EICR, landlord and Electrician

[yartin]

Hi
I found an Electrician to do an EICR but he is only registered for "Domestic installer" and not for "Rental safety report" . I called NICEIC, they said that's OK he can do EICR on blank form and not NICEIC form which is still acceptable.
Your thoughts?

 

[Scally-Ho]

Perfectly acceptable. I use a mate's son for my properties and his forms are exactly as you describe. with his overstamp
I would do my own, but being an ethical landlord, I observe the regs and as I get mate's rates, it's no biggie. Stan's lad knows what is required for the ticket and tests/observes to the rules.

 

[Murdochcat]

Anybody can do an EICR as long as they are competent .. and have the correct calibrated test equipment

 

[flameport]

. I called NICEIC,

There is no requirement for any electrician to be a member of NICEIC for EICRs or any other purpose.
Some electricians have decided to pay the membership fees and belong to NICEIC.
Others have not.

OK he can do EICR on blank form and not EICR form which is still acceptable.

An EICR is an EICR. All forms are blank before they are filled in.

If they were a member of NICEIC that they could include the logo for that organisation on the EICR. Or not.
If they were a member of another organisation then they could include the logo for that organisation instead. Or not.
If they were not a member of any organisation then there would be no logo.
The presence or lack of a particular logo changes nothing.

 

[plugwash]

There is no requirement for any electrician to be a member of NICEIC for EICRs

indeed.

or any other purpose.

A domestic electrician is practically required to join one of the "part p" self-certification schemes. Otherwise they would have to deal with building control for every notifiable job, which just isn't very practical. There are about 5 choices for such schemes, with NICEIC being the best known, probablly followed by Napit.

When "part p" and it's associated requirements came in, NICIEC created a lower-tier membership for "domestic installers", while keeping their traditional "approved contractor" membership as a higher status. It seems they have since added a "rental safety report" tier which presumablly allows them to do EICRs on domestic properties under their NICIEC membership.

[/quote]
All forms are blank before they are filled in.................................The presence or lack of a particular logo changes nothing.
[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that there are broadly two types of EICR forms.

1. Forms that can be filled in by anyone who considers themselves competent to do so. Judging whether they are actually comptent is down to whoever is ordering the report.
2. Forms that are tied to a members membership in some trade body, where the forms essentially mean the trade body is vouching for the members competance.

So my understanding is someone who only has "domestic installer" membership of the NICEIC can conduct EICRs but those EICRs won't be on NICEIC controlled paperwork and they won't be endorsed by the NICEIC.

 

[JohnW2]

A domestic electrician is practically required to join one of the "part p" self-certification schemes. Otherwise they would have to deal with building control for every notifiable job, which just isn't very practical.

You say that, but there is so little electrical work which is notifiable (in England) that I imagine that someone who wanted to (and was 'competant') could probably find enough non-notifiable work to keep them busy. There is usually very little electrical work within bathroom zones (primarily showers), so that only leaves CU replacements and 'new circuits'.

My understanding is that there are broadly two types of EICR forms.
1. Forms that can be filled in by anyone who considers themselves competent to do so. Judging whether they are actually comptent is down to whoever is ordering the report.

Indeed.

2. Forms that are tied to a members membership in some trade body, where the forms essentially mean the trade body is vouching for the members competance.

I'm not sure to what extent the trade body is really "vouching for the member's competence" (in the same sense that, say, an employer would). If that were literally true, they would presumably be responsible/'liable', financially and otherwise, for the consequences of an 'incompetent' EICR issued by one of their members', and I'm not at all sure that they necessarily see it like that (their main interest and expertise seemingly being in relation to collecting m,embers' subscriptions )

 

[ericmark]

The EICR stands for Electrical installation condition report, but the landlords report includes any item not classed as portable, is also included, so over 18 kg, and not on wheels, or fixed to the fabric of the building.

So the central heating comes under the landlord report, but only to the FCU supplying the central heating for an EICR.

I can see nothing in the new law to say all must be tested by the same person. So an EICR plus the PAT test would be permitted as far as I can see, but this would need a building manager to ensure all bits tested.

In the real world, if it says EICR it is accepted, we have seen a court case where the inspector admitted not doing his job, but it will likely need a death for someone who claims to have done a valid EICR to be taken to court and shown not to have done his job.

 

[JohnW2]

The EICR stands for Electrical installation condition report, but the landlords report includes any item not classed as portable, is also included, so over 18 kg, and not on wheels, or fixed to the fabric of the building. .... So the central heating comes under the landlord report, but only to the FCU supplying the central heating for an EICR.

Maybe, but the official guidance relating to the 'landlord inspections' is a little unclear. It starts by saying ....

What will be inspected and tested?
The ‘fixed’ electrical parts of the property, like the wiring, the socket-outlets (plug sockets), the light fittings and the consumer unit (or fuse box) will be inspected. This will include permanently connected equipment such as showers and extractors.

... which might be taken to be saying the same as you do above, but then goes on to say (with my red emboldening) ...

What about electrical appliances like cookers, fridges, televisions etc?
The Regulations do not cover electrical appliances, only the fixed electrical installations.
We recommend that landlords regularly carry out portable appliance testing (PAT) on any electrical appliance that they provide and then supply tenants with a record of any electrical inspections carried out as good practice.

This seems 'doubly unclear'. For a start, it says that the inspection does not cover 'appliances', without restricting that to 'portable' ones. It then goes on to talk about PATesting, but I don't think that would be appropriate for most cookers and fridges etc., would it?

So, I'm not at all clear as to whether or not your interpretation corresponds with what was 'intended'by the legislators (who, of course, would probably not have a clue as to what should be required, hence reliant on their 'advisors'!)

 

[ericmark]

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer's side of the electricity supply meter;

PAT testing should be called "The inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment." so the word we are left with is "Fixed" hunting for government definitions is a bit fuzzy, but 18 kg is often quoted and have to question how a cooker hard-wired could not be considered "Fixed"?

 

[JohnW2]

PAT testing should be called "The inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment." so the word we are left with is "Fixed" hunting for government definitions is a bit fuzzy, but 18 kg is often quoted and have to question how a cooker hard-wired could not be considered "Fixed"?

exactly - so if "appliances are not covered" and given that cookers, fridges, freezers and boilers are almost all going to be over 18kg, it doesn't seem that there is any requirement for 'landlord inspections' which goes beyond what is required for an EICR, is there? (and, in any event, what the guidance says about "PATesting" is only a 'recommendation', not a 'requirement', anyway).

 

[morqthana]

PAT testing should be called "The inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment." so the word we are left with is "Fixed" hunting for government definitions is a bit fuzzy, but 18 kg is often quoted and have to question how a cooker hard-wired could not be considered "Fixed"?

When I moved in to my house the previous people had had a freestanding dual fuel cooker, and we found a bayonet for the gas and an industrial round pin socket for the electric.

 

[Murdochcat]

Tin hat on here but i would venture to suggest that the general basis for an EICR is the fixed wiring only unless the scope of the inspection has been agreed to be more involved before it’s started

 

[ebee]

When I used to do the (very rare event) EICR/Periodic I followed the advice of an Niceic Approved Contractor who became a college tutor and later on he became a NAPIT field officer and in the boxes marked wrote in the extents - fixed mains wiring only. In the limitations I wrote - no current using equipment inspected or tested. That makes it clear to any one reading the report exactly what you have inspected and tested and what you have not.

That does not mean that I would not actually take a look at any showers/cookers and appliances and advise accordingly and even I would mention them on my paperwork if they caused me any concerns but I would always offer the services of a colleague who had the relevant test gear and qualifications to undertake them as a separate entity.

My recommendation of such tests and inspects via a third party would also be prominent on my paperwork.

Again I am aware of some drive by and stick a label on it just in much the same ways as drive by PIRs and EICRs too.

 

[JohnW2]

Tin hat on here but i would venture to suggest that the general basis for an EICR is the fixed wiring only unless the scope of the inspection has been agreed to be more involved before it’s started

I doubt that (m)any people would disagree with that. In any event, the scope of the I&T for an EICR can be negotiated and agreed between the people commissioning and undertaking the inspection, and hence could end up encompassing more or less than BS 7671 suggests..

The uncertainty, however, relates to whether or not a standard EICR (per BS7671) corresponds with the inspection required by the 'landlord legislation'. That legislation does not mention "EICR" at all. The associated 'guidance for landlords'document (which is not 'law') does talk about EICRs but, as eric has suggested, also says some things which could be taken to indicate that they are expecting (for this purpose) the 'inspection' to go beyond what is required for an EICR.

 

[Murdochcat]

I doubt that (m)any people would disagree with that. In any event, the scope of the I&T for an EICR can be negotiated and agreed between the people commissioning and undertaking the inspection, and hence could end up encompassing more or less than BS 7671 suggests..

The uncertainty, however, relates to whether or not a standard EICR (per BS7671) corresponds with the inspection required by the 'landlord legislation'. That legislation does not mention "EICR" at all. The associated 'guidance for landlords'document (which is not 'law') does talk about EICRs but, as eric has suggested, also says some things which could be taken to indicate that they are expecting (for this purpose) the 'inspection' to go beyond what is required for an EICR.

To say that legislators made a real mess of something that should have been black and white is a huge understatement.

Emma Clancy departed the NICEIC abruptly so she could be part of the decision making process - so you have hoped that she would have brought some experience with her, but sadly not. My suspicion is that the NICEIC wanted to mandate only scheme members could undertake EICRs but that didn’t transpire either

And the legislation refers to a specific version of BS 7671, not the version that’s current, so what happens down the line?

To be honest the legislators couldn’t have made a bigger cock up if they had tried