Failed EICR

[lettywetty]

Hi.
I am a landlord and rent a bungalow from the 30’.
EICR done in 2018 showed only 2 C3.
New EICR done last week came back with 13 C2 and 25 C3. A bit of a shock to the system!
This has been done by the electrician (big company in Leatherhead) of the estate agent. Agent had asked a quote from the same people for remedial work.

Don’t know what to expect from trades appointed directly by estate agents, could be costly.

Could someone give me a rough idea of what remedial works should cost if I publish the EICR here please?

Thanks.
Letty

 

[SUNRAY]

Hi.
I am a landlord and rent a bungalow from the 30’.
EICR done in 2018 showed only 2 C3.
New EICR done last week came back with 13 C2 and 25 C3. A bit of a shock to the system!
This has been done by the electrician (big company in Leatherhead) of the estate agent. Agent had asked a quote from the same people for remedial work.

Don’t know what to expect from trades appointed directly by estate agents, could be costly.

Could someone give me a rough idea of what remedial works should cost if I publish the EICR here please?

Thanks.
Letty

Yes please publish.

 

[ericmark]

It does seem odd if in 2018 it was OK and today so many faults, so one inspector it seems got it wrong, there is to be far a change, the EICR in 2018 was likely done following the IET code of practice or the Electrical safety councils best practice guide, but the new law says

“consumer’s installation” means the electric lines situated upon the consumer’s side of the supply terminals together with any equipment permanently connected or intended to be permanently connected thereto on that side;

the equipment permanently connected or intended to be permanently connected was not previously considered part of an EICR, installation did not include any current using equipment, that would have been tested when doing the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment often called PAT testing.

But yes publish and see what the team thinks.

Also an EICR is done to the clients instructions, for example the LABC often have an EICR done before issuing a completion certificate, and they would be interested in any deviation from BS 7671:2018 but in the main an EICR is not linked to BS 7671 in fact the code 4 which reported when not compliant with current edition was removed some where around 2008 as considered miss leading, so today we have C1 = dangerous, and C2 = potentially dangerous which since 230 volt is always potentially dangerous leaves a lot to the inspector to interpret. As said most use the best practice guide. Which still allows plastic fuse boxes and no RCD protection.

There is a difference between what you should do as a caring landlord and what you must do. The same applies for letting agents, they can tell the inspector to treat all properties as new, as they feel some one letting a property should have that protection. Or they could ask for bare minimum, that is their call when commissioning the inspection.

 

[SUNRAY]

There is a difference between what you should do as a caring landlord and what you must do. The same applies for letting agents, they can tell the inspector to treat all properties as new, as they feel some one letting a property should have that protection. Or they could ask for bare minimum, that is their call when commissioning the inspection.

I want my properties to be right and ask myself if I'd like to/what would I change to live there.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The appropriate definition of electrical installation:
"“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on
the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter."

I find the use of 'or' puzzling.

Can it be concluded that an EICR is not, in fact, sufficient to satisfy the PRS legislation?

Consequently, how would storage heaters be tested given that they would only be working during the night?

It really is not satisfactory that the PRS legislation introduces new terms - e.g. Electrical Safety Report - without defining what that entails.
From the PRS legislation:
"“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3)."
What does BS7671 say about storage heaters and other fixed equipment?

 

[SUNRAY]

The appropriate definition of electrical installation:
"“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on
the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter."

I find the use of 'or' puzzling.

Can it be concluded that an EICR is not, in fact, sufficient to satisfy the PRS legislation?

Consequently, how would storage heaters be tested given that they would only be working during the night?

It really is not satisfactory that the PRS legislation introduces new terms - e.g. Electrical Safety Report - without defining what that entails.
"“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3)."
What does BS7671 say about storage heaters and other fixed equipment?

The teasting surely needs to be done when such power is available.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Presumably, yes.

That'll please everyone concerned.

 

[JohnW2]

There is a difference between what you should do as a caring landlord and what you must do.

I want my properties to be right and ask myself if I'd like to/what would I change to live there.

I would feel exactly the same and that would have been fine prior to the 'PRS' legislation. However, now that we have that legislation, that approach could leave me on the wrong side of the law.

There are many non-conformities with BS7671 with which I would be perfectly happy for myself and my family to livce with in my house (and, indeed, I'm sure that there are plenty of them ). However, if some EICR 'inspector' were to decide that these non-conformities were 'non-compliances', and thereby code them as C2 (or even C1 !), then that would turn them into things which I 'must' have 'remedied' in order to comply with the law.

That's why, for rented property, the inconsistencies (and sometimes apparent stupidities) of EICR coding are now creating a very unsatisfactory situation, of potential appreciable financial consequence to landlords.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The appropriate definition of electrical installation:
"“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on
the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter."

I find the use of 'or' puzzling.

Can it be concluded that an EICR is not, in fact, sufficient to satisfy the PRS legislation?

Consequently, how would storage heaters be tested given that they would only be working during the night?

It really is not satisfactory that the PRS legislation introduces new terms - e.g. Electrical Safety Report - without defining what that entails.
From the PRS legislation:
"“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3)."
What does BS7671 say about storage heaters and other fixed equipment?

The Regulations do not deal with requirements for the construction of assemblies of electrical equipment, which are required to comply with appropriate standards.

The Regulations are intended to be applied to electrical installations generally but, in certain cases, they may need to be supplemented by the requirements or recommendations of other British Standards or by the requirements of the person ordering the work.
Such cases include the following:
(xxvii) Electric Electric heating systems - BS 6351

I do like your reference to "or" does seem it should have said "and" but I am sure the regulations were proof read, so may be there are two meanings to the phrase, so since we know the EICR does refer to fixed electrical cables then it does not refer to fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter.

Which answers a lot of questions, so the EICR does not cover the CU?

 

[JohnW2]

The teasting surely needs to be done when such power is available.

That would certainly make testing a little bit more feasible. However, EFLI's point remains. Since there are any number of bits of 'fixed electrical equipment' about which BS7671 has absolutely nothing to say, is it being suggested that an EICR (whose scope is limited to the requirements of BS7671) is inadequate to satisfy the PRS legislation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The Regulations do not deal with requirements for the construction of assemblies of electrical equipment...

As you go on to imply, that does not seem to be a general truth, because I don't think any sane person would believe that BS7671 does not 'deal with', for example, CUs (in relation to which it explicitly imposes various requirements).

Many things (like CUs) have to also comply with other 'appropriate Standards', but that does not preclude BS7671 also 'dealing with' them, and imposing its own requirements.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I would feel exactly the same and that would have been fine prior to the 'PRS' legislation. However, now that we have that legislation, that approach could leave me on the wrong side of the law.

There are many non-conformities with BS7671 with which I would be perfectly happy for myself and my family to livce with in my house (and, indeed, I'm sure that there are plenty of them ). However, if some EICR 'inspector' were to decide that these non-conformities were 'non-compliances', and thereby code them as C2 (or even C1 !), then that would turn them into things which I 'must' have 'remedied' in order to comply with the law.

That's why, for rented property, the inconsistencies (and sometimes apparent stupidities) of EICR coding are now creating a very unsatisfactory situation, of potential appreciable financial consequence to landlords.

Kind Regards, John

The rules and my preferences meld into one for this.

 

[JohnW2]

The rules and my preferences meld into one for this.

Are you sure about that?

The problem is that, as far as compliance with the PRS legislation is concerned, the 'rules' relate to anything the inspector may decide to code as C2/C1 on an EICR, no matter how crazy a decision that may be. Would 'your preference' really include paying good money to 'remedy' something that you did not believe needed to be 'remedied', and with which you would be perfectly happy for yourself and your family to live?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Are you sure about that?

The problem is that, as far as compliance with the PRS legislation is concerned, the 'rules' relate to anything the inspector may decide to code as C2/C1 on an EICR, no matter how crazy a decision that may be. Would 'your preference' really include paying good money to 'remedy' something that you did not believe needed to be 'remedied', and with which you would be perfectly happy for yourself and your family to live?

Kind Regards, John

I certainly hope I never have anything in any of my properties which could be C1and I'd equally hope it was not something caused by me. 3 years ago while a property was between tenants I replaced a perfectly servicable CU with a metal version, at the time I replaced all of the accessories and found the earth bond to water had been cut with a saw by the bathroom fitter, in fact some of it had been removed where it was clipped to a removed section of boxing in.

If there was anything I didn't agree with [which so far hasn't happened] unless it was something expensive i'd either repair or get it repaired. If it was expensive and I didn't agree/understand I'd happily go for a second opinion before shelling out.

To be honest I'm more likely to offer to replace before I'm told to. Fortunately 'working in the trade' I have friendly inspectors available to me who are not on the make.

 

[JohnW2]

I certainly hope I never have anything in any of my properties which could be C1and I'd equally hope it was not something caused by me.

I presume that you mean "...which should be C1..."? Did you see this recent one posted here? ...

If there was anything I didn't agree with [which so far hasn't happened] unless it was something expensive i'd either repair or get it repaired.

It may not have happened to you but, as we've seen, it seems to be becoming an increasing problem. I have to say that, if it were me, I would, at the very least, be annoyed to be paying out for something that I didn't believe needed doing, even if it was not a great expense.

We're hearing of cases of plastic CUs being given C2s. Would you be happy to pay for a CU replacement if that 'happened to you'?

If it was expensive and I didn't agree/understand I'd happily go for a second opinion before shelling out.

One of the problems we've discussed here is that the legislation does not seem to offer that option. It would seem that if the landlord has not remedied all C1/C2s within 28 days of the date of the initial EICR, he/she would then be in breach of the law, and (as far as I can make out) the only apparent 'appeals' processes only seem to become available after the LA have reacted because the law has been broken.

To be honest I'm more likely to offer to replace before I'm told to. Fortunately 'working in the trade' I have friendly inspectors available to me who are not on the make.

That, of course, is 'the answer'. IF one has access to an inspector who one can totally trust to be competent and sensible (and not 'on the make'), then there is no problem. However, most landlords are not in your position and are 'in the laps of the gods' when selecting an inspector - with some of the results that we have seen here.

Kind Regards, John