Electrical Test & Inspection -rental property

[jack_s]

In rental property after electrical inspection

-should an old style Fuse Box be replaced ?
-should an open bayonet fitting Bathroom Light be replaced with an enclosed light ?

Thanks

 

[Taylortwocities]

In rental property after electrical inspection

-should an old style Fuse Box be replaced ?
-should an open bayonet fitting Bathroom Light be replaced with an enclosed light ?

Thanks

what does the inspection report say for each?
Is the conclusion satisfactory or not satisfactory?

 

[jack_s]

what does the inspection report say for each?
Is the conclusion satisfactory or not satisfactory?

The electrician said they need changing as not to standard.

Curious to check whether changing these in circumstances (old style Fuse Box & open bayonet fitting Bathroom Light)
is pretty standard in rental property.

 

[jack_s]

This light fitting in bathroom is going to be replaced, just checking how it is removed.

Not sure what I am missing, but cannot see how it is removed.
Removed 2 screwed on bits, the centre bulb holder is loose.

Can't see how ceiling screws are accessed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The outer ceiling part unscrews.

 

[jack_s]

The outer ceiling part unscrews.

I tried unscrewing outer ceiling part, didn't move.

Will try again.

 

[ericmark]

-should an old style Fuse Box be replaced ?

The Electrical safety council say

where the problem lies is with TT earthing systems and

701.411.3.3 Additional protection by RCDs
Additional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by the use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1.
NOTE: See also Regulations 314.1(iv) and 531.2.4 concerning the avoidance of unwanted tripping.

it has been a problem with the use of plastic pipes, where the earth bonding is lost due to the use of plastic fittings, so in 2008 it was allowed not to bond if there was RCD protection, and it is common to find bonding missing, so in real terms hard to use the old fuse box, clearly you could still fit RCD protection as was done here, but that was done before we had consumer units with RCD's built in.

-should an open bayonet fitting Bathroom Light be replaced with an enclosed light ?

In zones 1 and 2: IPX4. Electrical equipment exposed to water jets, e.g. for cleaning purposes, shall have a degree of protection of at least IPX5. But it depends if the lights are in the zones or not as to if the lamp need that IP rating. "IPX4: Is resistant to water splashes from any direction." it does not need to be marked IPX4 but has to resist water splashes. It can be debated is an open bayonet fitting can resist those splashes.

Some of the old plastic does seem to glue its self and in the past I have ended up smashing the fitting, not the intention to smash it, but since being renewed it was not a problem.

What I find is a problem is raising the Minor Works Certificate when doing it as DIY, there is nothing to stop you writing out the certificate if you have the test equipment and are (“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards but unless you fall into that category then you would need a second EICR to show the work has been done.

It is the same when at work, there are jobs we can do, but not allowed to do as we don't have the bits of paper showing we have the skill.

 

[Taylortwocities]

The electrician said they need changing as not to standard.

Sorry, not being difficult but the inspection should provide a written report. The process has been described in posts #2&3. And in others.
The written report will (should) detail the reasons reasons why the fuse board must be changed. It should detail the breach of which of the regulations that support the reasons for the change.
I suspect you have been given one of the cheap “drive by” inspections, and have not had a proper EICR at all.

It’s easy to glance at an installation and make an instant judgment. Especially if the inspector has a vested interest in generating revenue for additional work.

Without seeing a written report it’s impossible to say (from the keyboard end of the Internet) if the fuse board must be changed.

 

[ericmark]

A rental property is clearly commercial, and at some point some one will be working in the property, be it the meter reader, the sky installer, social services or police some one at some time will work there, so the health and safety at work act is valid. And we need to consider people with a reduced mental capacity be it children or the old will likely at some point visit, it may be that the regulations don't say RCD protection is required, but I would not want to rent property without it, two points, one is general duty of care for tenants, and two watch your back, don't want to have to try and explain why you did not fit RCD protection if a tenant does some thing daft.

Likely not strictly required, but do you really want to take the chance?

 

[JohnW2]

A rental property is clearly commercial ....

That seems a rather odd statement. Sure, renting out property creates income, but "commercial property" has come to have a specific meaning, which does not include residental properties ('dwellings'), even if the occupier is not the owner?

You are presumably not suggesting that Part P of the Building Regs doesn't apply to rented domestic accommodation, are you?

... and at some point some one will be working in the property, be it the meter reader, the sky installer, social services or police some one at some time will work there, so the health and safety at work act is valid. ...

Any of those people might, indeed, 'work' in any property (as, indeed, may the occupier of any dwelling) but I can't see why that should be any more true of rented property than of owner-occupied property.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Yes if we want tradesmen and others to enter a private house then the house must be safe for them to enter. However with a few exceptions, customs for example, they need the owners permission to enter. Or at least a warrant. But workers like those from social services can be invited into the home by the tenants, so it can be a place of work, so must comply with all the rules that are associated with a place of work. If for example a social worked was injured while in the house, then the HSE would have the right to investigate.

The difference between owner occupied and rental is with the owner occupied the owner has control over who enters the property, but with rented he doesn't, be it a child or some one with dementia there can be people in the house with reduced awareness. And as I saw with my own mother when she put an extension lead in a bucket of water as she thought it was on fire, people can do some seemingly daft things, lucky in her case the carer saw what she had done and unplugged the extension first, but it would be so easy to just grab it to remove, the same way as Emma Shaw tried to turn off tap before turning off power, in an emergency we don't always do things in the right order.

The problem is courts don't always blame who we expect, and they do seem to lean towards blaming the landlord. Would you take a chance?

 

[JohnW2]

... But workers like those from social services can be invited into the home by the tenants, so it can be a place of work, so must comply with all the rules that are associated with a place of work. If for example a social worked was injured while in the house, then the HSE would have the right to investigate.

This needs a lawyer, because I am far from convinced that such things come within the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act. That Act talks very largely about the duties/responsibilities of employers, with a little mention of the self-employed (concerning matters related to their self employment) and makes repeated references to "non-domestic premises".

As I said, you need a lawyer, but it seems hard to interpret that Act as applying to occupiers of domestic dwellings, whether tenants or owner-occupiers, particularly if the individuals concerned are neither employers nor 'self-employed'.

As you have implied, there are very many workers whose 'place of work' can literally be 'almost anywhere', but it would not seem to make much sense to therefore say that the "Health and Safety at Work Act" applied to absolutely everywhere. There is plenty of legislation which imposes 'duties of care' (to other people) in all sorts of situations ('anywhere'), so it doesn't seem sensible to try to say that 'everywhere' also comes within the scope of "...at Work" legislation, does it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

so it can be a place of work, so must comply with all the rules that are associated with a place of work.

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 say,

“workplace” means.....any premises or part of premises which are not domestic premises and are made available to any person as a place of work, and includes—

(a) any place within the premises to which such person has access while at work; and

(b) any room, lobby, corridor, staircase, road or other place used as a means of access to or egress from that place of work or where facilities are provided for use in connection with the place of work other than a public road;

 

[JohnW2]

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 say, .... “workplace” means.....any premises or part of premises which are not domestic premises and are made available to any person as a place of work, and includes—....

Thanks for confirming. That seems consistent with what I said (and thought) when I wrote ...

... the Health and Safety at Work Act .....makes repeated references to "non-domestic premises".

Kind Regards, John