I had some building work done at home last year, the Council were paying as it was a disability facility grant for my daughter to have a G floor bedroom at the rear of the house.

I had no say in selecting the builder except for picking three off the Council's list of "competent" builders.

We chose three and the Council selected one that was not on the list, they were a new company started up following liquidation of one on the list, they were on our list of three.

We have had nothing but problems with them and no help from the Council.

I looked into their competence, they advertised CHAS and Safecontractor scheme but it turned out they did not have approved competence with either at the time of the work in fact the company that went into liquidation had their competence with safecontractor terminated a few months earlier, therefore;

1. The Council should not have selected them and,
2. The building company should not have accepted the work.

I contacted HSE yesterday to raise a complaint, I know it can be done online but could not find the link to do it that way, so I used the good old phone.

A young lady answered and asked me how she could help, I explained the details and she put me on hold to speak with her manager. When she came back she asked me if the work was notified, I said not and she told me the work was not CDM Regs.

I told her what I do for a living and she told me she hadn't been there for very long and that she was an apprentice.

She put me on hold a few times to speak with her boss until eventually being told her boss was now on the phone and can we arrange a call back.

I asked for guidance on using the online complaint system and she was very helpful, job done online.

I am not making judgements, simply relating the facts.

Bob, thanks but don't you agree there is an issue of the contractor not being competent and accepting work?

I did complain to the council and they dealt with that in house so nothing bacame of it.

I have recemtly written to my MP.

FS101 - unlike the council it is obvious from this forum you are doing your homework. Even if the contractor did hold their individual competence (and not that of a liquidated company) there are posts showing some companies cite a particular H&S bod not based in contract but a name they found on the web. I get the impression the work was not conducted to code or with any modicom of professional courtesy. As recipient your only recourse is to challenge the provider whose response to your complaint will include.. lack of resource.. they claimed accreditation...

Many posts challenging the validity and independence of these assurance schemes - perhaps the true message for your MP is stop commercial activity and bring proper control ala "Gas Safe" to the whole industry sector. Other than a domestic plug I am supposedly prevented from any electrical work in my house - how many HSE bulletins have you seen highlighting prosecutions in this realm of domestic subbies (recent Watchdog article on Persimmon Homes)

And when the company is assured they just blame the subbies - damn forgot principals only hire subbies that are "accredited"

sorry to all fat finger syndrome the Watchdog comment should have followed the paragraph re: principals

Roundtuit,
You are wrong, you are free to undertake any electrical or gas works in your own home to your hearts content.
There is nothing stopping you.
There is no requirement to notify anything or be GasSafe registered unless you are undertaking the work in the course of a business, which you would not be as it would be on your own home.
As far as electrical works go, you can do what you like, it is up to you whether you notify this under the requirements of Part P.
There is nothing to stop you, in fact you can notify the electrical works to the LA and undertake them yourself, with no qualifications, experience or competence, and it would be up to the LA to decide if they are OK or not.

I do like the response about competence. I do know my limitations and having recently had a "professional" cap the gas supply prior to a chimney sweeping before replacing a gas fire the sweep brought in to question the manner in which the supply had been capped (albeit temporary) by the engineer fitting the appliance - both Gas Safe registered and verified before engagement. IF professionals can get it wrong what chance the enthusiastic amature?

Coming back to the OP a claim of approved competence delivering varying quality of work is the heart of frustration.

Paul, I take it you noted my comment from HSE that the wrks were not CDM.

Thanks for all the replies, all very interesting.

I am happy to bow to greater topic experience however your comments on gas work are not reflected in the Gas Safe download for "DIY" tasks which indicate other than those consumer tasks specifically described in the appliance manufacturers instruction anything else would be considered illegal if undertaken by the general public. Gas Safe seem to have a publication saying one thing and an advice line saying something different?

Perhaps I put in too much information but I tried to get most of the story in there.

I did complain to Trading Standards and they took the firm to task over them using logos of competence check companies on their paperwork that they were not entitled to use.

Their excuse was they had new letterhead paper printed in advance and they "accidentally" used one of those for the invoice they sent me.

They did eventually get the permission to use the logos in November, the work was carried out in September.

It is the new company that did the work, not the liquidated one.

I am defending an action in the small claims court for monies they claim I owe for work I agreed to pay for. There was never any such agreement apart from some work that I have paid for.

I have plenty of evidence in my favour and they have none, apart from their invoice.

My complaint to HSE is about them taking the work while not being competent. This is a requirement in CDM Regs. old and new, you should all be interested in the outcome of that.

They thought they were being very clever, tendering for work as a company going into liquidation then doing the work as the new company, they even obtained building materials used on my project using the account of the other company, knowing full well that account would never be settled. The building materials supplier was then among the list of creditors.

The Judge will know all about that when he reads my defence.

What Dean said.

Those were my first thoughts too.


Although, one would have thought that a large number of the items and issues you've described speak to their negligence/wilful incompetence....and suggests a certain attitude! Which will stand in favour of your argument.
However, if they have a load of relevant qualifications/training for the guys who did the work then their lack of claimed membership isn't really the heart of the matter.

Conversely, of course, if you DIY it and DON'T harm anyone, you were evidently competent to do that task, so won't be in breach of anything.

Paul/acrhn

Yes - it's only an issue if you do something wrong. My experience as an HSE Inspector investigating plenty of dodgy jobs involving gas is that the faults tended to be split between those who didn't know what they were doing and those who had let their competency lapse.

The standards wrt gas change quite often and what is acceptable at one point can be NCS - not to current standards within a short time. Added to that, the GSR Engineers are monitored and audited - a vital part of proving competence for an organisation. Competence is not just about knowledge.

As I see it the contractor was not competent if CHAS and SafeContractor is a council requirement for contractors. The council did not comply with their own procedures. The work does come within the ambit of CDM 2015.

If there is an issue with either quality or safety, then the responsible council person should be contacted, probably Aids and Adaptions via email i.e. a PM, COW, etc. In the case of safety I would copy in the council's health and safety manager and for good measure copy in your local councillor.

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies "well they would say that wouldn't they"

I think you are barking up the wrong tree trying to make this a HSE issue (it is but only in a small way).
I would agree you have been treated very badly by your LA and despite what they say, they have not followed their own procedures.
In your shoes I'd be talking to the local press.

OK, FS,
Presumably you have house buildings and contents insurance.
Does you insurer know that the risk has increased through no fault of yours and the incompetence of AN Other appointed by the Local Council?
I bet they don't and, I bet that they would be interested in AN Other increasing their risk, at no fault of yours, plus you possibly get legal protection cover from them, and if the case is settled in your favour, then your premiums would not rise.
If they did, then you would have a legitimate civil claim?...
I understand that you want the best for your Daughter and I agree this must be the case.

The reason I started this thread is that I have heard and seen many discussions about competence and this company clearly was not at the time of the work and I was complaining to HSE. The reply I received from them confirmed my suspicions that, for whatever reason the HSE will not challenge the company concerned.

I could add that the schemes that act as competence checkers are not worth the paper the certificates are written on as nobody takes any notice anyway. IMO.

I have experience of small claim court procedures myself, having won a few and had settlements in my favour without going to court once the defendant learned they were being summonsed.

As for CCJ, if I do lose and pay up within a required time I will not incur the suggested CCJ.

I would like to thank you all for the responses and believe I have started a decent debate.

further to my question "can U explain in detail just what U mean by your term 'competent' as without that detail we are trying to answer a question without knowing what the question is?""

I still do not see clearly just what U mean as if its competent with regards to the proper management, knowledge, experience etc. with regards to H&S areas then best of luck as U will need lots and lots and lots and lots and lots more of it --------- If it is competence to do a job of work e.g. undertake a plastering, plumbing job properly then U have a slim chance in the civil courts noting that U need to ensure that U take the appropriate undertaking to court as otherwise U will lose noting that many councils are usually poor in really managing their own H&S related procedures unless it suites them to do so and as for the HSE; well enough said