Yes I believe you are totally correct in that interpretation. Yes I've seen plenty of
Last edited:
EICR and Bonding
- Thread starter nordberg73
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As I've just written, there doesn't seem to be any provision in the 'landlord legislation' to achieve that. It has provisions for appealing against LA actions, but not appealing about allegedly 'incorrect' EICRs. As I've just written, the legislation appears to require that a copy of the initial EICR be provided to the tenant, and also requires that any 'required remedial action' indicated by it is addressed.
Kind Regards, John
Well, I suppose that is how it is written but are you saying that an incompetent report must be accepted and a subsequent competent correct one ignored? How does one correct defects that are not defects?
What are medical second opinions for?
We're crossing in the post at the moment, I'm agreeing with Johns interpretation.
The big problem is something makes the news (going to extremes I'll mention Grenfell) and suddenly a report states an installation is wrong/dangerous and suddenly the tenant is scared, the landlords arse may start flapping, the agents arse certainly does and a repair is demanded, no amount of subsequent reports will convince them otherwise but a repair will pacify one and all.
As an example I once had an EICR that gave a C1 for lack of gas bond, I found the capped supply atop a correctly isolated plastic supply pipe. As much as I hated to do so; It was so much easier to add an unnecessary clamp to the brass valve and <2ft of 10mm² wire to the MET and report to that effect than attempt to convince anyone the report was wrong.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
That is my point. Unfortunately, at least strictly speaking, when it comes to legislation "how it is written" is "how it is". Even the highest court in the country cannot over-ride "how it is written", if it is 'clear' (although they can urge legislators to later "how it is written").
I'm simply indicating what the legislation appears to say - but agree with your implication that it is ridiculous if one can't do anything about an 'incompetent' (i.e. 'incorrect') report.
That one is probably not so straightforward. An EICR may well just indicate that certain things 'need to be done' (e.g."replace CU", "install bonding" etc.). One could comply with such 'requirements' without consideration of whether or not they have anhything to do with 'defects'.
The same thing as second opinions are in any other field - for situations in which one is unhappy/uncertain about a 'first opinion' and/or wants reassurance that the first opinion was correct. As above, I agree that, with very few (if any) exceptions), there should always be provision for 'appealing against' something which one believes to be incorrect.
I suppose one of the concerns (e.g. with EICRs) might be that if one allows people to have an unlimited number of 'bites at the cherry', then they might go through several which confirm the findings of the first one but, eventually, might get one which (incompetently and incorrectly) fails to detect a serious defect that all the others have reported.
For what it's worth, since you raised the issue, I've seen this with 'medical second (or "Nth") opinions" - patients who keep on going and getting 'further' (similar) opinions (usually 'privately') until they eventually stumble across one (quite possibly incompetent/incorrect) 'opinion' which corresponds with what they wanted to hear, sometimes resulting in inappropriate diagnosis, treatment or management!
Kind Regards, John
I suppose that is the opposite - when someone actually wants an incorrect diagnosis - unlike an EICR where there might be (from what we see) several incorrect until a correct (competent) one is found.
And those are often the ones where where life support are kept running for months/years, supported by legal aid to appeal through higher and higher courts until crowd funding raises enough to transport the patient at deaths doorstep to another country where a doctor may have a dubious opinion or treatment and the patient never gets there alive or dies in agony days/weeks later.
Not the opposite of what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the fear might have been that a few ('unscrupulous') landlords might also want "an incorrect diagnosis".
In other words, after an initial RCD had revealed a serious defect (which the landlord "didn't want"), and a number of 'repeat EICRs' had confirmed that, if they kept going they might eventually get an EICR which (incompetently/inaccurately) did not 'notice' that serious defect -0 which was what what the ('unscrupulous') landlord 'wanted'.
Kind Regards, John
Ah yes but of course we are assuming the EICR under discussion is actually wrong and we are trying to get a correct version. There are always those wanting a correct EICR to change as they don't want to make changes/spend money.
EDIT Oh you beggar pipped to the post again.
Indeed - that is sometimes the case. However, in such cases, one has to have a lot of sympathy for the families concerned in their desire to 'grasp at straws', despite repeated medical advice (first opinion,, second opinion, etc. etc.) that the continued life support is futile.
That is obviously very different from an unscrupulous landlord, who is 'grasping at the straw' that he/she will eventually find an incompetent EICR inspector who will fail to report a serious defect which is present. For them, one can have no sympathy. On the contrary .... !!
Kind Regards, John
Yes I do have to agree and I've had a tiny experience of that with a girlfriends grandmother following an overdose of pain relief in hospital.
I've experienced being the 3rd opinion where the others had put replacing CU as C1 and owner felt it not required as not residential, no buried wiring, no exposed bulbholders and no sockets.
This was an outbuilding for the rubbish bins and a compactor for a block of something like 8-10 flats.
This was an old plastic CU, more like bakelite, and with imperial rated MCB's. A submain SWA feed from the landlords supply CU in the main block with no RCD. In outbuilding; 2 circuits wired in steel conduit for lights & electronic door entry with what looked like 3/0.029" and one harmonised SWA / isolator for compactor. remainder of the main building circuits in grey hammerite metal CU being RCBO and looking much newer than the enclosure.
I must be honest, my first thought when the door was opened for me was; they may have a case.
However I quickly found one non functional MCB (floppy handle) and taking the cover off the CU revealed one of the two cover screw positions was broken, obvious signs of previous flashes (not necessarily a current problem), and cracked case (looked like starratt cutter jammed when compactor SWA added).
OK not a lot of problems but too many to and too old to not replace.
I had no hesitation agreeing with existing recommendations
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
