Landlord doing own non-notifiable work

[edlewis]

A periodic inspection is not the same as initial verification of work

Great thanks, that's really good to know. So I might as well get an electrician to do the work and a periodic inspection whilst they're at it.

Thanks all

 

[TonyW2]

Hope I am not hijacking the thread, but if the landlord had undertaken the work and not tested it, so had not issued a minor works certificate, how could the situation be best progressed so that the tenants, landlord and insurers were all satisfied?
It seems that removing the works and having them redone by someone able to issue the MWC would be needed.
It seems that the landlord should issue a MWC showing his incomplete untested work then instruct a fully competent person to remove it and redo it then issue a mwc

 

[edlewis]

how could the situation be best progressed so that the tenants, landlord and insurers were all satisfied

Well if someone (be it a DIYer or an electrician who didn't feel like issuing a MWC) did the work, their strict obligation is to do it BS7671, not to also have a MWC issued. So the tenant doesn't really have an objection unless they believe it is unsafe. (As for how a tenant raises this objection, I think there are established legal routes. In my case I trust the managing agent to be there to take a tenant's concern seriously.)

As for the insurer, the paragraph quoted above in my landlord policy says nothing on qualified electricians or MWCs, just that it needs to be inspected and maintained in line with legalisation.

The problem comes if something is done that is unsafe, then the landlord will want paperwork to show that they didn't violate part P (which quotes install, inspect and test to BS7671) and had done inspections and proper maintenance to avoid violating their insurance. That peace of mind is best achieve through MWCs and inspections.

 

[TonyW2]

Perhaps the landlord could employ a competent person to just conduct the necessary tests ,(possibly at an over the barrel rate) then attach those results if 0K to his own MWC.

 

[JohnW2]

Hope I am not hijacking the thread, but if the landlord had undertaken the work and not tested it, so had not issued a minor works certificate, how could the situation be best progressed so that the tenants, landlord and insurers were all satisfied? It seems that removing the works and having them redone by someone able to issue the MWC would be needed.

That might be technically correct, but it seems a bit drastic. Although, as has been said, inspection/tests undertaken as part of new works are not quite the same as an EICR, the latter is considered to be an adequate determination that an electrical installation is (or is not) currently 'safe'. Let's face it, new/recent works are no more likely to impact on safety than are works undertaken at unknown times, by unknown people, in the distant past - and in the latter case a satisfactory EICR would be considered to demonstrate that the installation was currently 'safe'.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

their strict obligation is to do it BS7671, not to also have a MWC issued.

Given that certification is a requirement of BS7671 then it is not possible to have work which complies with BS7671 where necessary certification has not been provided.

 

[edlewis]

Given that certification is a requirement of BS7671

Good point! Raises some interesting questions for landlords buying homes which have had work done either undocumented or documentation lost.

If someone bought a flat which had an additional circuit not on its original Domestic Electrical Installation Certificate, my understanding is that it's not possible for someone else to certify that work. I guess the spirit of the legislation if you're in that position is to do a EICR and follow its recommendations including ripping out that circuit if it is tested to be faulty.

 

[JohnW2]

Good point! Raises some interesting questions for landlords buying homes which have had work done either undocumented or documentation lost.

... which is probably the norm, rather than the exception, for any remotely 'old' property. As both you and I have said, all one can really do in such a situation is have an EICR undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well if someone (be it a DIYer or an electrician who didn't feel like issuing a MWC) did the work, their strict obligation is to do it BS7671, not to also have a MWC issued.

Complying with BS 7671 involves testing and certification...

So the tenant doesn't really have an objection unless they believe it is unsafe. (As for how a tenant raises this objection, I think there are established legal routes. In my case I trust the managing agent to be there to take a tenant's concern seriously.)

As for the insurer, the paragraph quoted above in my landlord policy says nothing on qualified electricians or MWCs, just that it needs to be inspected and maintained in line with legalisation.

The problem is that some insurers will look for any excuse whatsoever to avoid paying out. If a claim resulting from an electrical incident arose they might well use the "and are you a qualified electrician?" ploy.

The problem comes if something is done that is unsafe, then the landlord will want paperwork to show that they didn't violate part P (which quotes install, inspect and test to BS7671)

No it doesn't.

This is Part P:

 

[Spark123]

Replacing an accessory that is broken (without the inclusion of additional wiring/circuits/new CUs) is just maintenance work, if you had to just replace a light switch would you issue a MWC?
OK, if the owner demanded it you could but I don't see the benefit or any reason to mandate it.

 

[Risteard]

Replacing an accessory that is broken (without the inclusion of additional wiring/circuits/new CUs) is just maintenance work, if you had to just replace a light switch would you issue a MWC?
OK, if the owner demanded it you could but I don't see the benefit or any reason to mandate it.

It is not required for a like-for-like replacement of an accessory. It may be prudent, but would not be required.

However we have no reason to believe that this was replacement of a faulty accessory rather than alteration of or addition to the electrical installation.

 

[Spark123]

Hi everyone,

I've got a flat with electrical heating and hot water. The timer on the immersion heater is a Greenbrook T106-C (http://www.greenbrook.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=T106-C) and has become faulty. I need to do a like for like replacement. 10 minute job.

 

[Risteard]

My apologies. The thread must have gone off on a tangent at some stage then.

 

[SimonH2]

Would a routine test of the flat's electrics by a qualified electrician verify that I had wired the timer correctly?

Not normally - but if you specifically asked him to check while doing the rest of the check then it shouldn't add much (if anything) to the overall bill. All EICRs involve an element of the electrician making a judgement call over how much of anything to test and inspect - so by mentioning it, it would be guiding that judgement.

Now, there is one aspect no-one has mentioned yet.
What if a tenant alleges that the installation is not safe*, or "something happens" ? If all work has been done by a qualified spark then your defence is simply "all work was done by qualified contractors" and then it largely comes down to the other side having to show that the qualified person got it wrong. If you do work yourself, then as a "not qualified" person it rather shifts the onus to yourself to demonstrate that you are in fact "competent" which is (IIRC) what the regs require.

So there really isn't a simple "yes or no" answer. Legally speaking, as long as you are "competent" to do the work then you can do it. Simply replacing a timer with another of the same model isn't a major task and shouldn't be beyond any reasonably skilled DIYer.
So you have to make a judgement call. Is there a risk to doing the work, and are you happy with that level of risk ?

Speaking for myself, I do just about all electrical work in my own home - I'm about to send in BR notice for a CU replacement. In my rental properties (I have 2) then I will quite happily replace fittings - and would have no problem changing a timer (I have replaced the CH timer in the house). Where I've done other work (in the flat I altered & extended circuits for example), as it happens it was about due for a check anyway so I did them before an EICR and made the spark aware of what work I'd done.

One way of thinking about it is "how would it sound in court ?"

* And bear in mind that a very small minority of tenants will use any excuse to avoid paying the rent, or to otherwise gain.

 

[Calmore]

It would essentially be a "like for like" replacement and thus would be "maintenance".

Personally, I would just go ahead and do it, if you are confident in your abilities.