Landlord electric test C1 situations???

[JohnW2]

I think the second tester may be wary about passing it unless he was absolutely certain the component which it failed on was within the test limits.

As said, they will obviously be wary about that - but, as I also said, if they were 'absolutely certain' that everything was 'within test limits', they really couldn't/shouldn't issue a 'fail' certificate - since, if they did, they would be in the same potential trouble as the first tester.

 

[ericmark]

We employ a tradesman to do work with a warranty of skill, if he does not show that warranty of skill we can take him to task and insist it is corrected. The question is has the tradesman shown this warranty of skill? I would say no, but who can decide?

So the landlord must obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out and that—
(i)the electrical safety standards are met;

Or local housing authority has to specify the remedial action the local housing authority considers should be taken; and then he has 28 days to comply.

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);

It does not say “electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3); for a new installation.

So the "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading." means the regulations are not retrospective, but it uses the "not necessarily" allowing for other laws and regulations which do force ones hand, so in real terms not sure how one can really show lack of warranty of skill.

 

[liddsville]

Does the person claim to be a member of any scheme such as NICEIC, ELECSA, NAPIT or others?

They claim to be a member of Elecsa(might contact them)
Funnily enough not had a reply from company after I pointed out the info kindly given by people on here.
Thanks all.

 

[JohnW2]

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);
It does not say “electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3); for a new installation.

I think you've been watching too much Perry Mason and are trying to be 'too clever' .....

... since anything and everything in BS7671:2918 relates to "for a new installation" (since, as you say, none of its contents are retrospective), I think that any sensible person (and even any sensible court) would conclude that the PRS legislation is talking about what is required by BS7671:2018 "as if it were an installation installed under those regulations" - since, otherwise, the PRS legislation (which came into force on 1st June 2020) would be meaningless (at least, it's 'require standard of safety' would be undefined) for anything electrical installed (well, strictly, 'designed') prior to 1st January 2019.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I think you've been watching too much Perry Mason and are trying to be 'too clever' .....

... since anything and everything in BS7671:2918 relates to "for a new installation" (since, as you say, none of its contents are retrospective), I think that any sensible person (and even any sensible court) would conclude that the PRS legislation is talking about what is required by BS7671:2018 "as if it were an installation installed under those regulations" - since, otherwise, the PRS legislation (which came into force on 1st June 2020) would be meaningless (at least, it's 'require standard of safety' would be undefined) for anything electrical installed (well, strictly, 'designed') prior to 1st January 2019.

Kind Regards, John

So your saying all rented accommodation should be inspected as if it were a new build? i.e. all circuits RCD protected? And when the electrical safety council says

it is wrong?

 

[JohnW2]

So your saying all rented accommodation should be inspected as if it were a new build? i.e. all circuits RCD protected?

Sort-of, but ....

And when the electrical safety council says .... it is wrong?

No, it's not 'wrong', and what they are saying is no different from what most of us would say.

However, you seem to be forgetting that we are essentially talking of an EICR (which the associated Guidance document makes clear, although the PRS legislation itself doesn't).

Although I realise that you're capable of arguing against this until the cows come home, I think that almost everyone else agrees that an EICR should be undertaken with reference to what the current edition of BS7671 actually says (and hence would 'require' for a new installation). Having established that something is not compliant with the requirements of the current edition, it is then down to the inspector's judgement as to whether it poses sufficient danger to warrant a C2 or C1 code, whether 'improvement is recommended' (C3) or whether no code at all is necessary.

So, yes, "all rented accommodation should be inspected as if it were a new build" but if things are found which would not be compliant if it were a new build, it is for the inspector to decide whether they should result in a 'fail' (C2 or C1) or a 'pass' (C3 or no code).

As for the specific you mention, BS7671 guidance is that absence of required RCD protection should be given at least a C3, but it is up to the inspector whether he gives a C3 or C2 (which, of course, is a crucial difference as far as a landlord is concerned).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I found this guide no reference to codes other than C1, C2 and C3, it is a rather old best practice guide, 2014 was the date. I would say today the codes are:-

• C1 = Danger Present (FAIL)
• C2 = Potentially Dangerous (FAIL)
• C3 = Improvement Recommended
• FI = Further Investigation Required (FAIL)
• N/V = Not Verified (Unable to verify)
• N/A = Not Applicable
• LIM = Limitation (Not tested or inspected)

Instead of using N/V for an item which could not be verified, it might be more appropriate to code it as an FI.

And it will be noted the old code 4 does not comply with current edition is no longer used, we still have 3 now called C3 which can be used like the old code 4, but there was a reason why the old code 4 was dropped, it caused confusion so the IET said, I personally liked the old code 4, it told me from the paperwork what is likely required before further work is done. But for example a 1.5 mm² SWA to the garage may not comply with regulations due to volt drop, but it does not present a danger in any way, so no requirement to list on an EICR. However it would be reported on the original installation certificate as a non compliance.

The EICR form is used by LABC at least in Wales to show if a new installation complies before issuing a completion certificate, so the client can instruct the inspector to inspect as if a new installation. And the inspector can recommend what he wants, it is not restricted to the requirements of BS 7671, so he can award many C3's. And he can award a C3 instead of a code 4, he can even use the old 1 to 4, there is nothing that says he must use the new format.

As long as the inspector does not miss faults, or include faults which are not there, he has done his job, and for years people have argued the wrong code was given, and except for rented property it does not really matter. Before the MOT for wagons we did a check with every service, which was like a mini MOT. This was modified when the MOT started to include all items tested in an MOT, but it was not an MOT and an EICR is not an MOT for a property, it is up to the inspector how he does it, and the EICR is not fit for purpose to be used as an MOT for a rented property.

I would have expected that to do the inspection one would need to be a member of one of the schemes, so if you did it wrong some one could in extreme cases stop one doing EICR's. The forms with

These report forms are for use by NICEIC or ELECSA contractors or installers working outside the scope of their enrolment or registration. The report forms are also available for use by electrical contractors not enrolled or registered with either NICEIC or ELECSA.

A Specimen here Seems they come as a pad of 20 at £23.08 why anyone would buy them when a free down load from IET I really don't know, I assume so it clearly states they are not covered by NICEIC or ELECSA rules, however having NICEIC and ELECSA written on them makes it look to client that they are official NICEIC or ELECSA forms.

It seems the people who do it under the scheme membership issue red forms, but it does look like a scheme for making money. With no or little come back for those using it as a money making scheme. I personally have no desire at 70 turns to the coil to scramble around some ones loft, and to do any EICR's but the fact remains there is no reason why I shouldn't, and it would be 5 years before the next, so by time any errors are found too late, and as long as I list faults then done my job, so easy way is as few C1 or C2 as one can, as few will question being too lax, it is being too critical that causes problems.

 

[JohnW2]

I would have expected that to do the inspection one would need to be a member of one of the schemes, so if you did it wrong some one could in extreme cases stop one doing EICR's.

I wouldn't trust trade organisations (whose main interest is in receiving members' subscriptions) with that role.

As I've said many times since the appearance of the PRS legislation, I think there really needs to be a 'licensing' system, in law, in relation to who is allowed to do 'landlord EICRs' - with requirements (particularly in relation to 'experience') which go appreciably beyond the minimum that would allow one to gain membership of one of the trade organisations, and also effectively 'policed' - so that, as you say, it would, then be possible to revoke an individual's 'licence to undertake landlord EICSs' if/when necessary.

However, it's almost certainly not going to happen, so I can see landlords having an ongoing problem for the foreseeable future.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Needs reporting to trading standards, and I think there could be a case made for it being fraud. And if (IIRC it was) via an agent, then they need informing that they could well be a party to the charge - they also have a duty of care when providing services. But in my experience, agents have a tenuous grip on the details of the law - only last week I was ripping one to bits for falsely saying "the law says that we must ...".

But one thing no-one's noticed ...
It says retest due "five years or on change of tenant" which is explicitly not allowed. The retest due can only be a time period, and "on change of tenant" is not a time period.

 

[JohnW2]

But one thing no-one's noticed ... It says retest due "five years or on change of tenant" which is explicitly not allowed. The retest due can only be a time period, and "on change of tenant" is not a time period.

I'm not sure what you mean by "explicitly not allowed" (nor "explicitly not allowed" by whom/what).

It is just a standard EICR and what you are (partially) quoting is the EICR inspector's 'recommendation', so I suppose he/she can 'recommend' whatever he/she wishes. The recommendation does not even relate only to rental since it does not just say (per your quote) "five years or on change of tenant" but, rather, "5 years or change of tenant/owner".

I can but presume that you are suggesting that the statement/recommendation is "explicitly not allowed" by the PRS legislation. However, since all that legislation calls for is "regular testing ... at intervals of no more than 5 years ... ", I don't see that it 'does not allow' (let alone "explicitly not allow") more frequent testing if that has been recommended, does it?

Kind Regards,

John

 

[SimonH2]

The form specifies period for next inspection. "On change of ... " is not a measured period, so anyone putting that has not correctly completed the form.

 

[JohnW2]

The form specifies period for next inspection. "On change of ... " is not a measured period, so anyone putting that has not correctly completed the form.

Are we looking at the same 'form'? The one I'm looking at has printed on it ...

"I/we recommend that the installation is further inspected and tested by: ...."

.. after which the inspector has entered "5 Years or change of tenant/owner". What's wrong with that, and is where is this requirement for a "measured period"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Actually, this is one that's laid down in law - for a change !
The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 say :

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) “at regular intervals” means—
(a)at intervals of no more than 5 years; or
(b)where the most recent report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) requires such inspection and testing to be at intervals of less than 5 years, at the intervals specified in that report.

So the law explicitly says "interval", and dictionaries seem to agree on this meaning "a period of time between events or states". "On change of tenant" is not a specified period of time, and is therefore not valid. Also, the law says "regular intervals" which would also not include "random" events such as change of tenant.

 

[JohnW2]

Actually, this is one that's laid down in law - for a change !

It is (in the 'PRS' legislation) - but we're not talking about anything to do with 'the law' - we are merely talking about an EICR, totally unrelated to the law, and the inspector's recommendation recorded on that EICR as to when the next inspection should be done. If the inspector believes, for whatever reason, that an inspection should be undertaken on change of tenant/owner (or 5 after 5 years, if sooner), he/she is free to express that recommendation on an EICR form, isn't he/she?

I certainly still don't understand what you meant when you said that such a recommendation was "explicitly no allowed". Even in terms of the PRS legislation, the only requirement is that the interval between inspections should not be greater than 5 years (and the recommendation on the EICR is consistent with that). I see nothing in that legal requirement which says that a inspection cannot be undertaken sooner than 5 years if, for example, someone recommends that it should be done because of an intervening event, do you?

I think we're into another of the unsatisfactory aspects of the legislation which neither says anything about EICRs nor has any other requirements in relation to what form/format of 'report' has to be provided.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Well this thread is about a rented property, and the bit used is "change of tenant" - so clearly the PRS legislation applies.
The legislation says that a time interval is to be specified - and yes, it can be shorter than 5 years. "On <random event>" is not a time period - it's an event triggered duration of indeterminate length and thus has no place where the legislation requires a specified period of time.
So, apart from all the other issues - does that invalidate the report from the PoV of the legislation ? The legislation requires that a period of time be specified, but the report author hasn't done that.

And apart from any legal issues, as a landlord I'd reject any report written by someone trying on a money making scam like that.