Well this thread is about a rented property, and the bit used is "change of tenant" - so clearly the PRS legislation applies.
"change of tenant
/owner", actually, so it was not written specifically to only apply to tenants, and was.
As I keep saying, even though the EICR in question clearly is 'relevant to' the PRS legislation (which doesn't mention EICRs), it vis merely a standard EICR, and the inspector is presumably free to make whatever recommendations he/she sees fit in that report as to when (in terms of time, changes in circumstances or whatever) the next inspection should be undertaken.
The legislation says that a time interval is to be specified - and yes, it can be shorter than 5 years. "On <random event>" is not a time period - it's an event triggered duration of indeterminate length and thus has no place where the legislation requires a specified period of time. So, apart from all the other issues - does that invalidate the report from the PoV of the legislation ? The legislation requires that a period of time be specified, but the report author hasn't done that.
With respect, I think you're interpretation of the legislation is probably verging on the 'pedantic'
3(1)(b) of the legislation does indeed say that a landlord must
"ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals by a qualified person".
However, it then defines what it means by "regular intervals" in that clause, when it goes on to say:
[3](2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph [3](1)(b) “at regular intervals” means—
(a)at intervals of no more than 5 years; or
(b)where the most recent report under sub-paragraph [3](3)(a) requires such inspection and testing to be at intervals of less than 5 years, at the intervals specified in that report.
It surely could not be any clearer than that, could it? It is saying that the requirement for inspections "at regular intervals" is satisfied by any interval which is no greater than 5 years, and no greater than any shorter period specified in the report.
So, regarding "regular intervals", no matter what your dictionary may say about the meaning of "regular intervals", nothing in the legislation requires that the intervals between inspections be equal, nor does it specify what criteria may (or may not) be used by the inspector in determining when to recommend that the next inspection should be undertaken (if less than 5 years), does it? You presumably aren't suggesting that a landlord would be in breach of the legislation if the interval between the most recent two inspections was different from that between the previous two, are you?
As for the legislation requiring
"that a period of time be specified", I presume you are referring to 3(3)(a), which says that, after the inspection has been undertaken, the landlord must "obtain a report from the person conducting that inspection and test, which gives the results of the inspection and test and the date of the next inspection and test". My suggestion of 'verging on the pedantic' arises because you are taking "date of the next..." totally literally - i.e. you believe that the requirement can only be satisfied by an explicit calendar date - but I am far from convinced that is the intended interpretation.
There are plenty of situations in which a scheduled 'regular' date of some sort of 'inspection' (in the broadest sense) may be conditionally over-ridden by intervening (and not predictable) events - such as a 12-month vehicle service or a 12-month routine hospital follow-up appointment (dates which may be over-ridden by mileage or new features of disease respectively).
Returning to context, I can think of at least one situation in which it might be very reasonable, in the interests of safety, for an EICR inspector to recommend a further inspection 'on change of tenant' (or at 5 years, whichever sooner). If, during the course of an EICR inspection, the inspector found things which he/she believed were evidence that the current tenant had 'been tampering with' the electrical installation, I would think it would be very reasonable for the inspector to recommend an inspection if/when that tenant was replaced by a new one (even though the inspector could not oput a "date" on when that might happen), wouldn't it?
Kind Regards, John