I get that, but I disagree, as you know. The OP didn't follow the correct procedure and the LA could have taken a stricter line if they wished, but they didn't.
Yes, I understand your position - but it is what I regard as the 'box-ticking' approach. Obviously formally and legally correct, but not necessarily sensible or reasonable (in relation to electrical safety)
There have been numerous examples on here of landlord checks being heavy criticised with the tester meeting the same requirements above. I've haven't heard the argument that "they are trained and experienced so their findings must be correct". I don't find it unreasonable at all that the LA want to retain some level of control over the process.
That would be a reasonable argument if they actually had a meaningful degree of control but, as I've said, I don't believe that they actually do.
Assuming that (as was presumably the case) the person who undertook the EICR was reasonably 'qualified' and experienced (and quite possibly even a CPS member), had he done the work and issued an EIC the LA would undoubtedly have accepted it without question - and, as I've said, since the small amount of cable involved is all surface-mounted, there really is no difference at all between an EIC (undertaken immediately after the work) and and EICR undertaken slightly later.
I can 'understand' the LA's approach as a means of penalising the OP for not having followed the rules (effectively 'fining' him), but not as something which is sensible or reasonable in terms of electrical safety. In fact, I would probably regard it as more 'reasonable' if they accepted the EICR which had been done but also imposed a fine for the rule-breaking - at least that would be an 'honest' approach.
There have been numerous examples on here of landlord checks being heavy criticised with the tester meeting the same requirements above. I've haven't heard the argument that "they are trained and experienced so their findings must be correct".
As I've often said, including in this thread, my personal view is that those who undertake EICRs (particularly 'landlord' ones) should be in some way 'licensed' so to do, and their work should be rigorously audited/policed, so that there licences to undertake EICRs (maybe even paid electrical work of any sort) could be revoked when necessary.
As things are, it is not really possible for anyone (LA, landlord or anyone else) to have meaningful 'control' over selection of 'good' people to undertake electrical work or inspections. A person could be a CPS member with qualifications and experience 'coming out of their ears' (and may well even be able to produce some 'glowing references') yet undertake work or inspections unsatisfactorily. LA 'selection processes and vetting' are therefore not currently likely to be any guarantee of anything - particularly if, as per the material you linked to, in selecting people to undertake EICRs, t least some LAs give 70% of their 'selection weighting' to price, and much of the rest to 'administrative' matters!
I therefore do not think that the 'retaining control' argument hold much water.
Kind Regards, John
