling joists, board the rafters and bodge a staircase in. Dangerous as fook, some poor sod gets trapped up there if a fire starts in the kitchen, they got no chance!

I get a lot of calls from people who've bought a house with one of these bodged lofts already done, they think a few bits of 4" x 2", a new staircase and it'll pass the building regs. They are very disappointed to hear everything has to be ripped out and start again.

I am sat in a study that can't be called a bedroom as too far from top of a stairs and no other way out (or some other weird rule like that) - somehow it got through planning in 1997 designated as a Weights room (upstairs above a kitchen) !

For everything Justin says, for every good landlord inconvenienced by a rule there are 10 who will push it as far as they can with cost cutting to the detriment of their tenants.

When i was a student i lived in a house (only one i could get into with no bankers ref and little deposit) that had 13 outstanding environmental health writs against it - whilst i was there the boiler was condemned and shut off by the gas board, if you turned on the light in one bathroom whilst it was raining you got a shock and i knew how many sugars each of the local enforcement staff took !

9 tenants each paying full rent and the landlord (local taxi driver) wasnt even paying the mortgage - it was finally repossessed after we moved out and has now been done up and is worth about £.9m - now i think the council would be able to move quicker and more effectively

 

[estwig]

A lot of the building regs I deal with, have nothing to all to do with making homes safer, warmer, or anything else virtuous, it's all about tax revenue. If I'm obliged to specify a certain item, because building control say I have to, someone has to design that item, it needs to be manufactured, transported and installed, this creates work which in turn creates tax revenue.

It's the same for planning, them pencil necks create work for their mates. Everyone has got a screen that can zoom in and out, why the need to supply the same set of plans at different scales, because doing so creates work and tax revenue.

I shouldn't mean really, all this unnecessary complication keeps Joe Blogs away, it creates work for me. Don't want it too easy for the punters to DIY!

 

[UKSBD]

I am sat in a study that can't be called a bedroom as too far from top of a stairs and no other way out (or some other weird rule like that) - somehow it got through planning in 1997 designated as a Weights room (upstairs above a kitchen) !

That's fine, unless something goes wrong

The "it's not a bedroom/study/living room it's just a storage room" is really just like an old wife's tale.

If somebody dies in it, and enquiries start, it is a habitable room and somebody is in trouble.

 

[UKSBD]

A lot of the building regs I deal with, have nothing to all to do with making homes safer, warmer, or anything else virtuous, it's all about tax revenue. If I'm obliged to specify a certain item, because building control say I have to, someone has to design that item, it needs to be manufactured, transported and installed, this creates work which in turn creates tax revenue.

It's also about covering your back

If an architect provides full working plans all the technicalities may be within them

People build to a building notice instead, responsibility is pushed down the chain to the local building control guy, anything goes wrong the buck can stop with them

30 years ago, they would turn a blind eye to things, nowadays they are crazy to

Problem is, they are pressurised by architects, planners, council, developers, builders, owners to let things go a little.

 

[Paul Norman]

Back to the original point....

1. Anything the government says is designed to make us think they are doing something. It should never be taken as an indication of what is actually going to be done.

2. I have noticed no massive change in red tape over the last 20 years.

3. De regulation is not always desirable, but it doesn't always equal red tape.

 

[estwig]

It's also about covering your back

If an architect provides full working plans all the technicalities may be within them

People build to a building notice instead, responsibility is pushed down the chain to the local building control guy, anything goes wrong the buck can stop with them

30 years ago, they would turn a blind eye to things, nowadays they are crazy to

Problem is, they are pressurised by architects, planners, council, developers, builders, owners to let things go a little.

No..................

I send all my plans and the spec to building control for full plans approval, they check and approve the plans long before work commences on site.

The buck always stops with building control!

 

[IanSuth]

That's fine, unless something goes wrong

The "it's not a bedroom/study/living room it's just a storage room" is really just like an old wife's tale.

If somebody dies in it, and enquiries start, it is a habitable room and somebody is in trouble.

Like it when i bought house - solicitor was happy with it.

Basically get to top of stairs walk down a 2.5m long corridor - at end door to study in front of you, bathroom to left and master bedroom to right. no more dangerous when i am in here than in the bedroom. I think it is number of habitable rooms down the corridor which mattered

 

[Bob Morgan]

A lot of the building regs I deal with, have nothing to all to do with making homes safer, warmer, or anything else virtuous, it's all about tax revenue. If I'm obliged to specify a certain item, because building control say I have to, someone has to design that item, it needs to be manufactured, transported and installed, this creates work which in turn creates tax revenue.

It's the same for planning, them pencil necks create work for their mates. Everyone has got a screen that can zoom in and out, why the need to supply the same set of plans at different scales, because doing so creates work and tax revenue.

I shouldn't mean really, all this unnecessary complication keeps Joe Blogs away, it creates work for me. Don't want it too easy for the punters to DIY!

Specific regulations, products and costs?

 

[Bob Morgan]

No..................

I send all my plans and the spec to building control for full plans approval, they check and approve the plans long before work commences on site.

The buck always stops with building control!

Buck always stops with the Professional Indemnity Insurer!

 

[The Byre]

I get a lot of calls from people who've bought a house with one of these bodged lofts already done, they think a few bits of 4" x 2", a new staircase and it'll pass the building regs. They are very disappointed to hear everything has to be ripped out and start again.

It happens everywhere! And it happens at all levels, even in high-class London houses. In the course just of doing business that has nothing to do with the building trades, I have seen -

• 13 hidden mains junctions in one kitchen under the plasterboard, some just twisted together.
• A staircase that was hanging off two large nails and nothing else to support it.
• A pressure water pipe made out of garden hose.
• A pressure water pipe made out of white plastic play-pipe that was about to burst.
• An extension that was so badly built that one side was two inches out.
• An extension that was 30cm out after just 10m (i.e. a slight diamond instead of a rectangle).
• A house painted on the outside with internal whitewash that all washed away.
• Insulation made out of Styrofoam and bubble wrap.
• Metal parts of a building that tested 230V AC - the building was live!
• Countless buildings with no functional earth that actually went to Mother Earth.
• Fire escapes in theatres and large venues that were padlocked.

I'm sure I have forgotten some of the juicier ones I have come across over the years

Ah yes! I nearly forgot my fav DIY bodge - a chimney made out of chipboard! I looked up at the chimney of a building we had bought and saw smoke coming from it in the middle of summer. "WTF!" I thought. I checked to see if there was a fire burning in any of the fireplaces - no. "So where the F does smoke come from without a F'ing fire?" I asked myself.

So I climbed up into the attic and started looking at the chimney - knocked a hole in what passed for a chimney and lo and behold - it was chipboard and it was smoldering and smoke filled the attic.

That was in the same building as the 13 junctions and all done by the same idiot. He later shot himself - I was surprised at the time that he didn't miss and hit somebody else by mistake!

(The Darwinian Awards had not yet been created, otherwise, he would have been a prime candidate for that one!)

 

[DontAsk]

A lot of the building regs I deal with, have nothing to all to do with making homes safer, warmer, or anything else virtuous, it's all about tax revenue.

Rubbish!

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Ah yes! I nearly forgot my fav DIY bodge - a chimney made out of chipboard!

That reminds me of a story I heard the other week. A chap knocks on an elderly ladies door, pointed out some genuine problems with her chimney and said he'd repoint it for £1000. It wasn't until after he'd gone and another roofer went up there that they found out he'd wrapped the chimney in brick effect wallpaper!

 

[Justin Smith]

For everything Justin says, for every good landlord inconvenienced by a rule there are 10 who will push it as far as they can with cost cutting to the detriment of their tenants.

I do not believe that for a second.

1 - Why should landlords be any different from any other businessman who "wants to do a good job and provide a good service". For me that's just as much motivation for my own retail business as making money.

2 - If a landlord has a good tenant why would they want to displease them so they might leave ? It's a PITA having to go and find new tenants and sort out all the contracts etc. Far better to have the same tenant in for years and years.

3 - A landlord almost always owns the property, why, if he has any sense at all, would he not want to keep it in good condition ?

But at the end of the day we live in a free market, that should sort it. If some tenants want to live in a small poorly decorated house and pay less rent, why should they not be able to ? Similarly, in the other direction, if you keep your properties in good condition the market should dictate that you can charge more for them.

 

[Justin Smith]

A lot of the building regs I deal with, have nothing to all to do with making homes safer, warmer, or anything else virtuous, it's all about tax revenue. If I'm obliged to specify a certain item, because building control say I have to, someone has to design that item, it needs to be manufactured, transported and installed, this creates work which in turn creates tax revenue.

It's the same for planning, them pencil necks create work for their mates. Everyone has got a screen that can zoom in and out, why the need to supply the same set of plans at different scales, because doing so creates work and tax revenue.

I shouldn't mean really, all this unnecessary complication keeps Joe Blogs away, it creates work for me. Don't want it too easy for the punters to DIY!

This is true with knobs on for EICRs. Loads of extra work, which isn't really needed, for electricians, and it has to be done by electricians.

 

[Justin Smith]

I have noticed no massive change in red tape over the last 20 years.

Really ? ! ?
Do you live in the same world as me !
I'll give you a good example of a new regulation designed "to keep us safe", which is not needed, or hasn't been for nearly two hundred years. All mainline railway coaching stock cannot have opening windows any more, or at least windows that open far enough for a brain dead to stick his head out and possibly get it knocked off. Note, prior to this latest regulation it was incredibly rare for that to happen, but these days one death is one too many, not if it can be prevented by yet more regulation, regardless of any costs.
Even more incredibly, this new regulation will, by 2025, also apply to heritage / steam railways, max speed 25mph. No more sticking your head out to see the steam engine working......
The world has gone mad, and nobody seems to care.

 

[Justin Smith]

Countless buildings with no functional earth that actually went to Mother Earth.

When I was in the TV repair trade the first thing we did was rip out all the earths from the workbenches, both on the sockets and anything that could be touched whilst delving into a TV's innards.
Why ?
Because, under those conditions, it was actually safer. Getting an electrical shock really isn't that dangerous provided you are not touching something earthed at the time !