New Rules for Metal Boxes in rental properties

[JohnW2]

I haven't actually gone back over the thread, but frequently edited quotes are posted which changes the context and sometimes the reply is made within the quotes [I've got it wrong myself so I understand how easily it happens].

Indeed. That's all true, and I'm sure we've all be guilty at times. However, as I said, on this occasion what we saw was nothing to do with quoting, or editing of quoting, but merely a bit of a mess resulting from a misbehaving brain and/or disobedient typing fingers - which, again, are things that some of us (particularly me!) not infrequently experience!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

However, you haven't commented on what was probably my greatest implied question - i.e. if a particular installation is considered to be 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if it were installed in, say, 1994, how can exactly the same installation be regarded as not 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if installed in 2002, 2009 or 2020 - or, conversely, if it is considered to not be 'acceptably safe' in 2020 if it were installed in, say, 2002, 2009 or 2020, how can exactly the same installation be regarded as being 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if installed in, say, 1993?

You are correct, in essence the code C2 has nothing to do with when installed, or what BS 7671 says, yes a C3 may reflect what BS 7671 says, but not the C2, and not even sure about C3 due to the removal of code 4 it seems we are not considering what BS 7671 says should be done with a new installation, all we are considering is the safety of the existing installation.

My problem which at the start I did not consider, is where the opponents of a building have reduced mental capacity. As a result we may have special needs, so I am considering my mother who with poor eye sight macular degeneration and alzheimer's disease, put an extension lead in a bucket of water because she thought it was on fire after seeing the neon.

So in a private home I was free to have house rewired and RCD protection installed, but if the home was rented, what should be done? Be it a child or adult we have not just ordinary persons, and the landlord has little control over the health or behaviour of his tenants.

Attitudes and methods of looking after the old have changed, the idea of the care home which to be frank the waiting for god one is one of the better homes, seems to be now last resort, we try not to institutionalise people if we can help it, so the home needs to reflect the changing needs, wider doors, stair lifts are easy to see, and install if required, but we note radiators without covers, but the electrics don't seem to be inspected so carefully when social services decide if the home is suitable.

So be it my 14 year old son who got his amateur radio licence, or my mother with alzheimer's disease, I have wanted RCD protection in the home.

So the big question if looking at safety, and not compliance, then can one pass a home today without RCD's fitted? So we have the ShockGuard lamp holder that automatically shields contacts as soon as lamp is removed, should these be fitted to lamps lower than 2 meters from floor? I had two shocks as a boy, one from tape recorder, and one from a lamp holder without a bulb in it. So why should I want all bulb holders not on ceiling to IP2X or better?

In other words as soon as we say we are not using BS 7671 to decide what passes and what fails, we start to use risk assessment, and could even fail some thing which passes BS 7671:2018.

OK personally I would say as before to any edition of BS 7671, that is reasonably safe, and if there are special needs, then these are over and above that requirement in the same way as not all house fitted with stair lifts. It is up to social services to stipulate extra protection when required, as to if you trust them is another thing, I had one wanting bits of plastic put into socket outlets, I said only if marked BS 1362, and she could not find one so marked.

The new law should have never used the existing EICR, it should have been designed specially for rental homes, not even saying property as the home is some thing special.

After my mother dropped the extension lead in the bucket of water it was apparent the house needed rewiring as the 1954 wiring would not work with a RCD. She went into hospital and then a care home while deciding what was next move, and I had the house rewired, from deciding to do it, to being completed it took 11 weeks, mother was away for 12 weeks I had a week to spare, not 28 days, 11 weeks. Yes the actually rewire was done in a week, but once I found some one it was not OK I will start tomorrow, and no one is likely to find an electrical firm who can do repairs that fast.

Even my own house, first week I found a second fuse box hidden in ceiling, I knew it needed moving ASAP. However it was 6 months before it was actually moved, and upgraded to all RCBO.

My car MOT runs out in November, I will not get it tested until October, or I will have to get it done earlier next year, so 1st April 2021 we know there will be 1000's of EICR's due, there will be so much work required even if inspected to 1992 standards, and there is no way in the world the repairs can be done in 28 days.

I see adverts "EICR from £79" could not even do a caravan properly for that. I remember my first PIR as it was called then, for the exam we had a board, it took an hour to test a 1.5 meter square board, at that rate allowing for minor repairs unlikely to do more than a house a day, and your not going to start one day and finish the next, so would expect a days wages what ever size until it has to be split into sections and a section per day.

 

[JohnW2]

You are correct, in essence the code C2 has nothing to do with when installed ...

If one takes your view that anything which was compliant when installed under BS7671:1992 (or later) should never be given a C2, then I suppose what you say is inevitably right. However, as I've said, I don't know enough about the requirements of the 1992 regs to know if I would personally agree with that 'never'.

... or what BS 7671 says ...

I don't really understand that. I find it hard to see how one could give any code, C2 or otherwise, to something which was fully compliant with BS 7671, since one has to be able to indicate what regulation has been contravened (even if it has to be one of the vague 'catch all' ones, which obviously invokes a lot of individual judgement).

... yes a C3 may reflect what BS 7671 says, but not the C2, and not even sure about C3 due to the removal of code 4 it seems we are not considering what BS 7671 says should be done with a new installation, all we are considering is the safety of the existing installation.

That's not my understanding, and nor do I think it's how most electricians feel about EICRs. I think that most believe (even though we have unfortunately lost the C4) that any non-compliance with the current version of BS7671 should be identified (and 'coded') on an EICR - so, in the absence of a C$, the 'least' one can do is to give a C3 to anything which is non-compliant.

My problem which at the start I did not consider, is where the opponents of a building have reduced mental capacity. As a result we may have special needs, so I am considering my mother who with poor eye sight macular degeneration and alzheimer's disease, put an extension lead in a bucket of water because she thought it was on fire after seeing the neon.

I think you are probably moving the goalposts and over-interpreting the purpose and scope of an EICR. As above, I think the (only) purpose of an EICR is to identify any/all aspects of an electrical installation which do not comply with the minimum requirements specified in the current edition of BS7671 - and those are obviously minimum requirements which have to be appropriate for any property. However, there are always going to be buildings which, because of their nature/use/location and/or the nature of the occupants, will have safety requirements which go beyond the 'general' minimum requirements - so that is 'over and above' the requirements of BS7671 (hence EICRs) and, in general, can only really be decided on a case-by-case (or 'type of case'-by-'type of case' basis) risk assessment.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I agree with @JohnW2 but one last spanner in the works, I a DIY guy does some electricial work he should complete a minor works or installation certificate, However often the LABC will not accept this from a non qualified guy, so want a third party inspector to look at the work, this guy can't produce an EIC he produces an EICR which the LABC will accept, if we agree to BS 7671:1992 shows safe, and C3 only given for things worth while up grading, then the job could be rather below standard for a new installation.

Personally don't think the LABC should use third party inspectors, but it does need considering.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with @JohnW2 but one last spanner in the works, I a DIY guy does some electricial work he should complete a minor works or installation certificate, However often the LABC will not accept this from a non qualified guy, so want a third party inspector to look at the work, this guy can't produce an EIC he produces an EICR which the LABC will accept, if we agree to BS 7671:1992 shows safe, and C3 only given for things worth while up grading, then the job could be rather below standard for a new installation.

Whilst it is true that someone who has not undertaken the work cannot provide an EIC or minor works certificate, I don't think you're right in saying that LABC would want, or necessarily accept, 'an EICR' in that situation.

What they would want in that situation would be (just) inspection and testing of the new work, specifically to confirm that the new work complied with the current edition of BS7671. It could well be that an electrician might, for convenience, use EICR form to report that I&T, but he/she would have to adapt their use of the form so as to identify (maybe by indicating that they had always given an EICR-style 'C3' in such situations) any non-compliances with the current version of BS7671, even if they did not feel they were "worth while up grading" - and the LABC would not (for this purpose) be expected to be satisfied with just a standard EICR 'pass' ("satisfactory" - i.e. no C1s or C2s), if there were some C3s.

In any event, the issue of work which had been compliant under BS7671:1992 would obviously not arise in this situation, since the inspector would only be asked to inspect and test the new work, all of which would have to be fully compliant with current regs.

A ('full') EICR would only be appropriate/required if the work done had been a total re-wire (or something close to that) (or a complete wiring by a non-electrician in a new 'self-build') - but, again, one would not expect an LABC to be satisfied with (for this purpose) an outcome which included any EICR-style C3s.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I know Flintshire would ask for an EICR they seemed to think it was same as EIC, I had an argument with them as they wanted me to pay for an EICR after doing some work, both my son and I have C&G 2391, so my son said well who ever does it will need to be better qualified to my father, and he has a degree, and only then did they back down and allow me to do my own EIC, when we came to sell house I could not find it, so thought OK I will apply to council for a replacement, which they could not provide, so all this registering of work with the council it seems is pointless, as no one knows if really inspected by them or not, in fact they never came near after the first visit the completion certificate was a rubber stamp in practice, even missed a lintel only supported on one side.

 

[JohnW2]

I know Flintshire would ask for an EICR they seemed to think it was same as EIC ....

As I said, that could be very stupid. If, by "an EICR" you mean 'a full EICR' (of the installation), it would surely be ridiculous for them to ask for that if the work concerned were very limited and trivial (particularly in Wales). Would they really ask for 'a full EICR' if the work had been, say (in Wales), addition of one socket to an existing circuit in a kitchen?

Also, if they are that ignorant, they might just look at an EICR as one normally would, and 'accept' it if the overall assessment is 'satisfactory' (i.e. no C1s or C2s) - but, as discussed, if there were any C3s, then that should not be regarded as acceptable for 'new work' (i.e. one would not have been able to honestly sign an EIC or minor works cert, declaring that the work was fully compliant with current BS7671).

... only then did they back down and allow me to do my own EIC, when we came to sell house I could not find it, so thought OK I will apply to council for a replacement, which they could not provide ....

I've never understood all the concerns we hear in relation to house selling. If a seller is asked for documentation relating to past electrical work then, if it has been lost (or, indeed, if it never existed), they simply need to say that they don't have any to provide (which is the truth), and that's the end of it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I've never understood all the concerns we hear in relation to house selling. If a seller is asked for documentation relating to past electrical work then, if it has been lost (or, indeed, if it never existed), they simply need to say that they don't have any to provide (which is the truth), and that's the end of it.

If your lacking the paperwork you need to take out insurance, so better if you have it. However the completion certificate is not linked in any way to the installation certificate, so I could have reprinted the installation certificate to include anything I wanted, so unless got from the LABC rather than vendor it is no better than a hand shake.

In fact I was supplied with the installation certificate and compliance certificate for this house, and it turned out only be be for the flat built under the house in the old garage.

 

[JohnW2]

If your lacking the paperwork you need to take out insurance, so better if you have it.

That's surely nonsense - insurance against what? If you have been honest in saying that you don't have any paperwork, then what claim against you could anyone have?

I see a lot of this, in relation to the sale of houses which have either been repossessed or whose owner has died or otherwise 'disappeared'. In all of those situations it is fairly rare for any paperwork relating to previous works to be available or, indeed, for anyone even to know what works may have been undertaken in the past. We simply tell a prospective buyer (truthfully) that we have no paperwork and/or that we don't know what works may have been done in the past, and it's then down to them to decide whether they want to buy on the basis of what we have (honestly) told them. I don't see how they could have any claim against us that we needed to insure against.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I am not a lawyer, so don't know answer as to why, but had I not found paperwork there would it seems have been a small charge, but it was really small, can't remember exactly but on whole scheme of things for sale of house £100 is nothing.

I would guess it covers when the LABC is informed work is to be carrier out and it transpires they have not been informed about the last lot. Although it seems unlikely there would ever be a claim so rather pointless, I know when my daughter moved house money was held back due to roads unfinished, she had a surprise when money sent to her, had forgotten all about it.

My mothers house was finished 1954 and the road finally surfaced in around 1958, maybe they are faster today?

 

[JohnW2]

I am not a lawyer, so don't know answer as to why, but had I not found paperwork there would it seems have been a small charge ...

A small charge payable to whom?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

If your lacking the paperwork you need to take out insurance ...

That's something of an over-simplification.
You do not have to do anything. You just fill in the disclosure forms truthfully and leave it to a potential buyer to decide what they want to do. And there is a time limit (4 years IIRC) for enforcement action of building regs non-compliances.
What may happen is that a potential buyer may insist on you providing indemnity insurance - I did that when we bought our current house, but for different reasons related to covenants attached to the property. Such a policy is merely insurance to cover the costs of dealing with future enforcement action should there be (e.g. in this case) issues with building regs compliance. But if it is merely a case of non-notification of compliant electrical works, then even the inflated regularisation fees charged by our LABC aren't huge.
Of course, if a buyer does ask for such a policy, it is a matter for negotiation as part of the whole package as to whether you provide it and who pays for it.

 

[JohnW2]

That's something of an over-simplification. You do not have to do anything. You just fill in the disclosure forms truthfully and leave it to a potential buyer to decide what they want to do. And there is a time limit (4 years IIRC) for enforcement action of building regs non-compliances.

Indeed.

What may happen is that a potential buyer may insist on you providing indemnity insurance - I did that when we bought our current house, but for different reasons related to covenants attached to the property. Such a policy is merely insurance to cover the costs of dealing with future enforcement action should there be (e.g. in this case) issues with building regs compliance.

It seems to be quite common. However, it has been suggested to me by the legal brains in my family that, in the sort of context we are taking about, this concept of legal indemnity insurance provided (by a seller) may well be 'legally fatally flawed' - and perhaps perpetuated by commissions that solicitors/conveyancers get for arranging such policies! It is not really possible (and not lawful, in the case of criminal acts) to insure oneself against the financial consequences of deliberate acts or omissions on one's own part - and no insurance company is its right mind would insure anyone against the consequences of an act that they had, or may have, already committed!

What is possible, and perfectly reasonable, is for a buyer to insure themselves about the possible financial consequences of someone else's (perhaps criminal) acts - just as when we insure a car or the contents of our house against theft. If that is done, then the buyer is obviously free to try to recover the cost of the policy from the buyer - but, as you go on to say, that's just part of the overall negotiation about money.

What I don't understand about what eric appeared to be saying was that, as I understand it, he had a Completion Certificate (hence presumably no risk of any subsequent enforcement action) but was nevertheless told that he 'had to pay for insurance' if he couldn't produce the corresponding EIC. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

What I don't understand about what eric appeared to be saying was that, as I understand it, he had a Completion Certificate (hence presumably no risk of any subsequent enforcement action) but was nevertheless told that he 'had to pay for insurance' if he couldn't produce the corresponding EIC.

I read it as he could re-print the EIC but could not get a copy of the lost LABC completion certificate. In that case, there is no proof from the PoV of a buyer that the work has been notified to, and signed off by, the LABC.
So from the PoV of the buyer, there is therefore a risk of LABC taking action for non-notified works. Obviously the level of that risk depends on the sort of work involved - fairly minor for (e.g.) adding a new circuit, but could be considerable if there's been building work. While action is (IIRC) time limited to 4 years, LABC have the power to force you to (in an extreme case) pull down (and rebuild if you want it) an extension if it's deemed unsafe.

 

[JohnW2]

I read it as he could re-print the EIC but could not get a copy of the lost LABC completion certificate. In that case, there is no proof from the PoV of a buyer that the work has been notified to, and signed off by, the LABC.
So from the PoV of the buyer, there is therefore a risk of LABC taking action for non-notified works.

I'm rather confused.

For a start, the LA search performed by a buyer's solicitor/conveyance includes a search of the 'Building Regulations history" of the property - so the buyer will be aware of any applications or issues of Completion Certificates. I suppose that, if one doesn't actually have the certificate, it may in some cases not be certain that a particular Completion Certificate relates to the work of interest, but I would think that would be fairly rare.

Secondly, if you look around you will see that most/all LA's offer a facility for searching for applications and Completion Certificates and the issue of replacement copies of Completion Certificates. For example, Powys (relevant to eric) (click here) say ...

If a replacement Building Regulations Completion certificate is required you should contact Building Control. A fee of £35 will be payable and can be taken over the phone. The replacement certificate can then either be posted or emailed to you and/or your solicitor.

... so I don't know where the informatioin that he could not get a copy of the lost certificate came from.

Obviously the level of that risk depends on the sort of work involved - fairly minor for (e.g.) adding a new circuit, but could be considerable if there's been building work. While action is (IIRC) time limited to 4 years, LABC have the power to force you to (in an extreme case) pull down (and rebuild if you want it) an extension if it's deemed unsafe.

As I understand it, the time limits are 2 years for prosecuting (where appropriate) the person who undertook the work and 12 months (after work completion) for issuing enforcement notices - which I would have thought will nearly always make nonsense of these 'indemnity insurances', even if they are valid.

One interesting thing I came across when looking around this topic is that these 'indemnity insurances' are nearly always invalidated if the policyholder, or anyone associated with them, has ever made an enquiring of the LA regarding LABC approvals. I suppose that makes sense since, if one has made such enquiries, one would then be seeking 'insurance' in relation to something which was a known fact! - i.e. if it is known that work was undertaken without permission (within a timeframe that could lead to an enforcement notice), once cannot insure against the 'possibility' of that being the case!

Kind Regards, John