Code of Practice for Inspections (October 2002)

Answer:

We will respond to each of the three issues separately.

Case A

If a joint inspection is not undertaken it must be agreed by both parties that it is not necessary. In this instance the Utility is failing to co-operate with the Street Authority, an offence under NRSWA for which the Utility could be prosecuted. Defect fees are a means of recompensing Street Authorities for work undertaken when visiting site, they are not a fine upon the Utility (Section 2.4.2 – Code of Practice for Inspections).

Case B

Paragraph 4.2.2(vi) of the Code of Practice refers to this instance, and allows the Street Authority to visit site and charge and inspection fee. Again this could be termed a failure to co-operate on the part of the Utility.

Case C

Paragraph 4.2.2(vii) of the Code of Practice refers to this issue. The Street Authority may claim a defect fee for inspecting the completed remedial works. In this instance not only has the Utility failed to co-operate it has also failed to send the necessary notices to the Street Authority relating to the undertaking and completion of the remedial works. All are offences under NRSWA and the Utility can again be prosecuted.

In summary and without knowing the background or history to these queries, the joint Chairs would expect the senior managers from the Street Authority and Utility to meet and address and resolve these matters. If this is not successful then prosecution may be the only solution.

Answer:

As stated in the query, Section 2.4.2 emphasises that payment can only be claimed for defect inspections that are actually undertaken. The Code only allows payment to be made for work undertaken and this is the reasoning behind this statement. The Working Party is not allowed to levy charges as penalty payments, that would require additional legislation. You will note the Code does not advise what payments should be made for Defect Inspections, as that is the role of the Fees Group and HAUC UK.

It is noted that it has not been custom or practice to necessarily issue the appropriate notices for defective reinstatements. The Code of Practice cannot address issues where both parties are failing to follow the process. As to human error, again the Code cannot address such issues. If a Utility is repeatedly not sending the due notices, then the only solution may be to prosecute.

Additionally it should be noted that Section 4.2.2 (vi), allows the Street Authority to claim the appropriate fee if the Utility has failed to notify them of remedial works.