Consumer unit - RCD mainswtich - how many circuits does it cover?

[SUNRAY]

One of the difficulties with this is establishing all sorts of details, such as who is responsible for the services in the property, who has the authority to do so etc.

It may very well be that the freeholder has total responsibility which he hands over to an agent who in turn hands it over to another agent who farms it out to a contractor, the contractor rubs his hands with glee and charges £500 per flat for the EICR and £5000 per flat to replace the CU whether it's required or not, the first agent applies their 20% commision, the next agent applies their 20% and then the cost of £9504 (including the VAT) is passed on the the helpless leaseholder.

Or it is also possible that the freeholder has no such clause in the lease and the leaseholder is responsible for their own services.

which is why I asked

Let's get the details in place.
Do you have a copy of the Leaseholders Lease?

Don't ask how I know about some of this stuff.

 

[JohnW2]

I can see a jolly good reason why. ... Call it a Landlords Safety Certificate, and if it comes back "here there be nasties", then he's got 28 days to fix things. ... Call it an EICR which he doesn't share with the tenant and he's got a year.

True, but my point remains (and my apologies to 'good' landlords) that I doubt whether many landlords would have bothered to pay for an inspection (whatever called) last year unless it was actually required by law as a "Landlords Safety Certificate" (or whatever you want to call it).

 

[morqthana]

True, but my point remains (and my apologies to 'good' landlords) that I doubt whether many landlords would have bothered to pay for an inspection (whatever called) last year unless it was actually required by law

Unless they wanted a heads-up. They may have had experience of capricious coding in other properties, and might have taken the view that if there were "transgressions" which did not put their tenant at risk but which would need rectifying once the report had a legal basis, they'd rather fix things according to their timetable rather than the compulsory 28 days. Or, indeed, their tenants timetable - imagine having two toddlers in a flat with floorboards up, and no electricity for periods - I can easily see how a tenant might prefer that to happen in 6 months time when they're on holiday.

as a "Landlords Safety Certificate" (or whatever you want to call it).

I thought it was called that (OK - I omitted "Electrical")

 

[JohnW2]

I thought it was called that (OK - I omitted "Electrical")

I think you'll find that the legislation merely calls it "a report" or "the report".

If that is the case, then I'm not sure that it's necessarily the case that (as you implied) something called an "EICR" (which, after all, is "a report" on the safety of the electrical installation) performed by a landlord doesn't 'count' as far as the legislation is concerned as "a report" (the effect of which could be to trigger the need for C2s to be remedied within 28 days) ?

 

[Murdochcat]

True, but my point remains (and my apologies to 'good' landlords) that I doubt whether many landlords would have bothered to pay for an inspection (whatever called) last year unless it was actually required by law as a "Landlords Safety Certificate" (or whatever you want to call it).

Not sure i agree with this.

Tenanted properties which were let via agents means the agents chased up landlords to make sure they had EICRs in place before April 2021

This would suggest a lot of properties would need to be inspected this year or next

 

[FrodoOne]

Hi All,

Here is a picture of our consumer unit. Would you think the RCD covers all circuits or only a subset?
The RCD says ln=63A, while the mains is 100A.

View attachment 385815

Thank you!

Perhaps it is a "pity" that regulations in the UK do not REQUIRE that circuits "protected" by RCDs/RCBOs (or NOT) be labeled as such
as is REQUIRED in Australia.

See

 

[Murdochcat]

Perhaps it is a "pity" that regulations in the UK do not REQUIRE that circuits "protected" by RCDs/RCBOs (or NOT) be labeled as such
as is REQUIRED in Australia.

See View attachment 386178

A nice dolly mixture there

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps it is a "pity" that regulations in the UK do not REQUIRE that circuits "protected" by RCDs/RCBOs (or NOT) be labeled as such
as is REQUIRED in Australia.

Why?

 

[FrodoOne]

Why?

Why not?

"Information" is always useful.

 

[JohnW2]

Why not? ... "Information" is always useful.

To be fair, the great majority of CUs in the UK do have labelling which gives a clear indication of what circuits are RCD-protected.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why not?

"Information" is always useful.

Such labels come with CUs. I don't see why it has to be a regulation.

Plus of course, as in a recent thread, after alteration of the wiring people seem to take more notice of a label than the actual wiring.

 

[FrodoOne]

Such labels come with CUs. I don't see why it has to be a regulation.

Why not?

Information is INFORMATION.
One cannot have too little.

As much as possible "Information" should always be given.

 

[FrodoOne]

A nice dolly mixture there

No.
Just the normal labeling (required) over the last 30 years (or so) in Australia.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why not?

Because it is not something that is worth a regulation.

If it were a regulation, do you think people should be punished for either not doing it or getting it wrong - or altering the wiring but not the label?


Out of interest do you take such labelling as gospel or would you check to see that it still applied.

If it did not would you call the police?

 

[Murdochcat]

Because it is not something that is worth a regulation.

If it were a regulation, do you think people should be punished for either not doing it or getting it wrong - or altering the wiring but not the label?


Out of interest do you take such labelling as gospel or would you check to see that it still applied.

If it did not would you call the police?

Don’t write nonsense

An EICR asks to rate the labelling of the circuits and therefore sensible accurate labelling should be the norm