A forum for open discussion on communities and local government policy.

Achieving Building Standards

The Government has recognised that there are some issues with the existing system of Building Regulation, including concerns about compliance and enforcement. In particular, the Government is interested in reviewing the effectiveness of its guidance, concerns about industry’s ability to find the right resources, and questions about whether Building Regulations are targeting the right things in the right way.

As a result we have initiated a programme of work to consider the current situation of Building Regulations and how we manage and maintain them, and to identify what we might do to improve this.

This topic will provide input to this work and will run until 13 December 2006. Below is a list of the points that we hope that this discussion will help us to address. We anticipate that many people will want to contribute to this discussion, so in order to manage the site more efficiently we will only be able to display responses which address at least one of the questions below, and which follow the discussion rules of this site.

  • Are building standards regulating for the right things in the right way?
  • Are these standards being achieved, and if not is there anything stopping them from being enforced?
  • What helps people to comply with them?
  • What stops people from complying with them?
  • How could we improve compliance and why will this work?

All of your views are welcome and will be even more effective if you state in which capacity they are made; either as a member of the general public e.g. home owner or as someone with a professional interest e.g. architect.

previous discussion | next discussion

Are Standards Being Achieved

Posted by David Cowburn on 13/12/2006 - 12:01

I am Managing Director of NAPIT, one of the bodies where tradesmen can register in order that they can self-certificate compliance with the Building Regulations. I am writing following a series of meetings with our Members specifically to represent their collective views.

Most, but not all, installers recognise that self-certification is a concession not an imposition and that the only two routes forward for carrying out notifiable work are pre-notification and inspection by Building Control (at a price per job) or self certification (at a price for registration). One problem is that this is not a real concession when there continues to be a prevalence of a third route, which is “tell no one” (at zero cost). This third route is perceived as perfectly legal by many installers and until enforcement levels increase it allows a route for unregistered installers to significantly undercut Members who chose to comply with Regulations.

Another perceived disadvantage of registration is that it is seen as a means by which the work carried out by a Member is visible to authorities in a way that work carried out by others is not. As a result many believe that the only people likely to have enforcement action against them are those who chose to register.

A third problem is that members of the various schemes continue to find the whole structure of schemes confusing. Real jobs are not about the Building Regulations alone. Real installers are not differentiating between complying with regulations and meeting the scheme rules of anti-cowboy schemes such as TrustMark or voluntary elements such as insurance backed warranty. Many struggle to understand what is notifiable and what is not. There is a need for government and schemes to work to explain schemes to Members in terms and language that they easily understand and which relate to their real working practices.

A fourth is the uncertainty around what qualifications you need in order to be able to register to self-certificate, and in particular misuse of courses that are designed for experienced installers but used to train new-entrants. This leads Members to view the current approach as legitimizing the unqualified and inexperienced and throwing open the doors to an ever-widening pool of competition rather than narrowing the field to those who can deliver compliant work.

A fifth area of concern arises because many schemes are based on single areas of work (plumbing, gas, electrical etc.) but many jobs touch on multiple areas. The thought that they may have to join multiple schemes, gain multiple qualifications and undergo multiple inspections is another significant area of concern for current Members.

All of these things act as a disincentive to installers to join self-certification schemes: failure to enforce; potential for penalising registered installers disproportionately; lack of clarity; misuse of qualifications; and work that cuts across different sectors. I could add to this but the main point is to recognise that registration schemes will work best when the majority of installers in a sector are members of schemes and the unregistered element become marginalised. The journey from one to the other then puts increasing pressure on unregistered installers to at least consider joining a scheme.

Addressing these points is mostly a matter for clarity of information (from DCLG down), consistency of delivery by scheme operators and enforcement that is targeted to penalise those who fail to comply. Do that and schemes will grow, when schemes grow compliance will increase and standards will be achieved.

back