Landlord electric test C1 situations???

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.
Reject it on what basis? It's not a money-making scam - in fact it could be said to be best practice and inherently sensible. Otherwise a previous tenant could leave the installation unsafe for a future tenant. Change of occupancy is recommended with very good reason.
 
Sponsored Links
And that's what a visual inspection of the property is for. IME it's fairly easy to see if you've had a tenant who's keen to fiddle with stuff - and if there's any evidence of that then you consider whether a fresh inspection is justified.
Otherwise you can be talking of an inspection every 6 months for some properties. I've just had a tenant move out after just 8 months - due to a change in circumstances and them moving into supported accommodation. As they were definitely not the fiddling type, there was no concern about the state of the electrics.

And don't forget - you can have a property that's not safe even after an inspection. Sampling of accessories to look behind == all the rest are un-inspected. Sampling of sockets to test == all the rest untested and could be faulty.

Yes, I get that there are some reasons for "on change of tenant" - but lets be perfectly honest about this, for the bodies that promote it, one of the reasons is "makes more work for our members".

Regardless, for the purposes of the PRS legislation, it's not a permitted time period to put on the report.
 
Well this thread is about a rented property, and the bit used is "change of tenant" - so clearly the PRS legislation applies.
"change of tenant/owner", actually, so it was not written specifically to only apply to tenants, and was.

As I keep saying, even though the EICR in question clearly is 'relevant to' the PRS legislation (which doesn't mention EICRs), it vis merely a standard EICR, and the inspector is presumably free to make whatever recommendations he/she sees fit in that report as to when (in terms of time, changes in circumstances or whatever) the next inspection should be undertaken.
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.
With respect, I think you're interpretation of the legislation is probably verging on the 'pedantic' :)

3(1)(b) of the legislation does indeed say that a landlord must "ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals by a qualified person". However, it then defines what it means by "regular intervals" in that clause, when it goes on to say:
[3](2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph [3](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](3)(a) requires such inspection and testing to be at intervals of less than 5 years, at the intervals specified in that report.
It surely could not be any clearer than that, could it? It is saying that the requirement for inspections "at regular intervals" is satisfied by any interval which is no greater than 5 years, and no greater than any shorter period specified in the report.

So, regarding "regular intervals", no matter what your dictionary may say about the meaning of "regular intervals", nothing in the legislation requires that the intervals between inspections be equal, nor does it specify what criteria may (or may not) be used by the inspector in determining when to recommend that the next inspection should be undertaken (if less than 5 years), does it? You presumably aren't suggesting that a landlord would be in breach of the legislation if the interval between the most recent two inspections was different from that between the previous two, are you?

As for the legislation requiring "that a period of time be specified", I presume you are referring to 3(3)(a), which says that, after the inspection has been undertaken, the landlord must "obtain a report from the person conducting that inspection and test, which gives the results of the inspection and test and the date of the next inspection and test". My suggestion of 'verging on the pedantic' arises because you are taking "date of the next..." totally literally - i.e. you believe that the requirement can only be satisfied by an explicit calendar date - but I am far from convinced that is the intended interpretation.

There are plenty of situations in which a scheduled 'regular' date of some sort of 'inspection' (in the broadest sense) may be conditionally over-ridden by intervening (and not predictable) events - such as a 12-month vehicle service or a 12-month routine hospital follow-up appointment (dates which may be over-ridden by mileage or new features of disease respectively).

Returning to context, I can think of at least one situation in which it might be very reasonable, in the interests of safety, for an EICR inspector to recommend a further inspection 'on change of tenant' (or at 5 years, whichever sooner). If, during the course of an EICR inspection, the inspector found things which he/she believed were evidence that the current tenant had 'been tampering with' the electrical installation, I would think it would be very reasonable for the inspector to recommend an inspection if/when that tenant was replaced by a new one (even though the inspector could not oput a "date" on when that might happen), wouldn't it?


Kind Regards, John
 
Returning to context, I can think of at least one situation in which it might be very reasonable, in the interests of safety, for an EICR inspector to recommend a further inspection 'on change of tenant' (or at 5 years, whichever sooner). If, during the course of an EICR inspection, the inspector found things which he/she believed were evidence that the current tenant had 'been tampering with' the electrical installation, I would think it would be very reasonable for the inspector to recommend an inspection if/when that tenant was replaced by a new one (even though the inspector could not oput a "date" on when that might happen), wouldn't it?
The inspector could recommend it, and note the situation on the observations page - and under separate legislation that would put an onus on the landlord to address the state of the electrics when the tenant moves out. But the report is a report on the condition of the installation at the time of the report, it is not a report on the hypothetical situation at some arbitrary time in the future. And unless the departure date of the tenant is known at the time of the inspection, then the inspector cannot correctly complete his report (for the purposes of the PRS electrical safety legislation) by setting a condition of when the tenant leaves.

But as we're going around in circles on this one, I think we'll need to agree to disagree.
 
Sponsored Links
The inspector could recommend it, and note the situation on the observations page ....
Providing such a recommendation is surely exactly what the inspector did (in the 'Recommendations' section) when he/she wrote:

upload_2021-6-11_16-16-20.png


... But the report is a report on the condition of the installation at the time of the report, it is not a report on the hypothetical situation at some arbitrary time in the future.
The text in the report which immediately follows the above quote is ..

upload_2021-6-11_16-21-1.png


... and I would suggest that, in the 'hypothetical situation' I mentioned, it would be valid for an inspector to recommend that an inspection be undertaken when the present tenant leaves if he/she has reason to "reasonably expect" that the current tenant might undertake 'detrimental maintenance' during their tenancy.
And unless the departure date of the tenant is known at the time of the inspection, then the inspector cannot correctly complete his report (for the purposes of the PRS electrical safety legislation) by setting a condition of when the tenant leaves.
Well, for a start, I suspect that you might well be saying similar things even if the departure date of the tenant were known and that the inspector recommended that particular date for the next inspection.

However, more generally, although I'm no lawyer, I'm not at all sure that the law is quite as obsessed as you apparently are with the need for 'a date' to be a 'calendar date', rather than a date determined by the (unpredictable) occurrence of some event. For example, I have plenty of insurance policies which (presumably acceptable in law) indicate that (in order to remain valid) they have to be "reviewed" in the event of any 'changes in circumstances' (on unknown dates), in addition to the routine scheduled 'reviews' at the date of renewal of the policy (annually or whatever).

Kind Regards, John
 
For example, I have plenty of insurance policies which (presumably acceptable in law) indicate that (in order to remain valid) they have to be "reviewed" in the event of any 'changes in circumstances' (on unknown dates), in addition to the routine scheduled 'reviews' at the date of renewal of the policy (annually or whatever).
There's a difference between a contract which states such unknown events as triggering something, and a law which explicitly says that a DATE must be given (which must be a fixed date since it is required to be on the report).
But I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. IMO, if the date for next inspection isn't expressed as a fixed time interval or date, then it's not valid for the purposes of the PRS electrical safety legislation. And note that whilst having significantly tighter regulations for gas, there's no hint of a requirement for safety checks at change of tenant.
 
There's a difference between a contract which states such unknown events as triggering something, and a law which explicitly says that a DATE must be given (which must be a fixed date since it is required to be on the report) .... But I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. IMO, if the date for next inspection isn't expressed as a fixed time interval or date, then it's not valid for the purposes of the PRS electrical safety legislation.
Well, for a start, as I keep saying, it is 'just an EICR', not necessarily a 'report which is valid for the purposes of the PRS legislation' - so, depending on what he/she was contracted to do, it might not be their 'fault' even if it were not valid for the purposes of the legislation (i.e. if what had been commissioned was just "an EICR").

We don't need to 'agree to disagree' since, as I've indicated, since I'm no lawyer, I'm merely expressing uncertainty (which may be unfounded) as to whether what you're saying is actually true in law - but I will ask my 'offspring lawyer' when I next see her!

In essence, I am not as convinced as you are that when legislation calls for a 'date', it has to be an explicit calendar date. Given my age, there is certainly legislation that requires me to answer questions about my health etc. "3 years after I last did so (i.e. on an explicit date) OR at an earlier data in the event of any relevant changes arise" in order to maintain my driving licence - and I'm not convinced that is materially different from "5 years from the date of previous inspection OR on change of tenant/owner".

If I get a chance (and remember!) to ask her, I'll let you know what my daughter thinks.

Kind Regards, John
 
Where does the PRS legislation require a new inspection on change of tenancy?
That's how I read the rules, however I admit I've read much contradictory text and there is a lot of confusion about it.

But I look at this topic as a landlord so the major part of my reading is the .gov documentation for landlords, rather than electrical regs, half of that is via managing agents and both of those have sent me pretty much identical documents.
 
Last edited:
That's how I read the rules, however I admit I've read much contradictory text and there is a lot of confusion about it.
I think the legislation itself is fairly clear in not requiring an electrical inspection on change of tenancy (other than for the first new tenancy starting after introduction of the legislation) ... (with my emboldening)
3.—(1) A private landlord who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—
(a)ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy;
(b)ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals by a qualified person; and
(c)ensure the first inspection and testing is carried out—
(i)before the tenancy commences in relation to a new specified tenancy; or
(ii)by 1st April 2021 in relation to an existing specified tenancy.​
(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.​
I suspect that those who think that inspections are required on change of tenancy are probably mis-reading/misinterpreting 3(1)(c)(i) - which (it seems to me) applies only to the first inspection required after introduction of the legislation.

Kind Regards, John
 
Yes.

I haven't read all the thread but got the impression people thought it was required - but could see nothing in the legislation so wondered if I had missed something.
 
Yes. I haven't read all the thread but got the impression people thought it was required - but could see nothing in the legislation so wondered if I had missed something.
Aas I just wrote, I think the only thing you may have 'missed' is that many people seem to be reading the requirement for a 'first inspection' under the legislation to be undertaken prior to commencement of a new tenancy to be requiring an inspection on every change of tenancy - which, as I said, I don't believe is what the legislation is saying.

Kind Regards, John
 
I suspect that those who think that inspections are required on change of tenancy are probably mis-reading/misinterpreting 3(1)(c)(i) - which (it seems to me) applies only to the first inspection required after introduction of the legislation.
No, it predates that and goes back to guidance issued by the trade scams many years ago - i.e. what they would have liked to have been law for the financial benefit of themselves.
 
Stricktly speaking at a change of tenancy is a good idea anyway as it would become a good tool against rogue tenants. When inspections have occured (particularly in commercial properties) it's been very handy when the tenant tries to worm their way out of their little deposit defending schemes.
 
No, it predates that and goes back to guidance issued by the trade scams many years ago - i.e. what they would have liked to have been law for the financial benefit of themselves.
That may be the case, but we're now talking about legislation that came onto force only about 1 year ago, so was clearly pre-dated by the prior guidances to which you refer.
Stricktly speaking at a change of tenancy is a good idea anyway as it would become a good tool against rogue tenants. When inspections have occured (particularly in commercial properties) it's been very handy when the tenant tries to worm their way out of their little deposit defending schemes.
Yes, I think we've already agreed that it is probably a fairly good idea. However, as someone pointed out, that can be a pain (and expense) for landlords if there is a series of very short tenancies - and particularly if each inspection results in some sort of electrician (or 'electrician') 'trying it on' with a series of crazy C2s!

I may be totally wrong (since it's something I know very little about) but I have a vague recollection that there has been a requirement for electrical inspections on change of tenancy in Scotland for quite some time.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top