Not an electrical problem as such but more a request for advice on a potential career! I am a qualified electrical engineer (so not an electrician) but I am very practical and undertake my own electrical work (house re-wire, panel change etc - with professional sign-off by others where required) so I like to think that I have a reasonable knowledge of the profession. I am looking into the possibility of training to undertake Landlords EICR work and would appreciate some guidance on time and cost to set myself up to do this (training, equipment, insurance, timescales etc.). Also, how abundant is this type of work (I'm not looking to do this full time but really a couple of days a week). Any advice would be appreciated.
Advice On Setting Up To Undertake Landlords EICR
- Thread starter craig1234
- Start date
Sponsored Links
1 - obtain appropriate qualifications and training via one of the approved routes https://www.electricalcareers.co.uk/joining-the-industry/training-routes/ , typically 3 to 5 years
2 - work in the domestic electric sector for at least another 5 years and preferably longer.
3 - enjoy landlord types who want to pay you £50 to give them a piece of paper that states all is well regardless of the condition of the installation.
2 - work in the domestic electric sector for at least another 5 years and preferably longer.
3 - enjoy landlord types who want to pay you £50 to give them a piece of paper that states all is well regardless of the condition of the installation.
Not going to happen.
but I've encountered too many who are
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,734
- Reaction score
- 2,675
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
The big problem is there is no real standard, protentially dangerous is so open to interpretation, you can't win either way. Most protentially dangerous item can be simply Improvement recomended without any real come back, you have noted the fault, so no one can say you have not raised the issue.
Sponsored Links
They couldn't, but I don't really understand your point. There surely could (at least in theory) be 'come back' if you failed to point out that, in your opinion, some issue which you had raised was "potentially dangerous"?
Kind Regards, John
Obviously you want to emphasise the full apprenticeship route, but legally can't you just go and do a five-day C&G 2391 course and off you go?
https://traininginelectrical.co.uk/...ic-condition-reporting-inspection-and-testing
The poster is an electrical engineer so I can't imagine (R1+R2)/4 is going to be a great academic challenge for them?
https://traininginelectrical.co.uk/...ic-condition-reporting-inspection-and-testing
The poster is an electrical engineer so I can't imagine (R1+R2)/4 is going to be a great academic challenge for them?
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,734
- Reaction score
- 2,675
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
If you miss labelling some thing which is dangerous, as dangerous there is clearly an error. But 230 volt is "potentially dangerous" so the label is meaning less. Same I suppose goes for double insulated, calling is class II is OK, but the problem with using existing English words of parses is we need to have an official interpretation of the meaning.
So if some thing is safe in 1950, and nothing has changed, then it is also safe now, but things have changed, in 1950 a boiler would not have come with the instructions like this
so today which the boiler that came with these instructions we must clearly report if there is no RCD and if the RCD is not type A. The instructions were pointed out to me when I said there was no real requirement to power the volt free thermostat from the same "circuit" as the boiler, it was pointed out it does need to be connected to same "supply" since most home only have one 230 volt supply it is unlikely that additional components could be connected to a different supply, and it is common practice to use a different circuit to power wireless thermostats to the boiler, Nest being a good example where a USB adaptor can be plugged into any convenient socket to power the remote thermostat.
Clearly this is not what the instructions were considering, but it points out the problem with English and in real terms the installer, and inspector must use common sense gained over their years of experience and not simply try and follow instructions and regulations, and so "potentially dangerous" is really could this become dangerous easily in the future, which is fair enough, but not easy to decide, I remember when the wagon MOT came in we had books issued which carefully laid out the limits, like a 1.5 inch king pin can allow ⅛ inch movement on the edge of the wheel, and I have seen fitters use a dial gauge to measure it where they could not get a replacement in time to see if it would pass.
To miss some thing which does not comply with regulations is clearly wrong, and we have seen court cases where this has happened, but to not class anything as code C2 but to only use code C1 or C3 is not illegal, as long as all faults listed you have done your job.
The 701.415.2 section which says
I would love to see a law saying all domestic premises must be protected by a RCD by 2025, with of course some exceptions like SWA cable, but RCD's are not required by law, and with the exception of where supplementary equipotential has been omitted it is not considered as "potentially dangerous" by many inspectors yet I have watched a debate where even lack of a SPD is considered by some a code C2 in commercial premisses, this was before the latest edition of BS7671 which seems to say if the owner says he does not want them, they can be omitted. But default is to fit, it is advised a written instruction not to fit is obtained.
For an industrial EICR it was common to only test a % and assume unless faults found all was OK, and one would aim to test a different sample every time inspected, one would have the previous inspection so one could select a different sample, there are no different rules industrial, commercial or domestic, the difference is often with industrial there is an electrician on site at least once a week, and strict rules on who can touch electrical equipment. In theory we should never see a bad installation and all should have installation or minor works certificates to cover them, but practice we know is for domestic to have non electrical trained working on the system who rarely issue any paperwork, not only referring to occupant or owner, but also the plumber, kitchen fitter etc.
The
To my mind a green-and-yellow wire should never be used for live, as potentially some one may connect it to an exposed metal part thinking it is an earth, so even if the regulations do allow over-marking, this could fall off, and so using a green-and-yellow wire for any live is potentially dangerous.
I also have no idea why Worcester Bosch say a type A RCD must be used, so would lean towards issuing a code C2 for type A RCD, but my problem is not all boilers require a type A RCD and not all even require a RCD to be fitted, and it would be a huge amount to reading to find out which are which, so likely would only be a code C3. I would guess type A is because the three port motorised valve has diodes in it and uses DC to stall the motor in centre possition. But this is only a guess, and if correct then any RCD not marked type A when a Y plan is used would also be a code C2, which could likely mean 25% of homes would get code C2 due to wrong RCD type, or would this only be the case where the RCD is relied on, so only with a Y plan in a home with a TT supply?
Even the silly idea of there could be a potential danger if wrong make of device is fitted into a consumer unit. We in the main use common sense, and all I have said is going rather pedantic, and I would not say one should never use code C2 or give a C2 on a type AC RCD in a TT installation, but we use experience, the pre-law consultation seemed to want at least 5 years experience in the trade. But
You can't leave a home in a dangerous condition, so any code C1 has to be isolated or corrected during the inspection. Also you can't leave a home uninhabitable, so must have DHW, heating, lighting etc. Or you need to find alternative accommodation. Not sure what the landlord would say to you telling them they need to put the tenants into a hotel until repairs are completed? Specially for work which would only take a few hours to correct. So in real terms the inspector should always be able to do the work needed to make safe.
I would say because there needs to be time to make safe, two inspections per day is about the limit, not even sure if you could do two a day, and can't really do one and a half per day, there are people offering to do them for less than £80 in the main the EICR was a loss leader to get more work, so there are some really cheap EICR done, and unless you can then pick up the work generated, your working for a pittance.
So if some thing is safe in 1950, and nothing has changed, then it is also safe now, but things have changed, in 1950 a boiler would not have come with the instructions like this
Clearly this is not what the instructions were considering, but it points out the problem with English and in real terms the installer, and inspector must use common sense gained over their years of experience and not simply try and follow instructions and regulations, and so "potentially dangerous" is really could this become dangerous easily in the future, which is fair enough, but not easy to decide, I remember when the wagon MOT came in we had books issued which carefully laid out the limits, like a 1.5 inch king pin can allow ⅛ inch movement on the edge of the wheel, and I have seen fitters use a dial gauge to measure it where they could not get a replacement in time to see if it would pass.
To miss some thing which does not comply with regulations is clearly wrong, and we have seen court cases where this has happened, but to not class anything as code C2 but to only use code C1 or C3 is not illegal, as long as all faults listed you have done your job.
The 701.415.2 section which says
Is the one which causes the real problem with an EICR. The big question is, could a plumber some time in the future omit the supplementary equipotential bonding even when an RCD has not been fitted?
I would love to see a law saying all domestic premises must be protected by a RCD by 2025, with of course some exceptions like SWA cable, but RCD's are not required by law, and with the exception of where supplementary equipotential has been omitted it is not considered as "potentially dangerous" by many inspectors yet I have watched a debate where even lack of a SPD is considered by some a code C2 in commercial premisses, this was before the latest edition of BS7671 which seems to say if the owner says he does not want them, they can be omitted. But default is to fit, it is advised a written instruction not to fit is obtained.
For an industrial EICR it was common to only test a % and assume unless faults found all was OK, and one would aim to test a different sample every time inspected, one would have the previous inspection so one could select a different sample, there are no different rules industrial, commercial or domestic, the difference is often with industrial there is an electrician on site at least once a week, and strict rules on who can touch electrical equipment. In theory we should never see a bad installation and all should have installation or minor works certificates to cover them, but practice we know is for domestic to have non electrical trained working on the system who rarely issue any paperwork, not only referring to occupant or owner, but also the plumber, kitchen fitter etc.
The
seems to have been completely missed by many working on domestic electrics. Also
and the reference to single-core seems to have resulted in people feeling they can over-marked, again we must remember an EICR is not done to show it complies, but to identify dangers and potentially dangers, plus make recommendations.
To my mind a green-and-yellow wire should never be used for live, as potentially some one may connect it to an exposed metal part thinking it is an earth, so even if the regulations do allow over-marking, this could fall off, and so using a green-and-yellow wire for any live is potentially dangerous.
I also have no idea why Worcester Bosch say a type A RCD must be used, so would lean towards issuing a code C2 for type A RCD, but my problem is not all boilers require a type A RCD and not all even require a RCD to be fitted, and it would be a huge amount to reading to find out which are which, so likely would only be a code C3. I would guess type A is because the three port motorised valve has diodes in it and uses DC to stall the motor in centre possition. But this is only a guess, and if correct then any RCD not marked type A when a Y plan is used would also be a code C2, which could likely mean 25% of homes would get code C2 due to wrong RCD type, or would this only be the case where the RCD is relied on, so only with a Y plan in a home with a TT supply?
Even the silly idea of there could be a potential danger if wrong make of device is fitted into a consumer unit. We in the main use common sense, and all I have said is going rather pedantic, and I would not say one should never use code C2 or give a C2 on a type AC RCD in a TT installation, but we use experience, the pre-law consultation seemed to want at least 5 years experience in the trade. But
which technically means I can't do an EICR because of my disability I could not be sure I could do the remedial work.
You can't leave a home in a dangerous condition, so any code C1 has to be isolated or corrected during the inspection. Also you can't leave a home uninhabitable, so must have DHW, heating, lighting etc. Or you need to find alternative accommodation. Not sure what the landlord would say to you telling them they need to put the tenants into a hotel until repairs are completed? Specially for work which would only take a few hours to correct. So in real terms the inspector should always be able to do the work needed to make safe.
I would say because there needs to be time to make safe, two inspections per day is about the limit, not even sure if you could do two a day, and can't really do one and a half per day, there are people offering to do them for less than £80 in the main the EICR was a loss leader to get more work, so there are some really cheap EICR done, and unless you can then pick up the work generated, your working for a pittance.
That course, like many others, is not intended for anyone new to the electrical industry.
On it's own it will be next to useless. Decent training providers would not allow someone with no experience to take the course.
2391-52 Combined Initial Verification and Periodic Inspection and Testing:
Intended for experienced electricians who have never gained formal qualifications in inspection and testing or who may wish to update and reaffirm their skills
The EICR ship may have sailed. The legislation says that EICRs were required to be completed for all existing tenancies by 1st April 2021.
Therefore much of the bulk opportunity will have gone before you have trained and tooled up. You’d just be left with new and renewed tenancies.
Therefore much of the bulk opportunity will have gone before you have trained and tooled up. You’d just be left with new and renewed tenancies.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
