Complete rewire needed, so says the sparky

If there's an accident due to dodgy wiring and this ends up in a Court the fact that the landlord had a report detailing faults in the wiring and "shopped around" to get a more favourable report will be held against him .It will be virtually impossible to deny the existence of the first report and if the author of that report has enough letters after his name , it will be held to be correct in it's findings
 
Sponsored Links
If there's an accident due to dodgy wiring and this ends up in a Court the fact that the landlord had a report detailing faults in the wiring and "shopped around" to get a more favourable report will be held against him .It will be virtually impossible to deny the existence of the first report and if the author of that report has enough letters after his name , it will be held to be correct in it's findings
Unless it is wrong.
 
Then you get into a battle of "experts" and you rarely find one who will stand up in Court and criticize another. The OP could get another report and the tenant could refuse to accept this one. This whole situation is getting messy.
 
Then you get into a battle of "experts" and you rarely find one who will stand up in Court and criticize another.
That's not true - well, maybe not criticise but offer another viewpoint.

Isn't that what all court cases are?

The OP could get another report and the tenant could refuse to accept this one.
Not if it is correct. Is it up to the tenant?

This whole situation is getting messy.
Only because we are not in a position to know.
 
Sponsored Links
I think we are not being given the whole story, the lack of pictures and detail of exactly what circuit caused the 'short' the electrician maybe 'at it' likewise the installation maybe a death trap we just don't know.

Bored with it now. :(


Regards,

DS
 
Noting that some have assumed this is a rented property, though I don't see that stated. It does make a significant difference ...
The electrician couldn't find the problem, insisted on conducting a full EICR.
Did you agree to that before he did it ?

... not that there is any compulsion to comply with BS7671 for an old installation. Sounds like a complete scam to me, or am I missing something?
Well if this is a rented property, then that is a "tricky" one. Technically that is correct, there is no law that says an installation must be retroactively made to comply with the latest regs. But there are other issues that can come into play :

The first of these is a legal one. A landlord has a duty of care to the tenant (and any visitors) to provide a "safe" property. Non-compliance with current regs doesn't make an installation unsafe - but it can do and this is where the coding on an EICR matters, and it would seem, why the OP is unhappy as some of the codings.

The second one is that, as hinted at, tenants may decide to use any non-compliances to their advantage. I've perhaps been lucky in that I've only ever had one tenant with that mindset. As it is, both my properties have EICRs with no defects against the current regs - being fairly modern with no faults, achieved by upgrading the CUs to fully RCBO. IMO that has to be one of the simplest defences against a charge of letting an unsafe property - being able to hold up a piece of paper that says it was safe according to an "expert" should cut off most attempts at scamming the landlord fairly quickly.

I think we are not being given the whole story, the lack of pictures and detail of exactly what circuit caused the 'short' the electrician maybe 'at it' likewise the installation maybe a death trap we just don't know.
I rather agree. Why the reticence to post pictures (or give a reason why they aren't available) ? It could be as simple as he never thought to take any at the time and would need the tenant's permission to go back into the property to get some.
A scan of the test results sheet shouldn't take much effort though.

But so many unanswered questions :
What was the circuit ? If it was an RFC then any competent sparky should be able to narrow down a dead short fairly quickly. It shouldn't be much harder on a radial to get down to a specific cable segment.
As to the low IR - could it be that it was a whole installation test and there was something still connected ?
 
Noting that some have assumed this is a rented property, though I don't see that stated. It does make a significant difference ...
The occupant is described as a tenant.

I believe that only one of the C2 items on the EICR is correctly a C2. This is important for keeping the tenant happy, who is now convinced the place is a death trap.
 
The occupant is described as a tenant.

I believe that only one of the C2 items on the EICR is correctly a C2. This is important for keeping the tenant happy, who is now convinced the place is a death trap.
Ah, couldn't find that in the limited time I had available before getting tea ready. Turkey curry, yum yum
 
You can't make it from leftover ones, but I can give you a recipe for sprout curry, if you like.

Not to be consumed the day before a car/train/coach/plane journey though.
 
As so many have contributed thought it may be of interest to some to hear back from the OP with the story so far...

I found a more capable electrician who isolated the problem (cable set directly into concrete gone bad). He has installed a temporary fix and has priced up the work for a partial rewire of existing circuits to make it all good and will install a new CU with RCDs. This work is much more to my satisfaction and properly justified.

He retested the IR and obtained a reading of 200 MegaOhms, whereas the previous guy managed 1.8. Hmm. The other guy was bad, just bad.
 

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
Back
Top