Electrical certificate for renting out property

JohnW2 said:

However, OwainDIYer's point was not about that but, rather, related to the fact that some people (I thought including you) would say that having a single RCD protecting the entire installation (inevitable if an RCD is being used as the incomer) was 'non-compliant'.

Kind Regards, John

Click to expand...

In which case all caravans would fail. I think a single 100 mA type S RCD was used for many years with very few problems, when it was dropped to 30 mA 40 mS as one would expect the problem with larger premises was it would trip, but as an inspector you don't have history on how often, all you can do is test, we know 9 mA is considered the limit, but although one could give it a C3, it does not mean a potential danger, so no C2.

EFLImpudence said:

That was made up by NAPIT, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

I thought that one came from the NICEIC, now I know, who are they to say such things?... but hear me out.

I wouldn't so much say they "made it up" as "interpreted it" and I'm not sure what else they could advise...

A consumer unit made from a material that's combustible is not in accordance with the regs, but was perfectly ok just five years ago (that sets one end of the scale, it would be illogical for it to attract a code that made it unsatisfactory, so C3 or less). Now the reg has been added on the basis of some instances, it would be foolish to advise that it simply does not matter in all cases and not allocate a code to it, so how about risk assessing how much of a problem it'll be if an incident does ago... would a resultant fire impede the escape route from the same, if it would not, then its low likelyhood and unlikely to result in deaths then it is hardly worth worrying about, if it is located on an escape route, its still unlikely to occur, but deaths are now possible in an extreme case, so we now advise that it might be best doing something about it.

We might suppose (but not know for sure without having a sample to test) that that consumer unit is of lower risk than some other plastic ones due to its age, most makes used to put quite a lot of fire retardants in the plastic, but later they were reduced due to EU directives on chemicals and environmental impact (REACH regulations), it seems to be only since the very late 00s that they have become much more combustible.

Adam_151 said:

I thought that one came from the NICEIC,

Click to expand...

Perhaps both.

now I know, who are they to say such things?... but hear me out.
I wouldn't so much say they "made it up" as "interpreted it" and I'm not sure what else they could advise...

Click to expand...

No, "made up" is accurate.
The new regulation simply states that new CUs must be of non-combustible material or contained in an enclosure of n-c material.
That does NOT mean anyone has to replace their existing CU.

A consumer unit made from a material that's combustible is not in accordance with the regs, but was perfectly ok just five years ago (that sets one end of the scale, it would be illogical for it to attract a code that made it unsatisfactory, so C3 or less).

Click to expand...

Yes. That's it.

Now the reg has been added on the basis of some instances,

Click to expand...

No. It has NOT.

it would be foolish to advise that it simply does not matter in all cases and not allocate a code to it, so how about risk assessing how much of a problem it'll be if an incident does ago... would a resultant fire impede the escape route from the same, if it would not, then its low likelyhood and unlikely to result in deaths then it is hardly worth worrying about, if it is located on an escape route, its still unlikely to occur, but deaths are now possible in an extreme case, so we now advise that it might be best doing something about it.

Click to expand...

Yes, ADVISE, but what you are advocating makes it compulsory. That is not the case.

We might suppose (but not know for sure without having a sample to test) that that consumer unit is of lower risk than some other plastic ones due to its age, most makes used to put quite a lot of fire retardants in the plastic, but later they were reduced due to EU directives on chemicals and environmental impact (REACH regulations), it seems to be only since the very late 00s that they have become much more combustible.

Click to expand...

If someone was to carry out a fire-risk inspection (Is there such a thing?) and state the CU under the stairs was a fire-risk that would be a different matter but would it, even then, be compulsory to change it?

Perhaps they should mandate that stairs be constructed of non-combustible material.

Either way, it is not an electrical matter for an EICR.

Adam_151 said:

I wouldn't so much say they "made it up" as "interpreted it" ...

Click to expand...

As far as the regulation itself is concerned, I have to agree with EFLI - i.e. that this goes much further than 'interpretation'. The reg is very clear in saying, without any qualification, that CUs in domestic installations must be made of non-combustible material (or in a non-combustible enclosure). That is not open to any interpretation, since it is written as a simple explicit requirement which applies to all CUs in domestic premises. If someone claims that it only applies, or 'applies more' (whatever that means) in some situations than in others, then they have simply "made that up", because it is certainly not what the regulations says.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, in cases like this, what they have "made up" is necessarily unreasonable. Some may even believe that, in some cases, it is 'more reasonable' than what the regulation has actually said, but that's not the point.

The problem arises not in relation to the regulation (which leaves no room for 'interpretation') but with the coding in EICRs - which, in the absence of any explicit 'rules' is entirely a matter of judgement (which is essentially a matter of personal 'interpretation' of the meaning of codes). You seem to imply that 'giving no code' to a non-compliance might be an option but, although BS7671 is not very clear about this, I think that many/most people probably feel that every non-compliance (with current regs) should be given some code.

If one takes that view/interpretation, the greatest problem would seem to be the loss of 'C4' as an option (meaning something like "compliant when installed but not compliant with current regs, but satisfactory"). In the absence of that, the least an inspector can do (with a C3) is to 'recommend improvement', and I'm sure that a good few would feel it inappropriate to 'recommend improving', say, a CU which was brand new and fully compliant when installed, say, five years ago (and might even be described as 'cowboys' for recommending work that they didn't believe was necessary).

However, within the constraint of that problem, it's all down to personal judgement. No trade organisation necessarily has any better judgement than any individual electrician about these matters, and certainly has no authority to impose it's views (other than on its members, whose membership might require them to comply with the organisation's views, even if they don't agree with them).

Adam_151 said:

.... so how about risk assessing how much of a problem it'll be if an incident does ago... would a resultant fire impede the escape route from the same, if it would not, then its low likelyhood and unlikely to result in deaths then it is hardly worth worrying about, if it is located on an escape route, its still unlikely to occur, but deaths are now possible in an extreme case, so we now advise that it might be best doing something about it.

Click to expand...

That seems to imply that if a risk assessment results in the conclusion that "it is hardly worth worrying about" (which, frankly, I would expect to be the conclusion in most cases) that you believe that it is then acceptable to not code the non-compliance at all - but, as above, I'm not at all sure that is the intention of BS7671, nor the interpretation of many electricians about what is required of an EICR - i.e. I think (albeit perhaps incorrectly) that most probably believe that any non-compliance with current regs has to be given some code (which, as above, implies that they are at least 'recommending improvement', whether they feel that necessary or not).

Kind Regards, John

b21playa said:

thinking about renting out my house or selling it as we have moved.

Click to expand...

Sell it.

I still feel I am not trained in fire prevention or detection, and to try to include it in an EICR is wrong, in the same way as when the surveyor doing the buyers report for my house included in his report comments about the electrical installation condition.

To me the problem is BS 7671 has a list of the other regulations it was designed to incorporate, and any comment like "does not necessarily mean" also means it might mean, and I would assume this is because other rules or regulations could come into play, be it health and safety at work or the CENELEC harmonization documents, so we would hope organisations like electrical safety council, NICEIC, or NAPIT would have read the other documents and checked which rules have to be complied with, and which are just a suggestion.

However just like the surveyors report, if they add things because they think it's a good idea, then it means you can't trust it, so if one of the organisations suggest that an extension lead through a door way needs mention, it is rather clear this has nothing what so every to do with fixed installation or appliances, so has nothing what so ever to do with an EICR even if super dangerous. So the inspector can unplug it, in the same way as he can remove non BS 1362 lumps of plastic from sockets, but there should be nothing on the report to say socket protectors are fatally flawed or extension leads should not go through doors, when charging my car battery it goes through the cat flap.

All we can really do is drop the BS 7671 in the bin, and use our experience to decide what is potential dangerous. There is no code 4 any more so no need to point out when not to current edition.

To rent your property you will need an electrician to undertake an EICR

This will tell you what remedial work (if any) need doing in order to obtain a pass. Once you have this you can rent your property

EICR's last for 5 years ( i believe)

However, a new change by the government states that EICR's need to be undertaken everytime you have a new tenant (i.e. one leave and a new one comes into the property)

Sounds like a good time to become a sparky imo

flameport said:

Sell it.

Click to expand...

Why sell?

ericmark said:

I still feel I am not trained in fire prevention or detection, and to try to include it in an EICR is wrong ...

Click to expand...

As we keep reminding you, not only would it be 'wrong' but, to the best of my knowledge, no-one is "trying to include in in an EICR".

As far as fire detection is concerned, the presence/absence of fire detectors, their type(s), location(s) and whether they function satisfactorily is nothing to do with an EICR. Indeed they could noted be 'coded properly' on an EICR, since that requires an indication of what regulation of BS7671 is not being complied with - and there are no such regulations in BS7671. The wiring of (wired) fire detectors is within the scope of BS7671 - so any problems with that (and only that) can be coded on an EICR.

As regards 'fire prevention', again, all that an EICR requires is that one confirms (or otherwise) compliance of the electrical installation with the requirements of BS7671 (some of which requirements relate to aspects of fire prevention). Beyond that, there is no requirement or expectation that someone undertaking an EICR should consider any other aspects of fire prevention.

Kind Regards, John

JohnW2 said:

Not many people are constrained to use any particular letting agent, so if landlords were sensible (and knowledgeable) enough to stop using ones who had 'unreasonable' requirements, then the behaviour of letting agents might change.

Click to expand...

The problem is that (I suspect) the majority of "small scale" landlords don't have much idea and rely on the agent to tell them what they need to do. The agents themselves only know what they've been told - and in my limited experience seem to have swallowed the "carefully worded" statements by the scam operators (EICRs must be done by scam members, for example). As I've posted before, I had an email from our agent when the flat was being relet - and I savaged it by pointing out 5 errors of fact in one paragraph (2 sentences). This is nothing new, I've been given them (and previous agents) corrections for a long time.
If you are wondering why use an agent when we have these sorts of problems - we'll they are good at the basics of finding us tenants, and save us all the hassle (and time expenditure) of managing that. But we do self manage after that, I just couldn't face paying an agent to do the sort of rubbish job I've experienced before (from more than one agent).

JohnW2 said:

I believe it was. It certainly didn't come from anywhere 'authoritative'. Depending on interpretations, the CU either has to (always), or need not be (ever), 'brought up to current requirements' and it's certainly not for NAPIT or anyone else to try to invent rules about when it has to be and when it doesn't have to be upgraded!
Indeed it does.

Click to expand...

Now, I have first hand experience of raising this directly with the IET - I emailed one of the people listed in the from of the regs.
I never got anything concrete in writing, but basically the suggestion was that there is a clause in the regs that allows for departure from them, and thus the regs themselves explicitly allow a rule to be departed from. If the CU is not in a location where it setting on fire would compromise the ability of the occupants to escape, then it would be a reasonable argument to make that having a plastic CU case does not compromise safety.
So to avoid the absurd situation of having to replace a huge number of otherwise good CUs, many of which would have only recently been fitted, the advice is not to code a plastic CU unless it's under wooden stairs or in a fire escape route.

EFLImpudence said:

In my experience of letting agents, I am surprised that they would turn down business because something like an an electrical installation is supposedly out of date.

Click to expand...

My experience is that they have a checklist of things they believe to be required, and that's what they want to see if you are to use their services. More normally, I am used to getting emails telling me "you need X, our contractors can do one for £Y".

If only finding tenants for a landlord who runs the flat, then I don't think they would be concerned - unless something was obviously completely unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Most of the requirements apply regardless - doesn't matter if you are self managing, the agent is still liable if they set up a tenancy for you and don't have all the right things in place (Energy Efficiency rating, Gas Safety Certificate, and now an EICR).

EFLImpudence said:

The new regulation simply states that new CUs must be of non-combustible material or contained in an enclosure of n-c material.
...
Either way, it is not an electrical matter for an EICR.

Click to expand...

Except that it IS a matter for an EICR since BS7671 specifically makes the requirement. The EICR is an inspection & test to confirm compliance with the CURRENT edition of the regs.

veedee said:

THowever, a new change by the government states that EICR's need to be undertaken everytime you have a new tenant (i.e. one leave and a new one comes into the property)

Click to expand...

Got a reference for that, because the new electrical safety regulations do NOT specify that. it has always been a recommendation to have an inspection on every change of tenant, but it has not (AFAIK) ever been a legal requirement.

Sounds like a good time to become a sparky imo

Click to expand...

There have been threads, and I don't think it's likely to benefit good sparkies all that much. A lot of landlords and agents will be treating it as something to be done because you have to - and it needs to be done at the lowest price possible and cause the least expenditure possible. There's speculation that a whole industry will pop up doing "drive by" EICRs for low prices and finding no faults - and unless something serious happens, no-one will ever face any repercussions for signing off an EICR as satisfactory when there are obvious faults present.

SimonH2 said:

Except that it IS a matter for an EICR since BS7671 specifically makes the requirement.

Click to expand...

Please show where.

The EICR is an inspection & test to confirm compliance with the CURRENT edition of the regs.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

SimonH2 said:

Now, I have first hand experience of raising this directly with the IET - I emailed one of the people listed in the from of the regs. I never got anything concrete in writing, but basically the suggestion was that there is a clause in the regs that allows for departure from them, and thus the regs themselves explicitly allow a rule to be departed from. If the CU is not in a location where it setting on fire would compromise the ability of the occupants to escape, then it would be a reasonable argument to make that having a plastic CU case does not compromise safety.

Click to expand...

Hmm. If that's what they believe, then there surely would also be a "reasonable argument" for their regulation to only require 'non-combustible' CUs IF "the CU is in a location where it setting on fire would compromise the ability of the occupants to escape"?

Of course, it's probably not really "their regulation", since it was seemingly forced upon them by the LFB - who probably would not agree that it should only apply if it compromised escape routes. I wouldn't say that any (of the many) (plastic) CUs in my house are in locations in which a local fire in their vicinity would appreciably hinder any escape route, so maybe I should be exempt from the regulation

SimonH2 said:

Except that it IS a matter for an EICR since BS7671 specifically makes the requirement. The EICR is an inspection & test to confirm compliance with the CURRENT edition of the regs.

Click to expand...

BS7671 specifically requires that all CUs (whether under stairs or otherwise) in domestic installations be 'non-combustible'. What was being said was "not a matter for an EICR" was the suggestion that this reg might be 'more important' for CUs under stairs (or 'less important' for those not under stairs). BS7671 says absolutely nothing about, or like, that.

Kind Regards, John

JohnW2 said:

BS7671 specifically requires that all CUs (whether under stairs or otherwise) in domestic installations be 'non-combustible'.

Kind Regards, John

Click to expand...

Not quite, it says all CUs in installations designed after a set date, (whether under stairs or otherwise) in domestic installations be 'non-combustible'.

The problem is we don't know if that is a BS 7671:2018 requirement or if it is a alteration of BS 7671:2018 to suit some other documents requirements, it uses phrases like

This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

Click to expand...

this depends if the regulation is some thing the writers of BS 7671 have decided should be included or is it some thing some one like the HSE thinks should be included?

In BS 7671:2018 there will be a list, as there was with 2008, with some thing like "HD 384.4.482 S1 1997 Protection against fire where particular risks or danger exist" this was in 2008 and clear from date if OK in 1997 then still OK now, not got BS 7671:2018 but one would need to check on the list to see if changes to it are likely due to requirements in other documents.

It is a pass the buck exercise, if some one dies like with the Emma Shaw case some one will decide who is to blame, at that time we did not need RCD protection, but should the same case come to court today, the question has to be asked would the lack of RCD protection be blamed, as clearly it would have stopped the death. We did see a lot of reports this one about a shower death around 2003 mark, but these seem to be reducing, or I am reading wrong papers.

So many times one reads these reports and think there by the grace of god go I, as one realises you would have also done some of the things which ended up with the death.

As a home owner I can decide to spend the money on my safety or not, as a tenant they don't have an option, can the landlord really make that life and death decision on behalf of his tenant? Forget the law, is it morally right for the protection not to be added?

EFLImpudence said:

Please show where.

Click to expand...

421.1.201
OK, so you can argue that it's not actually electrical, but it is part of BS7671.

No it isn't.

Click to expand...

Oh yes it is - it's nearly panto season , indirectly. Unless you intend to define "safe" in terms of some other regulations/standards or by derivation from first principles, then your EICR determines safety by reference to BS7671. And you always work to the current versions regardless of when the installation was installed.

JohnW2 said:

Of course, it's probably not really "their regulation", since it was seemingly forced upon them by the LFB

Click to expand...

And I suspect there's a certain amount of back-tracking (but not in a way that they can be held to account) when people say "but my CU is only 3 years old, how can it need replacing again ?". Not just to save their own face, but also a pragmatic approach to the potential for a large spike is CU replacements and possibly insufficient peope to do them.
Whatever the reality, there's a bit of a disconnect between what is written, and guidance being issued.

SimonH2 said:

And you always work to the current versions regardless of when the installation was installed.

Click to expand...

I keep on hearing this, if the current version says to be used after "date" for all new designs then you are following current version by referring back to earlier version. So by using the version current when designed you are working to current version.

Code 4 has been removed, personally think this is wrong, but now no code 4 you have to give a sensible report as to condition of the installation, and in real terms no one worries about code C3, they have time to correct, it is the C2 with just 28 days which is the problem.

I ordered 2 x 32A RCBO's type A 6 weeks ago, and still waiting, it really does not matter what you write on the report if there are no parts available. In my case type AC fitted so not without protection, but to cause people to be rehoused over a RCD really is getting daft.