We're not talking about contractual matters. We're talking about the legislated requirement for landlords to have 'an inspection' undertaken of rented properties and, in particular whether (as some electricians like eric seem to believe) that 'inspection' requires more than just an EICR. As so often, the problem is lack of adequate clarity in the wording of the legislation (which does not mention "EICR" at all).
I'm not so sure about that, either. If landlord-supplied appliances were sufficiently 'dangerous', I would have thought that could well become a criminal, rather than civil, matter?
Again, you're talking about an EICR - and it is not totally clear whether a standard EICR is enough to satisfy the 'inspection' requirements of the legislation.
Wrong john, we are talking about contractual matters, the contract between a tennant and landlord is governed by the law of Tort or case law, in this case a tenancy agreement has various sections within it that are sepcific and others that are implied as is the case with most case law. All landlord legislation, if such a thing ever exists , will specify what is to be expected from the contract and the case law that it is derived from. As it is the contract that allows for remedy, otherwise the tenant would not be able to seek remedy, they would need to seek remedy instead from a third party.. HSE, local council etc where that duty to enforce had been placed.
Eg In the example of extension leads, whilst a property may require extension leads to function, sockets are never where you need them, it is a contractual item, whilst a sparky could note that many extension leads are being used by a tenant, that is a contractual issue between the landlord and tenant, most new contracts contain clauses as to the use of sockets ie 1 appliance per wall socket, extension leads where used must be single socket extensions etc etc. it is up to the landlord and tenant to specify how the property is used, as failure to keep to the contract is grounds for remedy.
Where a sparkie then does something silly and writes not enough sockets due to extension lead overuse c3 he will have placed himself in a very difficult situation, 1. he will have given grounds to the tenant to seek remedy where remedy did not exist before, ie he has made a case that the property is unsafe. 2. The tenant could be evicted with a loss of deposit due to them not adhering to the tenancy.... all the while the sparkie has opened himself up to either the landlord or tenant seeking redress for him sticking his oar in where its not needed or wanted. It is up to the contract to take regard of all other legislation whether specific or implied, eg the right of inspection, the right to a safe house. Its also a right to rent out a property with all the safeguards of law struck out eg at occupiers risk contracts.
We could very well be talking about expired smoke alarms malarky when sparkies got a hard on for being fire assessors...the stupidity of coding those beggers belief - landlords are responsible for fire safety not sparkies, note away, observer but code and prevent a tenancy, open your self up to the re-letting fees and lost revenue claims. Under an EICR their job is to check the wiring so that the person appointed to maintain the smoke alarm does not get shocked when they replace it.
Case law is very difficult to overturn, that is why all legislation contains the phrase should, it can be ordered like its a must but very few regulations actually say must... as parliament does not mess with the judiciary and its precious case law.
By the way white goods are a contractual item as the landlord takes responsibility for them, something they could not do if their property was not included in the contract, otherwise in case law they would would be seen to have discharged their interest and such property can be removed by the tenant.
That is why an EICR is just that, fixed wiring as other matters are excluded or fall under different provisions either enshrined ( parliamentary) in law or explicit in common law... eg you shall not kill. It is up to the landlord to discharge their duties not a sparky to re imaging case law.
