Landlord electrical safety

[JohnW2]

Next time you have a report done, emphasise that the inspector will not be given any of the remedial work required.

That's very good advice. When I (or, much more often, family member) commission 'inspections' we always make it very clear up-front that if the inspection suggests that anything more than trivial remedial work is required then (a) we will get another 'second opinion' inspection undertaken and (b) as a matter principle, would never look to the person who performed the inspection to undertake any remedial work.

Interestingly, and somewhat worryingly, a significant proportion of potential 'inspectors' turn down the work once they have been told that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The problem as I see it, there is no real standard, in the early days of MOT testing we had government issued books which listed what the limits were, how much play on a king pin etc. I was not some organisation giving helpful advise, it was government controlled, and if it said in the book with an inch thick king pin your allowed 1/16 inch play then if you argued it was dial gauge out and accurate measurement, it was not left to testers discretion, and when we went with a road sweeper and a hardy splicer was found to have gone on the sweeper drive, he pointed it out, but could not fail it as that was beyond his remit.

As with electricity in the home a road vehicle is dangerous even when in tip top condition, and it has been felt over the years that improvements are required, and it has not been a simple they were not fitted when built so are not required, there was a date of registering after seat belts had to be included, same with rear guard fog lights, so there was a mixture of items which had to be upgraded and items if not included when built were not required.

We need the same government guide lines as to what should be fitted in a home. Like a car service with an EICR the owner can decide what he wants, when the MOT came out they did not say all vehicles must be serviced as recommended by the industry, it listed some critical items which your forced to have up to standard or fitted if missing.

The EICR was never designed as a government tool. I should do one, or have one done every 10 years for domestic, but the new land lord rules are asking for it more regular, and as said we would give advice beyond our remit, now we need to keep within the remit, which also means those doing the inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment must test all electrical equipment in the home, including the heating if electric powered. The idea of doing a quick PAT testing course and doing it is now out.

 

[Adam_151]

That's very good advice. When I (or, much more often, family member) commission 'inspections' we always make it very clear up-front that if the inspection suggests that anything more than trivial remedial work is required then (a) we will get another 'second opinion' inspection undertaken and (b) as a matter principle, would never look to the person who performed the inspection to undertake any remedial work.

Interestingly, and somewhat worryingly, a significant proportion of potential 'inspectors' turn down the work once they have been told that!

I can see both plus'es and minus'es with that John, It does deal with the "your gonna need a new consumer unit mate, gonna cost ya I'm afraid" sector, and while I wouldn't turn down I&T work on being told that (I'm happy avoiding domestic remedials were possible), it does possibly mean some might see you as an 'awkward customer' and also opens up the following issues:

(There might be more of a commercial/industrial angle to this, but to give an idea of the issues)

EICR gets sent to another contractor, most of them are vague 'Broken socket' yes, but where.... do I need to spend an hour looking for it? or is it in the entrance?. 'No RCD protection to circuits which require it'... Which circuits, what boards, what makes them require it? Throw in a few more issues which don't make a lot of sense, some more that are downright wrong, made up test results (>200 for every single circuit, not only to earth but L-N as well). So you end up pricing high to cover for the things you don't know about, then when you are done, if the same contractor did the remedials then they can offer a cover letter "We have addressed defects 1,2,3, 8, 10, 11 on eicr reference xyz, the report can now be read as being in satisfactory condition". Now if they didn't do the testing and have doubts about it, it might read "We have addressed defects 1,2,3, 8, 10, 11 on eicr reference xyz carried out by A.N. OTHER , while we advise that these defects have been repaired to a satisfactory condition, we are unable to confirm that the installation as a whole is in a satisfactory condition"

There is no easy answer, though I do wonder if there is a market for testing only contractors, who do a reasonable job, give reasonable descriptions of the issues, and maybe include for a bit time made available to talk to the chosen remedial contractors, maybe even issue a separate sheet making recommendations on how to address each issue raised so it can be priced effectivly and will return after the remedials have been carried out and make small amounts for further I&T to confirm issues have been addressed and issue a covering letter "After carrying out suitable inspections and reviewing the certfication issued, I can confirm that issues 1,2,3,8,10,11 on eicr xyz have been addressed by others to a satisfactory standard and that the EICR may be read as being in a satisfactor condition...... Who am I kidding?, certainly not in the domestic sector, it would cost more, and most places don't want it done properly in a way that actually finds issues.....

There are a lot of EICRs that are a complete shambles, and these latest PRS requirements will do nothing to address the problems with them, and i'll probably make it worse as more and more jump on the latest bandwagon

 

[SUNRAY]

I like the comparison between MOT & EICR however there is an element of who and where with MOT's already, take it to a quick fit style of inspection and they're more likely to fail brakes, tyres or exhaust than a loose seat for example. This is then repaired by them and chances are signed off as retested for free. However if you take the vehicle elsewhere for repair there may be 2 options: 1) they do the repair and you return to the original place for a full price retest, or 2) they say the fault doesn't exist and you have 2 options: 2a) go back the the original and get them to do the unnecessary repair or 2b) ask them to do another MOT and they, being tuning specialists now find you have an emissions issue...
Another point; my MOT passes come back with several points untested as they cant get to them, seat beltmountings and steering come to mind but I can't think of the other point. So basically I'm getting an incomplete test with unknown problems.
If the EICR were to be 'brought into line with MOT's' which is a very likely scenario then I truly hope more safeguards are put in place but sadly I don't see it being any fairer.

 

[JohnW2]

I like the comparison between MOT & EICR however there is an element of who and where with MOT's already, take it to a quick fit style of inspection and they're more likely to fail brakes, tyres or exhaust than a loose seat for example. This is then repaired by them and chances are signed off as retested for free.

I was about to talk about the MOT analogy (or otherwise) in a reply to Adam's recent post!

This is a major difference between MOTs and EICRs. With MOTs there's no "... and chances are ...". If one leaves the vehicle at the 'test centre' for repairs, then they are obliged (by law) to re-test and issue a 'pass' MOT certificate without charge. With EICRs, if one lets the EICR inspector' do the remedial work, there's obviously no obligation on them (legal or otherwise) to produce a new, 'clean' EICR after completing the work - and, at least in my experience, few, if any, will volunteer to do that for no extra charge.

There is also a long list of (mainly minor) 'fail problems' (including tyre replacement) in relation to which the original tester is obliged to undertake a free 'partial retest' (and provide a pass cert) if one returns the vehicle to the original 'test centre' the next working day - see (here) .

However if you take the vehicle elsewhere for repair there may be 2 options: 1) they do the repair and you return to the original place for a full price retest, ....

Not necessarily. If you take it back to the original test centre within 10 days, only a 'partial retest' (of the items which failed) is required, for which a 'partial retest fee' (but never a full fee) 'may' be charged. After 10 days, yes, you would have to pay for a 'full price retest'.

... or 2) they say the fault doesn't exist and you have 2 options: 2a) go back the the original and get them to do the unnecessary repair or 2b) ask them to do another MOT and they, being tuning specialists now find you have an emissions issue...

Any of that is possible. However, in that situation, 2(b) will usually result in your getting a clean MOT cert (NOT some new problem being found) - at 'full price' but, nevertheless, very probably less than you would have paid for the 'unnecessary' repair.

One catch these days is that if any 'dangerous' problems are reported on the initial MOT failure paperwork, one is not allowed to drive the car to anywhere else for repair, leaving one with few options. I suppose that is analgous to a C1 in an EICR but, again, that does not oblige one to get the inspector undertake the remedial work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I can see both plus'es and minus'es with that John, It does deal with the "your gonna need a new consumer unit mate, gonna cost ya I'm afraid" sector, and while I wouldn't turn down I&T work on being told that (I'm happy avoiding domestic remedials were possible), it does possibly mean some might see you as an 'awkward customer'

True, but if the result of being regarded as an 'awkward customer' was that they produced a 'pedantic' EICR, then they would only get away with that once, since I would never again be their customer, 'awkward' or otherwise.

However, I my have mislead a little, since I was essentially talking about our approach to 'unknown' people being invited to do EICRs (something which is increasingly uncommon). We have built up a collection of highly trusted/trustworthy and competent electricians who undertake remedial work (and, quite often, full re-wires) for us, and we will often use them for EICRs (and the subsequent remedial work). It was in the early days that we had to do as I suggested, and I have to admit that, in some cases, we went back on what we had said - i.e. if we were impressed with the way in which they were doing just EICRs (don't forget, I 'know a little' myself ), we eventually started using some of them for remedial work as well.

... and also opens up the following issues: ..... then when you are done, if the same contractor did the remedials then they can offer a cover letter "We have addressed defects 1,2,3, 8, 10, 11 on eicr reference xyz, the report can now be read as being in satisfactory condition". Now if they didn't do the testing and have doubts about it, it might read "We have addressed defects 1,2,3, 8, 10, 11 on eicr reference xyz carried out by A.N. OTHER , while we advise that these defects have been repaired to a satisfactory condition, we are unable to confirm that the installation as a whole is in a satisfactory condition"

Yes, that is a potential issue (although, in my experience, probably less often as significant a problem as you imply) - although, in my experience, neither the same nor different contractors will usually volunteer a covering letter quite as you have suggested (they merely produce an EIC relating to what work they have done). What those people who commission EICRs really want is something much closer to the MOT test situation. They don't really want a 'fail' EICR plus a covering letter - they want a 'partial re-test' (of the problems that have been addressed) followed by issue of a new, 'clean' EICR - just as is the case with MOTs!

There is no easy answer, though I do wonder if there is a market for testing only contractors, who do a reasonable job, give reasonable descriptions of the issues, and maybe include for a bit time made available to talk to the chosen remedial contractors, maybe even issue a separate sheet making recommendations on how to address each issue raised so it can be priced effectivly and will return after the remedials have been carried out and make small amounts for further I&T to confirm issues have been addressed ...

A few such people do exist, although I wonder whether it is an attractive enough occupation (financially {whilst offering acceptable prices to customers} and otherwise) to attract people as competent as one would hope for ...

... and issue a covering letter "After carrying out suitable inspections and reviewing the certfication issued, I can confirm that issues 1,2,3,8,10,11 on eicr xyz have been addressed by others to a satisfactory standard and that the EICR may be read as being in a satisfactor condition......

Again, I would prefer the equivalent to the MOT situation - not a 'failed EICR plus a covering letter' but, rather a 'free' (included in initial pricing) re-test of 'remedied' problems with issue of a new, 'clean' ('pass') EICR.

Who am I kidding?...

Quite. Unfortunately. most of what we are discussing is unlikely to happen and, as you say, EICRs are likely to get sillier and sillier! I think I'm probably glad that I'm not an electrician!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I was about to talk about the MOT analogy (or otherwise) in a reply to Adam's recent post!

This is a major difference between MOTs and EICRs. With MOTs there's no "... and chances are ...". If one leaves the vehicle at the 'test centre' for repairs, then they are obliged (by law) to re-test and issue a 'pass' MOT certificate without charge. With EICRs, if one lets the EICR inspector' do the remedial work, there's obviously no obligation on them (legal or otherwise) to produce a new, 'clean' EICR after completing the work - and, at least in my experience, few, if any, will volunteer to do that for no extra charge.

There is also a long list of (mainly minor) 'fail problems' (including tyre replacement) in relation to which the original tester is obliged to undertake a free 'partial retest' (and provide a pass cert) if one returns the vehicle to the original 'test centre' the next working day - see (here) .
Not necessarily. If you take it back to the original test centre within 10 days, only a 'partial retest' (of the items which failed) is required, for which a 'partial retest fee' (but never a full fee) 'may' be charged. After 10 days, yes, you would have to pay for a 'full price retest'.
Any of that is possible. However, in that situation, 2(b) will usually result in your getting a clean MOT cert (NOT some new problem being found) - at 'full price' but, nevertheless, very probably less than you would have paid for the 'unnecessary' repair.

One catch these days is that if any 'dangerous' problems are reported on the initial MOT failure paperwork, one is not allowed to drive the car to anywhere else for repair, leaving one with few options. I suppose that is analgous to a C1 in an EICR but, again, that does not oblige one to get the inspector undertake the remedial work.

Kind Regards, John

Yeah I'm fine with all of that, I was having a devils advocate moment just to highlight some of the pitfalls but I'm very out of date with MOT procedures as I've only had one failure since 1994. It was 10 years old [in fact 10 years and 7 days since purchased new] without a single fail or even advisory and it failed on steering, brakes [less than 6 months since new discs, pads, drum, shoes & rear cylinders at a fast fit garage] and drive shaft split rubber oh and 2 bulbs which had worked the previous evening. I decided it was good money after bad having spent a fair bit on it in the last year and drove directly from there to a dealer selling a couple of pre registered cars and traded it in. Before that I don't think I ever had a free retest if I took it from the garage, even on the same day.

 

[SUNRAY]

The crazy situation is I'm not electrically qualified, however I've subbed to several companies and done electrical work, testing & EICR's for them which they then write up. However for my own properties I've asked them for paperwork and refused to do the tools side of it to avoid any conflict of interest but the result is I have a selection of qualified people who I trust implicitly [EDIT and some I wouldn't trust to change a fuse].
One found a shower feed in one of my properties with what looked like 10mm² T&E but was really 4mm² with crimped joints near the ends and he didn't like the variation of resistance between L & E wires.

 

[JohnW2]

Yeah I'm fine with all of that, I was having a devils advocate moment just to highlight some of the pitfalls but I'm very out of date with MOT procedures as I've only had one failure since 1994.

Fair enough, but this discussion has rather slid!

The point I was trying to make was that (although difficult, since they are not really 'regulated') EICRs could probably learn quite a bit from the MOT situation - in particular, being priced such that they included a 'free partial re-test' (with issue of a revised, 'clean', EICR if appropriate) by the original EICR 'inspector' if remedial work was done (by a third party or themselves) within a period (10 days probably too little for electrical remedial work).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Fair enough, but this discussion has rather slid!

The point I was trying to make was that (although difficult, since they are not really 'regulated') EICRs could probably learn quite a bit from the MOT situation - in particular, being priced such that they included a 'free partial re-test' (with issue of a revised, 'clean', EICR if appropriate) by the original EICR 'inspector' if remedial work was done (by a third party or themselves) within a period (10 days probably too little for electrical remedial work).

Kind Regards, John

I would hope so too but all I see is the price rising rapidly as a the installation in property cannot be controlled in the same way as a vehicle unless 'new installation' inspectors are introduced before the property is registered [just like a self build car].

 

[JohnW2]

I would hope so too but all I see is the price rising rapidly as a the installation in property cannot be controlled in the same way as a vehicle unless 'new installation' inspectors are introduced before the property is registered [just like a self build car].

I'm not quite sure what you are saying.

Of course, just as with 'free lunches', there is no such thing as a 'free partial re-test' for MOTs, and nor could there be for EICRs. In either case, I suppose the fairest thing is simply to charge for the re-test, since the alternative (as with MOTs) is that those who don't require re-rests (since they 'pass' the initial inspection) are subsidising those who do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

This is a major difference between MOTs and EICRs. With MOTs there's no "... and chances are ...". If one leaves the vehicle at the 'test centre' for repairs, then they are obliged (by law) to re-test and issue a 'pass' MOT certificate without charge. With EICRs, if one lets the EICR inspector' do the remedial work, there's obviously no obligation on them (legal or otherwise) to produce a new, 'clean' EICR after completing the work - and, at least in my experience, few, if any, will volunteer to do that for no extra charge.

As I read it, any remedial work for C2 or worse, must have a minor works or installation certificate raised within 28 days, so there is in a way no need for a new EICR under the new laws, just a minor works or installation certificate to show work corrected.

Where the problem arises is with an inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment repairs are recorded on the registers, and a new label is normally affixed to replace the failed one.

So the EICR and the for short lets call it PAT testing can't be mixed, as clearly if I replace an immersion thermostat for one with a cut out, this is a new bit of equipment so will not cause a minor works to be raised, so can't give an appliance a C2 as it is an appliance not a installation.

 

[aptsys]

As I read it, any remedial work for C2 or worse, must have a minor works or installation certificate raised within 28 days, so there is in a way no need for a new EICR under the new laws, just a minor works or installation certificate to show work corrected

With regards to rentals, the policy for many agencies is they require an EICR showing compliance with 18th edition. An unsatisfactory EICR plus a MWC or EIC for whatever reason is no good to them.

 

[davelx]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying.

Of course, just as with 'free lunches', there is no such thing as a 'free partial re-test' for MOTs,

Kind Regards, John

Actually, there is and always has been a 'free partial re-test' for MOTs:

"You only need a partial retest if you leave the vehicle at the test centre for repair and it’s retested within 10 working days. There’s no fee for this."

"You will not have to pay again if you take it back to the same test centre before the end of the next working day for a partial retest on one or more of these items: [long list of items follows]"

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/retests

 

[ericmark]

With regards to rentals, the policy for many agencies is they require an EICR showing compliance with 18th edition. An unsatisfactory EICR plus a MWC or EIC for whatever reason is no good to them.

If the agencies want a higher standard to what the law requires that is up to them, but compliance with 18th edition is misleading, as the 18th says it can comply with an earlier edition, so technically still complying with 18th Edition if installed in 2000 and it complies with BS7671:2001.

And the government document says the minor works or installation certificate must accompany the EICR to show work has been done, there is no government requirement for another EICR. As with an MOT the person writing any report must satisfy himself that no other faults have been introduced during any repair, so it would likely mean starting from scratch, so another fee charged, this is simply not required by the law, but agencies can ask for what they want.