Electrical certificate for renting out property

[b21playa]

Hi all

thinking about renting out my house or selling it as we have moved. Now I heard there was a new requirement to have electrical certificate and wanted to know where I stand before I get someone around, I don’t want them pulling the wool over my eyes and charging me for work I didn’t need.

This is the current board, does it need upgrading to 18th edition? Only box of mine I’ve seen without an actual main switch

thanks in advance

 

[JohnW2]

Thinking about renting out my house or selling it as we have moved. Now I heard there was a new requirement to have electrical certificate and wanted to know where I stand before I get someone around, I don’t want them pulling the wool over my eyes and charging me for work I didn’t need.

They cannot undertake, and charge you for, any work unless you ask them to do it. An inspection is just an inspection - it will identify what work the inspector believes/claims needs to be done, and then it's up to you to decide whether you want them, or some other electrician, to do whatever work you specify.

If you have an inspection done and are not convinced that the work they claim is needed really does need doing, then tell us here, and some will offer their opinions.

Whatever else, do not ask someone up-front to "do an inspection and then any remedial work that is required"!

This is the current board, does it need upgrading to 18th edition? Only box of mine I’ve seen without an actual main switch

There is confusion and uncertainty as regards interpretation of the new legislation. Some might well claim that that CU needs 'upgrading', not the least because it has only one RCD. The RCD (far left serves as a 'main switch' - and there;'s nothing wrong with that, per se.

Kind Regards, John

 

[OwainDIYer]

RCD as a main switch is a hazard because it will cut out the lights in the event of a fault on another circuit.
It may be easier to mitigate that risk (and a good idea anyway) to put a couple of emergency lights on the stairs and in the kitchen.

 

[JohnW2]

RCD as a main switch is a hazard because it will cut out the lights in the event of a fault on another circuit.

Indeed - but that's a consequence of their being only one RCD, covering all circuits, not because it's being used as the 'main switch', per se - the problem would be the same if there were a main switch as well as one RCD covering all circuits.

It may be easier to mitigate that risk (and a good idea anyway) to put a couple of emergency lights on the stairs and in the kitchen.

Very much so. As I say so often, no matter how many RCDs one spreads one's circuits over (or, as the 'ultimate', having all RCBOs), that will provide no protection against being plunged into darkness by a power cut (and, as I always say, for me power cuts are far more common than RCD trips!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do people think that the electrical regulation authors are overstepping their remit?

There are, of course, rules which state how the wiring should be done to ensure 'electrical' safety but should they concern themselves with side issues.

For example, first of all, RCDs should be fitted to cover uses where the lack of them might cause a more serious problem, e.g. working outside.
Then more circuits should be covered by an RCD.
Then all circuits should be covered by an RCD.
Then more than one RCD should be fitted to ensure not all circuits might be disconnected in the event of one fault.

If these things are so important, then they always were. Why were the latest requirements not introduced at the introduction of RCDs?

Now, according to how the new landlord requirements are read, it could be said compulsory upgrades are required for rented property.

Why not all property if so important?

 

[JohnW2]

Do people think that the electrical regulation authors are overstepping their remit?

[It must be the weekend ]
Maybe, but there will clearly be a wide range of opinions about this.

For example, first of all, RCDs should be fitted to cover uses where the lack of them might cause a more serious problem, e.g. working outside.
Then more circuits should be covered by an RCD.
Then all circuits should be covered by an RCD.
Then more than one RCD should be fitted to ensure not all circuits might be disconnected in the event of one fault.
If these things are so important, then they always were. Why were the latest requirements not introduced at the introduction of RCDs?

Attitudes to what 'risks' are acceptable obviously change ('evolve', essentially always in the same direction, which some would describe as moving further into a "Nanny State") - sometimes due to increased awareness of the risks, but often simply because attitudes have changed in relation to risks of which we have 'always' known about (but, often, simply 'accepted').

However, I don't think that many people would argue against the desirability of a lot of these changes in attitudes. For example (just a tiny number of examples out of millions), one doesn't have to go back further than our parents' generation (often within our lifetimes) to the times when:

One could drive a car without ever having had a lesson or taken a test, and there were few, if any, explicit regs/laws about how safe/roadworthy a vehicle had to be
Children were allowed to play with mercury in school labs and to play with X-ray machines in shoe shops
Medicines could be developed and marketed with little or no official scrutiny of their safety or efficacy
Gas appliances without 'flame failure devices' could be sold​

... so I suppose it's a question of 'where one draws the line' and whether we have perhaps already 'gone too far' (which isn't hard to argue).

As for your specific example, you know my view about RCDs, in general. If the intention was to 'save lives' then, even if RCDs could eliminate domestic electrocutions completely (which they couldn't), I'm pretty sure that, if 'repurposed', the (very large) amount of money spent on RCDs could probably have reduced, say, road deaths by a lot more than 2-3 per month!

Now, according to how the new landlord requirements are read, it could be said compulsory upgrades are required for rented property.

As you know, my personal opinion is that it was not intended that the (poorly worded) legislation should be interpreted in that way - but, if one takes that interpretation ...

.... Why not all property if so important?

I suppose that it would not be unusual, or unreasonable, for there to be more stringent requirements in relation to the health and safety of 'third parties' than if the risks were only to the individual concerned and his/her family. That's already the case in England for gas.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

To my mind the problem is there is more than the electrical regulations controlling what we can do, one example is if insurance and guarantees are valid if reasonable precautions are not taken? One IET page suggested lack of SPD could invalidate insurance, I personally think that is taking it too far, however even if some one finds the electrics as satisfactory, that does not mean a letting agent will.

If not going to live in the area then likely you will need to use a letting agent, and when I was considering letting out my mothers house we had the letting agent around to tell us what they would want doing before taking the house on their books, electrics had just been re-wired so that was OK, but other items, like only having 2 rings on the hob, were picked up on, and I reckoned around £2000 would be needed to get it to a point they would accept.

We had already done a lot, re-roof garage for example as it might have been asbestos, pointing, etc. To get enough money to pay for mothers care home no real option to rent it, she would be upset if she thought she could never return home. As it transpired she died before we had to rent, and house was sold.

The problem with an EICR (electrical installation condition report) it is up to the inspector if he gives a C1, C2, C3, or F1, most houses will gets loads of C3 items, this points out what would need to be done to make the home fully comply, but there is no requirement to get them fixed, with a C1 you would not want to ignore, it means the house is dangerous, F1 is further investigation, can't think off hand why it would be issued, maybe a locked door?

So the main bone of contention is the C2. It says this should be issued if the item is 'potentially dangerous' well all 230 volt electric is potentially dangerous, so we use sights like the electrical safety council and their best practice guide 4 issue 5 to guide us as to what should be considered as potentially dangerous.

The second is what should an electrician consider in his inspection, he is not trained in fire prevention and safety yet many electrical items can cause fire, the building regulations define electrical installation as all fixed electrical items, which is fair enough, but looking at the extreme, if you were letting out a stone cottage on a hill side in Wales with no electric just oil lamps etc, as built 200 years ago, an electrician could not fail it because there is nothing electric, but it may be considered as uninhabitable, but it would not be the electrician who gives it that label, so how can lack of mains powered smoke detectors be part of electricians remit?

However not to point out dangers is also wrong, but not looking at danger, looking at what should gain a C2 in an EICR and what is down to some one else. So back to start, some one has to have taken the exam and has to take the responsibility for the home being habitable, and likely that will be a letting agent, so see what they say first.

Some insist that the consumer unit complies with new build standards under 18th edition. But this is not the law, it's what that letting agent wants.

 

[JohnW2]

... The second is what should an electrician consider in his inspection, he is not trained in fire prevention and safety yet many electrical items can cause fire ...

An electrician undertaking an EICR is doing so only to decide whether or not the installation complies with BS7671 - nothing more and nothing less.

... so how can lack of mains powered smoke detectors be part of electricians remit?

It's not.

Some insist that the consumer unit complies with new build standards under 18th edition. But this is not the law, it's what that letting agent wants.

Maybe, maybe not. Although, as I just wrote to EFLI, I personally don't believe that such was the intent, the (very poorly worded) legislation can be read to mean that 'full compliance' with 18th edition (as would be required for a new build) is required.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I agree with what @JohnW2 says, but did not really want to get into what should and should not be tested by the electrician. But just to point out at the moment there is a lot of disagreement as to what gets a C2.

The CU you show is likely to be considered as unacceptable, personally if it has not been tripping out on regular basics then it is clearly OK, but again any electrician testing does not know if it does or does not trip often.

Fitting an Isolator, SPD and all RCBO's would mean the tripping problem is no longer there, but a RCBO will cost £30 each, so £270 to swap all, at that one has to ask is it worth in, as still left with a plastic box?

It is pointless anyone saying that CU is OK, if you need to use letting agents that will not accept it. There is no reason why when you ask some one to do an EICR you ask before they start will they consider a plastic consumer unit with a single RCD as being acceptable. On table 53.2 of BS7671:2008 BS EN 61008-1 is listed as suitable for isolation, emergency switching and functional switching so I see no problem using one as the isolator.

 

[Adam_151]

The only thing in that picture which 'could' result in an unsatsifactory outcome is how that later crabtree MCB has been fitted, I'm not totally familar with crabtree but I'm pretty sure those ranges arn't compatable, I'd like to see how its been fitted.

Plastic board gets a C3 if on escape route/under stairs etc, otherwise noted by no code allocated
A single RCD covering all circuits gets a C3 at worst, often just noted with no code

Of course there could be many other faults which are not in the picture and/or cannot be conveyed with a picture

 

[EFLImpudence]

Plastic board gets a C3 if on escape route/under stairs etc, otherwise noted by no code allocated

That was made up by NAPIT, wasn't it?

However, it sort of highlights my original point.

 

[JohnW2]

... But just to point out at the moment there is a lot of disagreement as to what gets a C2.

There is - and that's pretty inevitable given that there are no definitive 'rules' (and really couldn't be in all cases, since no rules could be 'comprehensive'). It has to be largely a matter of 'judgement' - and that inevitably varies between individuals.

It is pointless anyone saying that CU is OK, if you need to use letting agents that will not accept it.

Not many people are constrained to use any particular letting agent, so if landlords were sensible (and knowledgeable) enough to stop using ones who had 'unreasonable' requirements, then the behaviour of letting agents might change.

There is no reason why when you ask some one to do an EICR you ask before they start will they consider a plastic consumer unit with a single RCD as being acceptable.

Indeed. You or I, or many of the others reading this, could quiz an electrician before asking him/her to undertake an EICR, in relation to some of those things that we feared some might code as C2 when we personally didn't feel that they should - and then select our inspector accordingly. However, few of the general public (including landlords) would have enough knowledge to do that.

.. On table 53.2 of BS7671:2008 BS EN 61008-1 is listed as suitable for isolation, emergency switching and functional switching so I see no problem using one as the isolator.

Indeed - so I don't think anyone could (should) give a C2 because the only means of whole installation isolatioon was an RCD. However, OwainDIYer's point was not about that but, rather, related to the fact that some people (I thought including you) would say that having a single RCD protecting the entire installation (inevitable if an RCD is being used as the incomer) was 'non-compliant'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

That was made up by NAPIT, wasn't it?

I believe it was. It certainly didn't come from anywhere 'authoritative'. Depending on interpretations, the CU either has to (always), or need not be (ever), 'brought up to current requirements' and it's certainly not for NAPIT or anyone else to try to invent rules about when it has to be and when it doesn't have to be upgraded!

However, it sort of highlights my original point.

Indeed it does.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

In my experience of letting agents, I am surprised that they would turn down business because something like an an electrical installation is supposedly out of date. In any case, they normally would not themselves know.
They usually will make no decisions themselves regarding anything which would make them responsible and hence liable, but only call the relevant tradesman to attend having collected the keys from them if necessary.

If they are in complete charge of letting and running the flat, they would merely get an electrician to do one of the new inspections and authorise any work that was said to be needed.

If only finding tenants for a landlord who runs the flat, then I don't think they would be concerned - unless something was obviously completely unacceptable.

 

[JohnW2]

In my experience of letting agents, I am surprised that they would turn down business because something like an an electrical installation is supposedly out of date. In any case, they normally would not themselves know.

One would certainly expect that to be the case.

However, you will recall a case we recently heard of in which a letting agent appeared to be including some ludicrous requirements in their Ts&Cs (like the requirement to have bonding conductors duplicated) - which, as I said at the time, seemed to be a good way of frightening away potential business!

Kind Regards, John