EICR Fail Codes

[SimonH2]

Actually, the council wouldn't have to re-house anyone - the landlord would. Until any contract terms kicked in to declare the contract frustrated, the landlord is contracted to put a roof over the head of the tenant - so if the property becomes uninhabited, the landlord could have to foot hotel bills (our insurance specifically covers this ).
As to foregoing council tax, they probably have you there as well. Most only allow you a discount for a set period and under certain conditions, and "it just needs a new CU but you don't want to pay for one" wouldn't meet the rules for our LA. For ours it's something like "undergoing major structural repairs and has no sanitary facilities" - though the rules tend to change over time. I know a mate took advantage of this a few years ago - they let him off council tax for a while when he sent photos of the bathroom with nothing but the soil pipe poking up through the floor while we were working on it.
So potentially you have an empty property, you have to pay council tax as the tenant is no longer occupying it, and you also have to pay a hotel bill for the tenant.

 

[ericmark]

The Welsh government has decided not to follow England with the EICR requirement because they feel there is already a lack of houses for rent, and having a slightly below standard house to live in is better than living in a caravan which is what tends to happen when there is a housing shortage.

As to re-house, it depends on the contract and how long tenants have been in the house. You are correct about needing to insure for re-housing, it can be down to landlord, as an electrician I know I must either leave a house inhabitable or find alternative accommodation, however the rules don't actually say who has to pay for the alternative accommodation, so simply turning off the supply to central heating because of a smashed socket would cause more work finding alternative accommodation to simply replacing socket, and I seem to remember reading the inspector doing EICR needs to have the ability to correct faults where required. So with a C1 he should phone landlord and tell them, and if landlord say fix it, then he should fix it, simply putting it down on the report is not permitted, either re-house or fix.

 

[JohnW2]

I have read the law again. From what I understand after 28 days the local authority has to tell the landlord exactly what he has to do, and he has 21 days to make written representations against the notice, or 28 days to comply with the notice.

I've never been able to make any sense of that part of the legislation, so perhaps I'm being dim. The relevant parts of Section (4) are ...

... Where... and the most recent report under regulation 3(3) does not indicate that urgent remedial action is required, the authority must serve a remedial notice on the private landlord.
(2) A remedial notice must— ........
(c)specify the remedial action the local housing authority considers should be taken; ...

Can someone help me to understand that? If the 'most recent report' ("EICR") "does not indicate that urgent remedial action is required", then why on earth would/could the authority "serve a remedial notice", and what would such a notice require to be remedied, per 4(2)(c)?

In any event, and as I've been saying, even if you are correct in your interpretation, none of that is of much help to most landlords. The big problem for most of them is that, very understandably, they will have no way of knowing that there is anything 'wrong' with an EICR they receive - so will have little choice but to 'trust it' and therefore have the indicated 'required remedial work' done.

In some cases that could cause the landlord considerable cost to have things done which many of us might well regard as unnecessary - for example, as has been discussed, if some inspectors are giving C2s for, say 'plastic CUs' (maybe because they are 'under stairs o in escape routes'). A (probably 'unnecessary') CU replacement doses not come at a trivial cost.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

If the 'most recent report' ("EICR") "does not indicate that urgent remedial action is required"

Well spotted, I missed that, "most recent report" so if you don't like what is in the report, and you get another done, then if then no C1, C2 or F1 he is OK as it is more recent, he does not need to show it was repaired.

 

[securespark]

technically my son would have been liable to a fine of up to £30,000; even if it was because the DNO decided not to expedite the repair; or if the tenant refused or delayed access.

I think if I were in that situation and was up before the beak, I would be pointing out that the actions of both my tenant and the DNO were outside of my control and while I was there, I'd bend his ear'ole about how it was possible for the spark to put an issue with equipment not part of the inspection on the inspection form......

 

[ericmark]

I think if I were in that situation and was up before the beak, I would be pointing out that the actions of both my tenant and the DNO were outside of my control and while I was there, I'd bend his ear'ole about how it was possible for the spark to put an issue with equipment not part of the inspection on the inspection form......

electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter

Link here

“electrical installation” has the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Building Regulations 2010(2);

There seems to be no question, the DNO's equipment has nothing to do with the EICR.

However fixed electrical equipment I would consider means anything hard wired, or fixed to floor or wall, this I would have said is not what I would consider covered by an EICR, I know we did do some of the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment while doing the EICR as using the same test equipment, but for example the hand drier may be tested during the EICR but the results would go with the rest of items PAT tested, the results would not be included in the EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

However fixed electrical equipment I would consider means anything hard wired, or fixed to floor or wall, this I would have said is not what I would consider covered by an EICR ...

I agree.

Without thinking deeply at all about what is in my house, I can think of a 'Dustbuster' charging dock, several TVs and a couple of rechargeable (small) battery chargers, all of which are 'fixed to a wall', and plugged into a nearby socket, and I would not expect any of those things to be 'tested or inspected' as part of an EICR.

Indeed, any/all of those things could be supplied via an FCU (hence, I presume, 'hard-wired') - so they could all be "hard wired AND fixed to wall", but I still wouldn't expect them to be within the scope of an EICR.

In any event, given that an EICR is essentially about compliance (or conformity!) with BS7671, I'm not sure exactly what aspects of such items could be 'inspected and tested', since there are few regulations within BS7671 which are even remotely relevant to them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I think if I were in that situation and was up before the beak, I would be pointing out that the actions of both my tenant and the DNO were outside of my control and while I was there, I'd bend his ear'ole about how it was possible for the spark to put an issue with equipment not part of the inspection on the inspection form......

As I wrote before, I totally agree. As I said, I can't see how a Court could find against a person for not doing something that he/she could only do by breaking various laws/regulations (by getting someone other than the DNO to 'interfere with' DNO property)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well spotted, I missed that, "most recent report" so if you don't like what is in the report, and you get another done, then if then no C1, C2 or F1 he is OK as it is more recent, he does not need to show it was repaired.

That was not actually my point, although it's another interesting thing to discuss.

My point is that, despite your suggesting that, in that situation, "...he does not need to show it was repaired", the law I quoted seems to be saying that, in that situation, the LA is required to "serve a remedial notice"! As I asked, in such a situation, what on earth could that "remedial notice" require to be 'remedied'??

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Has anyone in authority actually defined "fixed electrical equipment"?

7671 has a definition of "Fixed Equipment. Equipment designed to be fastened to a support or otherwise secured in a specific location."

Is that what BR 2020 means?

 

[JohnW2]

Has anyone in authority actually defined "fixed electrical equipment"?
7671 has a definition of "Fixed Equipment. Equipment designed to be fastened to a support or otherwise secured in a specific location."
Is that what BR 2020 means?

Who knows ?!

It seems quite likely that such is 'what it means' but, if so, I don't think that all this has been thought through properly - since I find it hard to believe that the PRS legislation intended to require inspection and testing of things such as I recently mentioned (TVs etc.), don't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

It's very important that the correct phrasing/ wording is used in documents like these.

I find it very surprising that whoever writes them is so lax.

 

[JohnW2]

It's very important that the correct phrasing/ wording is used in documents like these. ... I find it very surprising that whoever writes them is so lax.

Unfortunately, I don't find it 'very surprising', or even just 'surprising', since it is so common - but I certainly agree that it is "very unsatisfactory".

Some of the problem is, of course, is that it is often essentially impossible to produce truly comprehensive definitions or sets of rules. For example, in the context that has been discussed, it could be that they wanted some items of 'electrical equipment fixed to walls/floors' to be regarded as being part of the 'electrical installation' but not others (like TVs !) - but it would be extremely difficult for them to produce a usable definition of "electrical installation" which considered all possible items of equipment (each with their own yes/no). Even if 'the definition' were a document which extended to dozens, or hundreds, of pages, it would still undoubtedly miss some things!

Kind Regards, John