DIY work and house sale, just need EICR?

[mthompson]

I've done some DIY electrical work on my house that I understood to be non-notifiable, I could potentially be wrong however:
- Added two new double sockets to two rooms by breaking the rings, adding some short lengths of new wire and joining under the floorboards with WAGO maintenance-free boxes
- Added two additional lights to an existing light switch/circuit
- Replaced a fair bit of old exposed & damaged T&E in the attached garage with new SWA, put in suitable glands, replaced the sockets and added some new ones. This was previously all running off an unfused spur from the downstairs ring so I've put in a 13A fused switch so that the garage doesn't overload the spur.

I haven't done any work in special areas like kitchens / bathrooms / outdoors, haven't touched the consumer unit (other than switching off the power), and the cable to the garage was already existing, so my understanding this is all non-notifiable work.

When I come to sell the house, do I need to declare any of this work, and will I be asked for an EIC? My understanding is I can't get an EIC on this anyway as an electrician can't certify someone else's work.

I'll definitely get an EICR - so will this be sufficient to sell the house without problems?

Or have I completely F-ed up by doing all this work myself and need to get it re-done by an electrician?

 

[EFLImpudence]

From what you say, none of the work appears to have been notifiable - in England.

Kitchens and outdoors are not "special areas" - in England.

Don't bother getting an EICR - just tell the truth and say the house is for sale "as it is" and the price reflects that - just like a car or anything else.

It is up to the buyer to arrange and pay for any inspections if they want to.

 

[ericmark]

An EICR should be done when there is a new occupier, so the new owner should get it done, not the old one, whole idea is to highlight any problems due to what the old occupier has done, this include things like removing light fittings and taking them with them, so pointless until old occupiers move out.

The EIC or Minor Works and from what you say would all be covered with Minor Works can be made out by the person doing the work, no special qualifications required, the forms are a free down load from IET website, and the information can be gained by testing or enquiry, so you could if you really wanted to get an EICR done and copy the results onto your EIC or Minor Works Certificate, but there is really little point.

What you can't DIY is the completion or compliance certificate, and neither can any electrician, he has to submit the EIC to either his scheme provider or LABC who raise the completion or compliance certificate, often the LABC will get an EICR done and issue the completion certificate on the strength of the EICR, but there is no fixed pass or fail with an EICR so it has to be done by the inspector they select, not you, so again pointless getting an EICR done.

The point is the electrician doing the EICR does what you ask, if you say just want main house doing, or just sockets doing he can do just that, but there have been court cases where an electrician has done an EICR and not reported items before the sale of the house, however the guy pleaded guilty, had he not pleaded guilty not sure what would have been the outcome, however it means electricians don't want to end up in court so are likely to be rather strict with the inspection, and once some one has said this installation is not good enough, then hard to say sorry did not know, so better if you don't get an EICR done, then you don't know of any faults and can sign to that effect.

The problem is the rule book (BS7671) is not retrospective, so the inspection would be done to the standard required at the time of design, however no electrician has a pile of books so he can select the book valid at time of design, so the EICR uses the phrase "potentially dangerous" which is code C2, and lets face it 230 volt is potentially dangerous, so it is down to the whim of the inspector, so lack of bonding in bathroom plus no RCD is clearly a fail, but many electricians will fail it on lack or RCD even if the bonding is present, and you can't say if that is right or wrong, since not following a set edition of BS7671 but looking for potentially dangerous, and not having a RCD could be seen as potentially dangerous.

So far better not to have an EICR done, when I bought this house of 14 circuits 4 were RCD protected, and I had to decide if to fit a twin RCD board or a all RCBO board, and since now my house, wanted a all RCBO board, but if selling the house would not want to pay the extra £200, so would have likely gone for a twin RCD board, so better if the buyer does any work then they select what is done.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is the rule book (BS7671) is not retrospective, so the inspection would be done to the standard required at the time of design ...4

As you've been reminded many times, EICRs should be undertaken with reference to the version of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection, regardless of when the installation (or parts of it) were designed and/por installed.

As you know, what actually 'matters' about an EICR is the 'coding' undertaken by the inspector, specifically whether he/she regards identified issues as being 'dangerous' or 'potentially dangerous'. One would hope that judgement (about 'danger') would not depend on when the installation (or parts of it) were installed, but who knows how individual inspectors might think.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SpecialK]

You will likely be asked if any electrical work has been completed within 5 years on the buyers solicitor form. You need to answer this honestly.

If the buyer requires an EICR then its not the end of the world. I wouldn't buy a house without one...

 

[ericmark]

When I bought this house I had a house buyers report done, this included reference to the condition of the electrics, but not to the level normally done with an EICR although I suppose since it reported on the electrical installation condition it was an EICR.

The EICR done by an electrician often will have references to the current BS 7671, as @JohnW2 says, to support the inspectors view as to if repairs are required, but again as @JohnW2 says he codes the report, the dangerous (Code C1) is reasonably cut and dried, one has to be able to touch some thing live, for example the blanks missing on a distribution unit. Potentially dangerous (Code C2) however it not so cut and dried, for example using blanks for the distribution unit which can be removed without a tool or key could be seen as potentially dangerous, but where the position of the box is so it would be unlikely that anyone would try to remove them, it is not really enough to code C2, and normally it would only get a code C3 if it was even coded.

If the inspector lists all the faults as code C3 unless dangerous, it is hard to say he is wrong to do so, also if he codes all as C2 also hard to say he is wrong, as it is his professional opinion, not some thing hard and fast, he must list the faults, but he is free to select C2 or C3 there is a best practice guide, but again only a guide, no had and fast rules between C2 and C3, and as the home owner it does not really matter, as long as faults have been identified it is up to the owner to decide if he wants to correct or not.

Where this changes is where the property is rented in England, the English law requires any C2 codes to be corrected within a set time, I think 28 days, so if the house is being bought as a buy to let then the buyer clearly wants an EICR with no code C2's on it, but the EICR done to rent the home does not include some things normally included like the condition of the DNO equipment, and it does include any equipment not normally moved, with the non rented EICR the only current using equipment included is the lights, immersion heater, cooker, boiler even if hard wired are not included with a normal EICR but are for the landlords report, so a standard EICR would be no good anyway for renting the property, so as said if the buyer wants one done fair enough, he should wait until you have moved out, but nothing wrong with his doing it first, except can't see if you remove some thing making is dangerous like a light fitting.

I must admit I would have never thought of taking bulbs and chandeliers with me, however since the chandeliers simply plug in, I suppose I could, I did take the TRV heads with me as new owner did not want them, however I did replace them with non electronic I did not leave without any heads, but the same could apply with a chandelier I could replace with a simple pendent and then that has not been checked with the EICR.

You will be asked if any notifiable electrical work has been done after 2004 and if so asked to submit copies of the certificates, if you don't know there is a tick box for I don't know, which I could have ticked as house left to me, so I had no idea what my dad had done, if the paperwork is missing there is an insurance which can be taken out, since I had the house re-wired I did have the paper work, for what good it was, I had three sets, as three major electrical work had been done, I knew which covered which, but reading it can't see how anyone would know which bit of paper covered which bit of house.

Same buying this house, the paper work seemed to cover the whole house, however when I moved in I realised it only covered the converted garage, which I only found out when I turned the whole consumer unit off, and all still worked in the house.

 

[JohnW2]

You will likely be asked if any electrical work has been completed within 5 years on the buyers solicitor form. You need to answer this honestly.

The standard conveying form (TA6) asks if any electrical work has been done since 1st January 2005 (i.e. when Part B of the Building Regulations came into force). They quite probably intended it to relate only to work that what 'notifiable' as a result of Part P (and many people interpret it as such), but it doesn't actually say that!

As you say, the important thing is to be totally honest. If paperwork for electrical work doesn't exist (very common for DIY work, often 'lost' even if professionally done), simply say so. The buyer's solicitor cannot insist on seeing paperwork which doesn't exist!

If the buyer requires an EICR then its not the end of the world. I wouldn't buy a house without one...

That's fair enough, but if a prospective buyer wishes to have an EICR (or any other sort of inspection/survey) undertaken, then it's for them to commission it, and pay for it.

Prospective buyers will often try to use results of EICRs/surveys as a means of knocking down the price. We (as sellers) always make it clear that the house is being sold "as is" and that the asking price takes into account the condition of the property (including its electrical installation) - so that there is no way that we will consider a price reduction based on EICR results.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If the buyer requires an EICR then its not the end of the world. I wouldn't buy a house without one...

What are you saying?

That you would commission an EICR before buying or that you would refuse to buy because there was not one already available - despite the property being perfect for you or your wife and at a very good price.

 

[JohnW2]

What are you saying? That you would commission an EICR before buying or that you would refuse to buy because there was not one already available - despite the property being perfect for you or your wife and at a very good price.

Quite so. Buyers don't expect a seller to pay for a structural survey, local authority searches etc., so why should they expect differently for an EICR? In any event, if they were of a 'suspicious' nature, they probably would not 'trust' such things if supplied by the seller!

As you imply, if the property and price is otherwise 'ideal' for the buyer, then the cost of even a 'complete re-wire' is so relatively trivial in relation to the cost of the property that I wouldn't think that (sensible) buyers would be put off by such a need (if it existed, which would e pretty rare)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

If the buyer requires an EICR then its not the end of the world. I wouldn't buy a house without one...

Maybe so. But it would be up to you to organise and pay for it.

I would not trust an EICR provided by the vendor. Would you?

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe so. But it would be up to you to organise and pay for it. I would not trust an EICR provided by the vendor. Would you?

Indeed. As I wrote:

Quite so. Buyers don't expect a seller to pay for a structural survey, local authority searches etc., so why should they expect differently for an EICR? In any event, if they were of a 'suspicious' nature, they probably would not 'trust' such things if supplied by the seller!

 

[ericmark]

This court case was a surprise to me. The EICR was commissioned by the vendor in November 2018, it was sold January 2019, and trading standard inspected in July 2019 when a detailed report also concluded that the installation was unsatisfactory.

It must be remembered

Mr Cummins pleaded guilty to an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 of engaging in a commercial practice which was misleading action, by describing the general condition of the electrical installation of a property as satisfactory which was untruthful.

so there was in this case no question as to if the EICR was misleading. However the point is the EICR was commissioned by the vendor, but the new owner who complained the electrics were not satisfactory.

I find the word satisfactory poor, what was considered as satisfactory in 1882 when the first edition came out, is not the same as what we want today, and as said if one identifies room for improvement and you list it as code C3 in other words you have done the inspecting and testing, but there is a difference of option as to if a potential danger or not, and did not plead guilty, not sure if a court could show one was wrong?

My home buyers report had comments as to the state of the electrics, I felt that was good enough, a whole rewire likely looking at £4k to £6k which is a small amount when spending £300k, if we compare to buying a car at £6k then looking at a £120 repair, and it is unlikely full rewire required, so is like finding you need to spend £25 on a £6000 car.

Some thing seems wrong with the report

In January 2019, the property was sold to the current owner Nia Evans, who contracted local electrician John Morley to install additional wall sockets prior to moving in.

After his inspection, Mr Morley concluded that the electrics were unsatisfactory, advising of a complete re-wire and to report the matter to STROMA, the certification body of which Mr Cummins was a member at the time.

It says the original inspector estimated the electrics to be 40 years old, so same age as my old house, and at that time PVC was used, in the main homes needing a full rewire were wired before 1966 and the reason for rewire in main is use of rubber insulated cables and no earth to the lights. It seems odd a home only wired 40 years ago would need a full rewire. So it seems some thing has been missed out.

But an EICR is done for the client, so if the client is the vendor, if there was some thing wrong which was not highlighted, then unless the inspector admits he has made a mistake, which likely he should not do for insurance to be valid, the buyer would need to take vendor to court, and the vendor takes inspector to court, so really the EICR should be commissioned by the buyer.

 

[JohnW2]

This court case was a surprise to me. .... However the point is the EICR was commissioned by the vendor, but the new owner who complained the electrics were not satisfactory.

I see nothing particularly surprising about that, since who commissioned the EICR is not relevant. Trading Standards will, in general, investigate (and, where appropriate, prosecute) infringements of Trading Standards Regulations/legislation, regardless of who reports the alleged infringements to them.

I find the word satisfactory poor, what was considered as satisfactory in 1882 when the first edition came out, is not the same as what we want today, ...

"Satisfactory" is defined up to a point, as the absence of anything codes as C1 or C2 but, as so often discussed, that leaves it to the discretion/judgement of the inspector to decide what he/she regards (at the present time) as being 'dangerous' or 'potentially dangerous'.

However, I see no real solution to that. BS7671 could, if it so wished, includes lists of things that definitely were, and definitely were not, C1 or C2, but such lists would be far from comprehensive, and would therefore necessarily leave a lot to the discretion/judgement of the inspector.

As I've said many times, the only way I can think of which would partially address this would be to have strict regulation (and requirements, in terms of qualifications/experience etc.) of those allowed to undertake EICRs (i.e. some form of 'licensing'),hence the ability to revoke licenses of those whose EICRs were regarded as being 'unstaisfactory'.

But an EICR is done for the client, so if the client is the vendor, if there was some thing wrong which was not highlighted, then unless the inspector admits he has made a mistake, which likely he should not do for insurance to be valid, the buyer would need to take vendor to court, and the vendor takes inspector to court, so really the EICR should be commissioned by the buyer.

As above, I don't think it really matters who commissions (pays for) the EICR. Regardless of who commissioned it, even a 'third party' (not necessarily either vendor or buyer) could report any alleged infringements to Trading Standards who, if appropriate, would take the perpetrator to court.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I do see your point, I have a C&G 2391 so can show I have the skill, but I am 71 and so dementure can't be ruled out, and there is no way to evoke my qualifications, unlike my driving licence, so I can write an EICR although I would be crazy to do so as I don't have professional indemnity insurance.

Trading standard only won because the inspector admitted he had not done his job, if he claimed he had done his job, then it would have been very different, they would need to show some thing was not satisfactory to the inspector, does not matter if not satisfactory to most electricians.

His problem was only being on site for less than one hour, had he spent enough time on site no one could have likely proved he was wrong.

A code C1 easy, a code C2 is a personal opinion. So the buyer needs to trust the inspector, so he need needs to be the one paying the piper.

 

[Risteard]

"Satisfactory" is defined up to a point, as the absence of anything codes as C1 or C2

... OR ANY FI!!!!!