Landlord electric test C1 situations???

[securespark]

Love this bit:

Extent of inspection: 100%

Limitations: no boards lifted.......

 

[securespark]

Love this bit:

Extent of inspection: 100%

Limitations: no boards lifted.......

 

[ericmark]

Yes I agree, at least to an extent. If an inspector fails to identify a dangerous or potentially dangerous fault then he has clearly failed in his duty. However if he identifies the fault but gives it a inappropriate code, not so sure.

I think we all agree what has been written does not seem to make sense. But no one is claiming he has missed anything. I would agree with @securespark can't have a 100% inspection without removing floor boards and looking into the loft space, but now looking at English again, the code LIM is valid, and one can use it for outbuildings etc.

“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;

Duties of private landlords in relation to electrical installations
3.—(1) A private landlord(1) who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—
(b)ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals by a qualified person;

So it is down to the owner to ensure the inspector is a qualified person.

require the inspector to sign a checklist certifying their competence, including their experience, whether they have adequate insurance and hold a qualification covering the current version of the Wiring Regulations and the periodic inspection, testing and certification of electrical installations.

But it does not seem to give an example of this checklist or is there any reference to in the new law.

This PDF page 2 has a checklist from a county council i.e. government not a letting agent.

 

[JohnW2]

... I think we all agree what has been written does not seem to make sense. But no one is claiming he has missed anything.

It's true that no-one is claiming that, but there's not really any way they could, since there is no way that we could know about anything that had been 'missed'.

However, what has been written down gives so little confidence that the person involved has even a clue about what he is doing that it would not surprise me if he had 'missed' all sorts of things!

We are waiting to hear whether the person claims to be a member of any trade organisation. If he does, it will be fascinating to hear what that organisation would say if asked to 'comment' on his EICRs

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I agree with you, would be interesting to hear, I use the free down load from IET web site for the EICR forms, but noted you can buy a form with a set colour back ground with one of the scheme members logos on it without even being a scheme member, seems one back ground colour if your authorised under the scheme, and another when not authorised under the scheme, there is no requirement to be a scheme member to do an EICR, and people can be scheme members but not authorised under the scheme to to EICR's.

As an industrial electrician I have done an EICR many times, it was required for the HSE, but there was no time requirement to get any faults corrected, it was what was considered reasonable, and for an unmanned pumping station it was possible it would take over a year to correct faults, but in a public assess area it was done within the week, the 28 days for a rented property is some thing new, where other work is planned one could reasonably say in three months time we are having a new kitchen fitted the faults will be corrected then, and the EICR was to alert the kitchen designers what would be required. But new law changed all that, but it did not change how electricians have coded for years.

What I am saying is if the inspector misses items then clearly he is at fault, but awarding wrong code, can't see how he has broken any law or regulation? So what can the customer do if electrician awards wrong codes?

It seems reading the law he could call on the county council to decide if the codes are reasonable, but personally I would not want to get county council involved, he could withhold payment, and get another EICR done, but with two conflicting EICR's the one done by the higher qualified guy would be seen as the correct one by most courts, so for a scheme member it would need the scheme providers inspector to attend the property, it needs some one with over level 3 to override a level 3 qualified inspector.

I have level 5 qualifications, but in real terms my degree taught me nothing about inspection and testing and what is permitted, OK also have C&G 2391 but that is no better than anyone else with a C&G 2391.

So accepting the EICR is rubbish, the question is what next? Can payment be withheld? Can a landlord get multiple EICR's done and select the one he likes? I don't know, it is the same if I was to rent out my house, can I sign my own EICR? A garage can MOT a car for sale itself so I suppose so, but seems unethical.

 

[JohnW2]

What I am saying is if the inspector misses items then clearly he is at fault, but awarding wrong code, can't see how he has broken any law or regulation?

Since there are certainly no laws, and not really any regulations, relating to the conduct or coding of EICRs, then there is not really anything to be broken. However, if there is something which clearly should be given a C1 is 'noticed' (i.e. not 'missed') by the inspector, but is only given a C3, then there clearly is a big problem.

So what can the customer do if electrician awards wrong codes?

That is now the $64,000 question - assuming, of course, that the person who commissioned the EICR realises that the codes are 'wrong' - which very often won't be the case). Before the PRS legislation (and still for non-rental properties) there was much less of a problem. If one had an iffy EICR, one could ignore it and/or 'get a second opinion'. However, the situation with rented accommodation is now far from clear (see below).

It seems reading the law he could call on the county council to decide if the codes are reasonable ...

[I presume you mean 'LA' - since many people don't have 'county councils' ]
You must be 'reading the law' differently from me, since I haven't seen any provision (in the PRS legislation) for an appeal on the basis that one disagrees with the EICR (or its coding).

So accepting the EICR is rubbish, the question is what next? Can payment be withheld? Can a landlord get multiple EICR's done and select the one he likes?

That's the problem. If one takes the law, as written, literally, once one has had an EICR undertaken,one must provide a copy to the tenant and then have any C2/C3s remedied within 28 days. Of course, in practice, if one did not provide the tenant with copies of the initial one(s), no-one (other than possibly the tenant) would even know that they had been done, so if one 'kept going' until one got a 'satisfactory' EICR, and then used that as the 'official' one, then there would be no problem unless the tenant was particularly 'difficult'.

I don't know, it is the same if I was to rent out my house, can I sign my own EICR?

Provided that you counted as a 'competent person' in the eyes of the legislation, I see nothing in the legislation that says that the inspector cannot be the landlord.

A garage can MOT a car for sale itself so I suppose so, but seems unethical.

Iffy though it might sound, it's quite possible (I don't know) that a registed MOT inspector may even be allowed to MOT his/her own personal vehicle. Returning to an analogy with 'landlord EICRs', I again am not sure, but I don't think there is anything stopping one taking a vehicle to a different place (provided one is allowed to move it) for a second MOT test the day after it fails an MOT and, if it passes that second test, I think the previous 'fail certificate' then becomes irrelevant. I suppose that's really how it should be with 'landlord EICRs'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

I'm not an electrician, per se, but have a pretty good understanding of electrics, so these 2 tickled me pink!

5 4.9 Correct identification of circuit details and protective devices (514.8.1; 514.9.1) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
6 4.10 Presence of RCD six-monthly test notice at or near consumer unit/distribution board (514.12.2) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1

Since when did a non-labeled CU constitute a dangerous condition meriting a C1?
And how is a label going to present a risk of injury?

The guy is a charlatan and probably goes by the name of Tex Ritter, (youngsters, look it up on Google).

I haven't bothered reading the rest of the report because I can see all the C1's

 

[JohnW2]

.... Since when did a non-labeled CU constitute a dangerous condition meriting a C1?
And how is a label going to present a risk of injury? .... The guy is a charlatan and probably goes by the name of Tex Ritter, (youngsters, look it up on Google). .... I haven't bothered reading the rest of the report because I can see all the C1's

[There's a second report, too, but again not worth your bothering to read it, because it's much the same!]

Anyway, quite so. I suppose if one wanted to be open-minded, one might say that he is not necessarily a charlatan, since he might just be a complete idiot (maybe even literally!) - but, whatever he is, he clearly should not be doing EICRs.

The OP's two EICRs from him are presumably not 'unique' - so if the guy has been producing dozens or hundreds of EICRs like the two we've seen, it's perhaps surprising that something hasn't been done to 'put a stop to him'

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

If he is 'generating' work for his bosses, who then send a qualified spark round to do another 'quick test', they can quote/charge on the first one and just do what is needed to bring it up to scratch to present day regs. That way they get a high price for a job that doesn't need as much doing and, chances are, the landlord/tenant will be none the wiser.

 

[JohnW2]

If he is 'generating' work for his bosses, who then send a qualified spark round to do another 'quick test', they can quote/charge on the first one and just do what is needed to bring it up to scratch to present day regs. That way they get a high price for a job that doesn't need as much doing and, chances are, the landlord/tenant will be none the wiser.

Well, that seems to have been, in principle, what has been quite often happening, particularly since the introduction of the PRS legislation, but this is a ridiculously extreme example - and, as I said, I would be surprised if others had not taken exception to similar reports.

Let's face it, in terms of the legislation, he could "generate work for his bosses" by coding all those ridiculous C1s as C2s, and without as much 'risk' that the landlord would smell a rat. As I've noted before, one irony is that the one thing which may possibly have genuinely deserved a C1 ("smashed socket which needs replacing") was coded by him as C2

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

Yes I noticed that as well. Very strange.

 

[winston1]

Returning to an analogy with 'landlord EICRs', I again am not sure, but I don't think there is anything stopping one taking a vehicle to a different place (provided one is allowed to move it) for a second MOT test the day after it fails an MOT and, if it passes that second test, I think the previous 'fail certificate' then becomes irrelevant.

That used to be the case. Now MOTs are all held in a central database and the first thing a tester does is look up the history for the vehicle. Once he saw that it had failed the prievous day he might be wary of passing it without a thorough check of the failed items especially as retests are free within a certain time frame at the failing garage.

EICRs are not yet held in a central database but who knows the future.

 

[JohnW2]

That used to be the case. Now MOTs are all held in a central database and the first thing a tester does is look up the history for the vehicle. Once he saw that it had failed the prievous day he might be wary of passing it without a thorough check of the failed items ...

Of course. He/she undoubtedly would be 'wary' in that situation, but one would hope that if they were competent and if their 'thorough checking' (don't forget, we're talking about a 'brand new full MOT') concluded that the vehicle should pass, then they surely would issue a pass certificate, regardless of what had happened the previous day.

I can't see an alternative. If the second tester found that the vehicle passed all the required tests, on what grounds could he/she 'fail' (i.e. "refuse to 'pass'") the vehicle, even if someone else had 'failed' it the day before?

 

[conny]

Of course. He/she undoubtedly would be 'wary' in that situation, but one would hope that if they were competent and if their 'thorough checking' (don't forget, we're talking about a 'brand new full MOT') concluded that the vehicle should pass, then they surely would issue a pass certificate, regardless of what had happened the previous day.

I can't see an alternative. If the second tester found that the vehicle passed all the required tests, on what grounds could he/she 'fail' (i.e. "refuse to 'pass'") the vehicle, even if someone else had 'failed' it the day before?

I think the second tester may be wary about passing it unless he was absolutely certain the component which it failed on was within the test limits. If it was 'just' inside the limit he may well fail it again to save any hassle from the authority regulator. At the end of the day we have to put our trust in these guys because they can lose a lot of business if they lose their licence. It stands to reason though that MOT testers that charge below the government set price are going to fail a lot on the slightest margin in an effort to recoup their offset prices.

 

[winston1]

After many years of MOT hassle I have now found a garage that:

1. Only does MOTs, no repairs.
2. Has a no pass no fee policy.

In 10 years I have never had a fail, though had a few “get that sorted” type notifications.