Oh great, yet another scheme - PRS inspections !

[SimonH2]

The government have been running a working group on Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector, their first report can be found here.

Apart from making the old false statement that "RCDs are devices designed to prevent people from getting a fatal electric shock if they touch something live such as a bare wire." (Sec 24) they concluded that the current schemes for defining competent persons are not adequate - and so they propose setting up a whole new "PRS electrical testing competent person scheme".

The first thing that goes through my mind is that if you require sparkies to sign up for yet another scheme/register then a lot just won't bother - especially if it costs money (and can we realistically not expect there to be fees to cover the running costs ?). So the end result is that landlords are effectively forced to select from a smaller pool of sparkies for the mandatory EICRs.

Then I get to thinking ... yes I know that can be dangerous
If the concern is that some electricians are not competent for "inspection and testing of existing buildings where no electrical installation work was being carried out" - then how can they be competent to test where they are doing work ? And surely someone who isn't competent to test, isn't competent to do the work that will need testing afterwards ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why does no one care about home owners?

 

[flameport]

Probably end up like the energy ratings thing - get a load of people with no previous experience from totally unrelated industries, send them on a course for a day or three, then they are magically qualified to do drive by inspections which have next to no content and achieve nothing.

After a few months/years, prices for such 'inspections' are ground down to the lowest possible level, meaning anyone who is even slightly competent or concerned about doing a decent job is priced out of the market, only leaving those who specialise in quantity, not quality.
Maybe add in an amendment after a few years to water down the requirements even further in order to encourage more into the field and improve competition but actually have the opposite effect.

Also rather similar to portable appliance testing efforts.
Or Part P?
G3 unvented cylinders?
The list continues.

 

[john4703]

Why does no one care about home owners?

Because home owners do not earn income and so do not pay tax on that income. Landlords earn income so can be milked for every penny possible (Please remember that the government needs loads of cash to pay their wages)

 

[SimonH2]

Why does no one care about home owners?

The difference is that home owners a) generally look after stuff better than tenants, b) have self interest in things being safe, and most importantly c) if they DGAS then it's themselves that suffer. In the case of rented properties, the tenant isn't in charge of the electrical installation and some landlords are (to stay polite) rather lax in maintenance (it's an expense rather than an investment).
I'm happy that in both my properties, the only thing an EICR would pick up would be the plastic CU enclosure. When I look at some of the properties people I know are renting, I would expect a fairly significant list of C3s and C2s, and maybe some C1s.

 

[SimonH2]

Probably end up like the energy ratings thing - get a load of people with no previous experience from totally unrelated industries, send them on a course for a day or three, then they are magically qualified to do drive by inspections which have next to no content and achieve nothing.

To be fair, when I had an EPC done on our last house, it was very far from being a drive by job. He was quite detailed in what he looked at, and the only thing I wasn't happy with was the list of recommended "upgrades" with claimed payback times ranging from 17 years to 25 years !
In the case of EICRs, it seems that TPTB don't believe there is a good enough system in place to ensure that Mr Random Homeowner can pick a qualified person and be confident that that person is actually competent to do an EICR. If that's the case, then it must raise questions about the likes of NICEIC, NAPIT, etc schemes.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thank you, you two. I was being a little bit sarcastic, but -

In view of safety situation not really being a cause for concern, I tend to think John's explanation is nearer the real reason.

Especially as this Government has taken to bashing private landlords in a quite despicable manner which, I suspect, is merely a way of forcing sales by financially affected private landlords, which can then be bought by corporate landlords not subject to the same recent tax changes.
Much like Thatcher's selling off the council houses and any which became reposessed could be bought cheaply by the same.

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed, one of the underlying reasons for the tax changes is to persuade landlords to sell or buy less properties - under the misguided belief that this will allow people who are renting now to buy them. There's also a misguided belief that only large scale corporate landlords can provide what people are looking for

The problem with the argument is that if someone can't raise a deposit and get a mortgage, then they still can't buy and will have to carry on renting. But now there's less properties to rent, and rents will be higher (to pay for the tax) - so they'll find it even harder to save for a deposit. Since the number of properties being sold is going to be relatively small (compared to all the properties in the country), and there's a lot of pent up demand, it's not going to have a major effect on prices.
There have been a number of studies, and the latest figure I've read is that only 10% of houses for sale get offers from both landlords and private buyers (or something like that) - or put another way, landlords aren't in general buying up properties that first time buyers are trying to buy. It's also been stated that without cash-rich landlords (which doesn't include me ) buying off-plan (and hence paying a fair amount up front), there's a lot of developments that just wouldn't get built - not many homeowners have the wherewithal to buy a new house off-plan and wait for it to be built before they can move and sell their current one.

 

[Doggit]

Because home owners do not earn income and so do not pay tax on that income. Landlords earn income so can be milked for every penny possible (Please remember that the government needs loads of cash to pay their wages)

Except this type of costs don't go the government, payment goes to the person who gives you the certificate, which you then hand to the local authority running the PRS scheme. What you're actually doing, is allowing the council to employ another pen pusher, without pushing up the rates.

Indeed, one of the underlying reasons for the tax changes is to persuade landlords to sell or buy less properties - under the misguided belief that this will allow people who are renting now to buy them. There's also a misguided belief that only large scale corporate landlords can provide what people are looking for

And sorry Simon, but I think you've miss-understood the situation. Osborne introduced the 3% levy on second homes to try and cool the housing market (and to raise taxes of course) and put more houses on the market. At the same time, he changed the tax rules so that landlords couldn't offset mortgage interest against income (directly intended to raise taxes) and this resulted in Landlords starting to sell properties with slim margins, so this will put more properties onto the market for first time buyers in a couple of years. Of course, the unintended consequence of this, is that it'll push down house prices, and then reduce stamp duty revenues. One day, he'll be shown to be about the most inept chancellor.

The people who buy off plan, are either desperate buyers because they get a discount, or they're investors who won't ever let the properties out, so aren't landlords. But in the past, landlords did buy the properties that FTB wanted, simply because they were the cheapest, and brought in the greatest return on investment, and this is what Osbornes tax changes were supposed to try and rectify. The only large scale landlords that could provide good rented accommodation, are housing associations, not Private landlords, because local councils aren't building enough. And I think Camerons decision to force them to sell off their housing stock under a right to buy scheme, was just another attempt to get votes, and poorly thought out, because in having to sell them at a high discount, they could never afford to replace them.

 

[SimonH2]

And sorry Simon, but I think you've miss-understood the situation. Osborne introduced the 3% levy on second homes to try and cool the housing market (and to raise taxes of course) and put more houses on the market. At the same time, he changed the tax rules so that landlords couldn't offset mortgage interest against income (directly intended to raise taxes) and this resulted in Landlords starting to sell properties with slim margins, so this will put more properties onto the market for first time buyers in a couple of years. Of course, the unintended consequence of this, is that it'll push down house prices, and then reduce stamp duty revenues.

It will have negligible effect on house prices because there's too much pent up demand. What's controlling house prices at the moment is the availability of credit etc - what's happening is that there are more people wanting to buy than there are houses, and so the prices settle at a level where the people who can raise the capital can buy what's on the market. The extra houses on the market will be smaller than the pent up demand, so the only people able to buy will be those "just" below the watermark. The vast majority of those forced to rent because they can't buy will still be forced to rent because they can't buy - only there'll be a few less rental properties for them to rent.

One day, he'll be shown to be about the most inept chancellor.

That's a tough competition when you've the likes of Gordon B Ruin in the running

The people who buy off plan, are either desperate buyers because they get a discount, or they're investors who won't ever let the properties out, so aren't landlords.

That's not what various studies have found. But even if some of the new properties are being bought and kept empty, the fact that they have been bought and paid for up front is what makes the whole development possible. Put another way, even if (say) ¼ of the new houses don't get occupied, the other ¾ were made possible by that ¼.

The only large scale landlords that could provide good rented accommodation, are housing associations, not Private landlords,

Either I'm missing some nuance in that statement, or you are claiming that private landlords cannot provide good quality housing

because local councils aren't building enough. And I think Camerons decision to force them to sell off their housing stock under a right to buy scheme, was just another attempt to get votes, and poorly thought out, because in having to sell them at a high discount, they could never afford to replace them.

It's not just that they couldn't afford to replace them, they weren't allowed to spend the money from selling off the houses to build new ones. In this respect, it looks like a deliberate ploy to reduce the amount of social housing, and I agree with you that it was a very bad policy that's now having serious consequences.
But, selling off the council houses did have many positive effects. I can recall that "the council estate" where I live now used to have "a certain reputation" many years ago. Now there's only about 1/3 still social housing (not council owned, they were all transferred to a housing association a few years ago) and it's had a really positive effect on the area. There's no longer any stigma, and the diversity has improved no end as people have been able to "do up" their houses as they want. We've just moved into an ex-council house, and our previous ex-council house went to a FTB - not the sort of FTB Osborne was thinking of with his tax grab, but a professional person who could have bought with or without his interventions.


But, we're getting well off-topic now

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, one of the underlying reasons for the tax changes is to persuade landlords to sell or buy less properties - under the misguided belief that this will allow people who are renting now to buy them. There's also a misguided belief that only large scale corporate landlords can provide what people are looking for

Yes, but people keep voting for the party which doesn't want there to be social or affordable housing, and which wants to impoverish people in order to enrich corporations.

Osborne introduced the 3% levy on second homes to try and cool the housing market

You mean distort the market.

The housing market is working exactly as a market works - it is anything but "broken" as some professional liars would have us believe. Demand is higher than the supply, therefore prices go up. Simples. "Help" in the form of some sort of subsidy to FTBs will do nothing except increase demand, and therefore drive prices higher.

And I think Camerons decision to force them to sell off their housing stock under a right to buy scheme, was just another attempt to get votes, and poorly thought out, because in having to sell them at a high discount, they could never afford to replace them.

He was only carrying on the good work started by Margaret Thatcher.

And face it - it is democracy, it is what people want or they would not vote for a party with that fundamental ideology, so stop moaning.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Either I'm missing some nuance in that statement, or you are claiming that private landlords cannot provide good quality housing

I took "provide" to mean "create", not offer. Private landlords cannot build developments of rental property. Governments can (local or central). Corporations can.

There's no longer any stigma,

There is no stigma associated with renting in many other European countries. Must be something defective in the British psyche.

But, we're getting well off-topic now

Real life is never off topic.

 

[JohnW2]

In the case of EICRs, it seems that TPTB don't believe there is a good enough system in place to ensure that Mr Random Homeowner can pick a qualified person and be confident that that person is actually competent to do an EICR. If that's the case, then it must raise questions about the likes of NICEIC, NAPIT, etc schemes.

I think those questions have already been raised, by people other than 'TPTB'!

In my time, I have come across situations in relation to safety-critical matters when, no matter how much one trusts the competence of the people/organisations involved, if tests/analyses/inspections are required, they are undertaken by two independent people/organisations, and if the results differ significantly, then by a third.

... and it's not necessarily a matter of inherent 'competence'. Someone might be fully competent, knowledgeable, experienced and equipped to undertake an EICR but, when no-one is looking over their shoulder, less diligent then they should/could be, presumably in order to save time. As I've often said, if there were 'audit' in the sense of a risk that a, say, NICEIC inspector would randomly 're-inspect' installations on which an EICR had been undertaken, such people might be a bit less inclined to do less than a proper job! That's hardly a unique process - even "MOT testers" are subject to it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Look on the IET forum and see how many posts are "I am doing an EICR, what code should I give ...?"

Anyone competent should not have to ask.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Anyone competent should not have to ask.

And what of those who are competent but are prepared to throw competent work practices out of the window for commercial gain?