Do I need fire rated downlighers?

[JohnW2]

One example, ....

And another,

Those are really examples of what I was suggesting, since they say things along the lines of "A Corgi or Gas Safe service certificate or NICEIC electrical certificate will be required on all gas and electrical equipment within your existing home prior to exchange of contracts to certify it’s safe and in a full working condition".

In other words, the contract is not merely asking for "an EICR", but actually a fairly 'clean' one (i.e. the seller is required to have undertaken any necessary remedial work). Hopefully, that just means "no unaddressed C1s or C2s" but I suppose it's not impossible that they might also expect C3s to have been 'addressed'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

In other words, the contract is not merely asking for "an EICR", but actually a fairly 'clean' one

And, playing devil's advocate, why not. Builders can pretty much pick and choose the part exchange houses they want, so they can be sold on as quickly as possible. No point buying something that needs work if they can avoid it (although if they did, that would no doubt be reflected in the offer to the seller).

 

[JohnW2]

And, playing devil's advocate, why not.

I don't think one needs to play devil's advocate, it's just commercial common sense (for the builder).

The point is that, in the examples you have cited, they are not merely asking for an EICR (which is what I was thinking in relation to the OP) but, rather, are requiring that the electrical installation be brought up to an 'acceptable standard' (as documented by an EICR) -which, again, is perfectly reasonable from the builder's POV.

However, if the OP is right that there is no mention of an EICR (or anything else about the electrical installation) in his contract, then the above probably would not apply to him.

The same apples, conceptually, to a standard private sale. A prospective purchaser could ask "that the electrical installation be brought up to an 'acceptable standard' (as documented by an EICR)",at the seller's expense (or, more commonly, would attempt to negotiate a price reduction on the basis of the required work). However, in such situations I would always say that the asking price took into account work that needed to be done on the property and it was up to the buyer to commission (and pay for) any inspections/surveys they wanted and then decide whether or not they wanted to buy the property for the price asked.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

However, if the OP is right that there is no mention of an EICR (or anything else about the electrical installation) in his contract, then the above probably would not apply to him.

Agreed, if the OP is correct. All of the mainstream builders I have looked at have very similar T&C's, some almost word for word. It would be surprising if there are any that are markedly different, but not impossible.

I started off really refuting the claim that the builder in the OP's case is "trying it on", solicitors are in on the scam, and doubting whether contracts would even have those conditions in them. That is just wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed, if the OP is correct. All of the mainstream builders I have looked at have very similar T&C's, some almost word for word. It would be surprising if there are any that are markedly different, but not impossible.

Fair enough. What you say is reasonable.

I started off really refuting the claim that the builder in the OP's case is "trying it on", solicitors are in on the scam, and doubting whether contracts would even have those conditions in them. That is just wrong.

I essentially agree. In terms of standard property transactions, what they are "trying on" is usually an attempt to find an excuse to try to knock down the price - and I've said how I would respond to that - and, if that appeared to be their motive, paying for such an EICR would be the last thing I would consider

However, back in context, I'm a little surprised that a builder involved in a part-exchange deal would 'trust' an EICR provided by the seller - as we are aware there seem to be people undertaking EICR inspections who appear, on paper, to be competent to do that, but who are capable of producing some very iffy EICRs! In general, if I were buying anything which I felt needed an 'inspection', I would want to organise it myself (to be undertaken by someone I knew to be 'independent' and reasonably competent), rather than relying on some bit of paper given to me by the seller

Kind Regards, John

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

I would want to organise it myself (to be undertaken by someone I knew to be 'independent' and reasonably competent), rather than relying on some bit of paper given to me by the seller

That's reasonable but there two sides of course and you could change seller above to buyer and keep the rest the same. Why should a seller believe a buyers report and not think it is an attempt to get the price reduced?

in a part-exchange deal would 'trust' an EICR provided by the seller

Presumably it ticks a box for them and will rely on it when selling on. If it turns out to be iffy then I presume that won't be the end of it as you'd be in breach of contract.

 

[JohnW2]

That's reasonable but there two sides of course and you could change seller above to buyer and keep the rest the same. Why should a seller believe a buyers report and not think it is an attempt to get the price reduced?

As you say, it's exactly the same, either way around. Indeed, it's really only 'the other way around' of which I have experience, since we (as sellers) are never prepared to pay for any survey/EICR/whatever - but when (as it inevitably is) it is a "buyer's EICR" we're talking about, we deal with it as I have described.

Regardless of whether we believe the report or not, we nearly always stick to our position that the asking price took into account what work would be needed on the property, so we are not prepared to reduce the price on the basis of their report. Only exceptionally (if a survey/inspection has revealed something major and totally unexpected) would we deviate from that approach.

Presumably it ticks a box for them and will rely on it when selling on. If it turns out to be iffy then I presume that won't be the end of it as you'd be in breach of contract.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm not so sure about that. If one has, in good faith, employed someone who appears appropriate and competent to do it to "certify that it's safe and in a full working condition", then I'm not sure that one would be in breach of contract if that certification proved to have been 'incorrect', would one?

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

None of those builders terms actually ask for an EICR but odd terms like an “electrical safety certificate “ which means little.

 

[JohnW2]

None of those builders terms actually ask for an EICR but odd terms like an “electrical safety certificate “ which means little.

Whilst that's true, I think you would struggle to suggest anything other than an EICR that would serve to "to certify it [the electrical installation] is safe and in a full working condition". ... or was it perhaps just intended as a non-constructive comment?

 

[denso13]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm not so sure about that. If one has, in good faith, employed someone who appears appropriate and competent to do it to "certify that it's safe and in a full working condition", then I'm not sure that one would be in breach of contract if that certification proved to have been 'incorrect', would one?

Yes, that's true, I suppose the builder could take issue with the person who issued it if they were so inclined. I was thinking "iffy" meant some sort of collusion, but I was taking that a step too far.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, that's true, I suppose the builder could take issue with the person who issued it if they were so inclined. I was thinking "iffy" meant some sort of collusion, but I was taking that a step too far.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply 'collusion' (although I suppose that's not impossible). In fact, if there were 'collusion' then, although repeating that I'm no lawyer, it wouldn't surprise me if (both the) perpetrators would be on the wrong side of criminal law (e.g. 'fraud' and/or 'conspiracy'), quite apart from (civil) breach of contract!

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

I didn't mean to imply 'collusion'

You didn't John, I did, wrongly.

 

[Swwils]

Ask for an EICR on the new build.