EICR Faults

[JohnW2]

It's clearly NOT a C2. New rules do not make things become "potentially dangerous".

I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning (since views about what is "potentially dangerous" change and evolve) but I do agree that most people would probably only give a plastic CU a C2 C3.

However, as I have said, even a C3 (improvement recommended) seems to be enough in a landlord safety report to mean that you should implement the improvement.

No. Whilst the legislation says nothing about this (since it doesn't even talk of "EICRs", so "C3" would be meaningless), the associated guide for landlords makes it very clear that a C3 does NOT require remedial work ....

If codes C1 or C2 are identified in on the report, then remedial work will be required. The report will state the installation is unsatisfactory for continued use.

If an inspector identifies that further investigative work is required (FI), the landlord must also ensure this is carried out.

The C3 classification code does not indicate remedial work is required, but only that improvement is recommended. Landlords don’t have to make the improvement, but it would improve the safety of the installation if they did.

 

[JohnW2]

My main concern is whether it's worth getting another EICR from a different electrician. If the metal upgrade is a requirement then fair enough I'll have it sorted but just don't like to feel I've been diddled. The previous electrician has moved areas sadly.
If most EICRs would classify it as C2 and needing done then I'll stick with the current guy and let him upgrade.

Sorry, missed this one. As I've just written, I think that most would only give a C3 to a plastic CU

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning (since views about what is "potentially dangerous" change and evolve)

Mine haven't. I am completely happy with a plastic CU.
In fact the regulations, as you are well aware, do not actually say a metal CU must be used - merely non-combustible which nothing is or a non-combustible covering.

but I do agree that most people would probably only give a plastic CU a C2.

I presume you meant C3.

So, any one who makes a mistake and gives it a C2 is what?

No. Whilst the legislation says nothing about this (since it doesn't even talk of "EICRs", so "C3" would be meaningless), the associated guide for landlords makes it very clear that a C3 does NOT require remedial work ....

So, your, my and anyone else's views are just as valid as someone writing guidance.

The situation is truly abominable.

 

[ericmark]

Have you not noticed? There is a campaign against private landlords.

Yes it does seem that's the case, looked at the idea of renting out my mothers old house, decided not worth the hassle, and sold it. And around here seeing less and less houses for rent, seems they are moving to renting caravans, which are not buildings, so do not come under LABC.

From moving in, to getting a new consumer unit, took me around 6 months, to get someone to fit a new consumer unit within 28 days of the inspection is at least in this area pushing it a bit.

I have not found out what happens if you tell the tenant sorry needs a new consumer unit, you will need to move out?

 

[JohnW2]

Mine haven't. I am completely happy with a plastic CU.

Same here, but we've been through this countless times before. Like it or not, "our" (society's) views about acceptable levels of risk (or 'potential danger') have changed a lot over time, and that is reflected in regs and laws in countless fields.

I presume you meant C3.

Whoops - yes, of course that's what I meant. Now corrected. Thanks for noticing!

So, any one who makes a mistake and gives it a C2 is what?

They are someone who is expressing their personal view which, unfortunately, is how EICRs currently work.

So, your, my and anyone else's views are just as valid as someone writing guidance.

If I understand what you're trying to say .... they might be 'just as valid' but the guidance I quoted was written by the legislators to give clarity to interpretation of their legislation - so I think that, in this context, that trumps anyone else's views.

Mind you, the guidance I quoted says that there is not a requirement in law for a landlord to 'remedy' C3s. You surely aren't disagreeing with that, are you?

The situation is truly abominable.

I have no disagreement with that.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have not found out what happens if you tell the tenant sorry needs a new consumer unit, you will need to move out?

That's easy.

You won't be able to soon. They are doing away with no-fault evictions so I think, even if the tenants don't pay it will take months to get them out.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If I understand what you're trying to say .... they might be 'just as valid' but the guidance I quoted was written by the legislators to give clarity to interpretation of their legislation - so I think that, in this context, that trumps anyone else's views.

Except, of course, it has not achieved that.

 

[JohnW2]

I have not found out what happens if you tell the tenant sorry needs a new consumer unit, you will need to move out?

As I understand the law (in England), if an EICR indicates C1s/C2s and the LABC believe that the landlord has not remedied them, they will then issue one of those "remedial notices", following which they will arrange for the remedial work to be done, and will then take legal steps to recover the cost from the landlord

 

[JohnW2]

Except, of course, it has not achieved that.

... but, as I've just written, it HAS achieved that in the context we're discussing, since it has indicated/clarified that a landlord does NOT have to have C3s remedied.

 

[JohnW2]

That's easy. ... You won't be able to soon. They are doing away with no-fault evictions so I think, even if the tenants don't pay it will take months to get them out.

As I've just written, getting them out may be difficult/impossible, but there would be no need, because the LA would have the necessary work done.

 

[endecotp]

In the recent EICR I don't have a report, only a quote for work to be done to make it pass.

This approach seems popular with many electricians and their landlord customers, because at the end of it you have a report where everything says “pass”. If you get a report that says “fail”, and then get certs describing the work that was done to make it pass, then that’s more complicated to explain to e.g. the tenants or authorities.

The disadvantage is that you don’t actually have a report that you can study yourself, so that you can for example challenge it. Nor are you able to offer the upgrade work to a different electrician, without them re-doing all the testing.

 

[Murdochcat]

Ok. I hope you are right.

I am

Anybody coding a perfectly sound plastic CU with a C2 should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Murdochcat]

S would I. However, as I've said, the problem is that, if a C2 has been given for the plastic CU, the legislation does not appear to offer any mechanism for appeal/challenge - so (if there is a tenant in the property) the law would requite that C2 to be 'remedied' within 28 days.

The legislation has nothing to do with it.

As i previously stated the OP should challenge the coding as it’s clearly not correct

And i wouldn’t pay their bill either

 

[EFLImpudence]

I am

Anybody coding a perfectly sound plastic CU with a C2 should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, but that does not stop them doing it and causing trouble for the landlord.

 

[Murdochcat]

Yes, but that does not stop them doing it and causing trouble for the landlord.

As i repeatedly state on this forum and other forums coding such as this need challenging.