There is a problem with the English landlord law,
“electrical equipment” means those electrical fixtures, fittings and appliances that are not electrical installations;
“electrical installation” has the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Building Regulations 2010(2);
“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer's side of the electricity supply meter;
Portable is considered as either under 18 kg or has wheels. The problem is the "fixed electrical equipment" with a standard current using equipment is tested when doing the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment often called PAT testing, and the law has split the EICR and PAT testing differently to how it has been split by the electrical industry, and it was never required it inspect all with an EICR, the industrial standard was to inspect a percentage of the installation, and if all was OK one could assume the rest was also OK, if however faults were found the percentage tested was increased. This was all laid out in the documents issued, we did not hide what was being done.
It is impossible to inspect and test all, be items be buried in the walls, or at a height where it would require a cherry picker, there will be bits one can't inspect, and one has to remember the EICR can be on an industrial batching plant or a house, the rules are the same.
When taking a C&G 2391 there is no expiry date, nothing on my certificate says valid until xx-xx-xx. And there is no need to pass the C&G 2391 to do inspection and testing, it is down to what ones professional indemnity insurance requires. One would be silly to do inspection and testing without it.
So unless the boiler has clearly marked on it gas safe or corgi qualified access only, the electrician under the landlord law should remove covers and inspect, this could be dangerous, so one can understand were electrical inspectors ignore the law and don't test and inspect equipment and only do the installation.
Also, the EICR is looking for deterioration, there should not be any shoddy workmanship for the inspector to find. Yes it does happen, which is why we test a ring final to see if still a ring, but as to how far one goes, is a question for debate, we were taught to look for a figure of 8 with a ring final, but not found any regulation saying you can't have a figure of 8, many will consider they are not trained in fire prevention and detection and consider fire alarms etc, outside their remit, as far as if they work, as long as wiring to them is sound, that's limit of the inspection.
The inspection and testing was split into 3 exams, one for equipment, one for the installation, and one for the management of the records. We should in industry appoint a building manager, and he needs to arrange for the inspections, this is why landlords need to either appoint someone who has sat the exams, or sit the exams himself, so he decides who test what.
So personally I would not remove boiler covers, but I would inspect any associated installed low voltage wiring and equipment, I would not bother with any extra low voltage wiring and equipment. But this is my personal view, I could not say that an inspector who leaves all the central heating wiring and equipment for the gas safe engineer to inspect and test is wrong. As long as he puts that down on his paper work.
Also finding that someone had cut the cable exiting the fcu to about 3” and joined the boiler cable with a terminal strip and wrapped in insulating tape. Could be coded as a C3, so it would be down to the building manager as to if actioned or not.
The second was yesterday, with basic protection being lost, as the cable entered the boiler the outer sheath of the white flex had been removed, exposing the 3 cores (insulated). This was inside the boiler, but before it entered the pcb housing.
This is the same, it is clearly non-compliant, but code 4 has been removed, so the inspector could code it as C2 or C3, there is no MOT book issued by the government for EICR, he clearly needs to record it, but could code it as a C3.
The landlord law is not really fit for purpose, it will take years of court cases to generate case law, to refine the law and define what is required. We see both too lacked and too strict cases, but as it stands, if the inspector has recorded the fault, then there is no strict rule to say if code C2 or C3, with C1 it is cut and dried, but not C2 and C3, in fact there is no rule to stop him using the old Codes 1, 2, 3, and 4 as long as he says what the codes are, in fact he could omit using any codes.
I had a home buyers report done, within this report, was comments about the condition of the electrics, it is not what we would normally consider as an EICR, but the law does not say an EICR it just says qualified person, (“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under paragraph (1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards
so one hopes the surveyor is qualified, and he will likely add the letters behind his name, so you know qualified, so if I do an EICR I should put Fdeng behind my name, but that could be in audio etc, the same letters are given for many engineering courses, it could be in auto engineering. And the C&G 2391 does not give me the right to enter any letters behind my name.
As said the law as it stands is rather weak, with a car MOT the inspector needs appointing by the goverment and his inspections are inspected to ensure he is doing his job right, there is no such control with people issueing an EICR.
