Providing EICR to clients

[JohnW2]

I do see your point, however the LABC is responsible for site safety,

What makes you think that "LABC" has anything to do with the legislation we are discussing? As I recently discussed with the OP, the legislation talks only of the "Housing Authority"

so must have the option to say NO your not skilled enough to do that work. So the question is has the electrician got "relevant knowledge ans skills"

For a start, as above, it's the Housing Authority, no "LABC" that have powers under the legislation we are talking about - but, yes, I imagine there are situations in which they might want to "say NO".

However, since (as you have quoted) the law has been written only to require that the person undertaking the inspection is ".... competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards" (without any explicit requirements beyond that), if the landlord had commissioned an inspection by someone he/she believed to be competent, then it would presumably be for the Housing Authority to prove otherwise, if they felt that to be the case, wouldn't it?

... and, given the absence of any explicit requirements in the legislation, I can't see that they could use the absence of particular paper qualifications and/or lack of 'club membership' as an indication, let alone 'proof', of the absence of the competence required by the legislation, could they?

I would say as a result there is a question, the LABC would not allow my son to do work on my parents house, he only had the C&G 2391 and C&G 2382 I think that was the exam required at the time, but would allow me as I had a degree, anyone who has done a degree will realise how daft that was, but one needs to satisfy the LABC requirements. Even if they seem daft.

As above, LABC is irrelevant to the legislation we are discussion. You are presumably talking about acceptability (or not) of your son's I&T in relation to notifications under the Building Regulations, a law under which LABC are empowered (and required) to act - so, annoying though it is, in that situation the situation is 'at the LABCs discretion/judgement' (on whatever basis they choose to apply).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There is a difference between the gas appliances where the cover forms part of the combustion chamber/room sealing i.e. an integral casing and that of a decorative casing.

.... Which, I suppose in practical terms, means that an inspection by an electrician will end at the FCU, with a basic visual inspection of the flex and boiler.

So it would seem, but ...

We may have to assume that the RGI who installed (or inspects) the boiler has competency for their part of the electrical installation.

Never 'assume' - it is always potentially dangerous

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Which, I suppose in practical terms, means that an inspection by an electrician will end at the FCU

The law does not permit that, it says extractors, showers and the like need inspecting, odd not a cooker, how a cooker is different I don't know how as all hard wired. To assess electrical connections with the exception of a ceiling rose one must need a key or tool, so if one can inspect the electrical connections without using them, it's a fail anyway.

This is why insulation tape can't be used to make a joint, it can be removed without a tool.

I think the landlord law is not fit for purpose, it was done on the cheap. But as far as gas appliances go, if no notice saying need to be gas safe or corgi to open, then the electrician has no option but to open for inspection, I know I have removed a Bosch from cover which was open at the bottom so clearly no seal.

But when I wanted gas work done in may father-in-laws house we employed a gas safe guy, who seemed to think gaffa tape will stay in place on a hot flue, having seen how a gas safe guy seals in flue gases sorry not impressed, may as well DIY and do a proper job. He took such case with the un-burnt gas, then spoilt the job for a half pennies worth of tar.

 

[ericmark]

It seems it is the trading standards who fight cases where the EICR is not good enough, not the LABC, so yes @JohnW2 is correct, however the one case I know about the inspector pleaded guilty, so no proof was required.

What I would like to see, is what happens when some one does an EICR sampling 20% and states on the certificate that not faults found on the sample tested, this has been accepted by HSE for years with commercial premises, as long as each time a different 20% is selected, so we should be able to do same with domestic.

However commercial premises should always be using qualified electricians so one should not be looking for errors in the installation, only a degrade of the installation, and the previous inspections should be viewed by the inspector to look for signs of degrading, with domestic I have never been presented with previous reports, so could not select a different sample to look at.

 

[JohnW2]

The law does not permit that, it says extractors, showers and the like need inspecting, odd not a cooker, how a cooker is different....

What "law" are you talking about?

I think the landlord law is not fit for purpose,

I think we are all agreed that there are at least some aspects of it that are far from satisfactory

it was done on the cheap.

I doubt that is really the reason (no legislation is remotely 'cheap' to create ). I suspect that the main problem was there was not enough input from people who understand some of the technical and logistical issues involved.

But as far as gas appliances go, if no notice saying need to be gas safe or corgi to open, then the electrician has no option but to open for inspection,

I'm not sure that a 'notice' is required, is it. 'The law' (the Gas Safety Regulations) say that you cannot remove the cover if 'gas seals' are involved.

I know I have removed a Bosch from cover which was open at the bottom so clearly no seal.

If it's already 'open at the bottom, it's obviously not 'gas sealed', so anyone can remove/open it. However, that's not the sort of situation which we are talking about.

But when I wanted gas work done in may father-in-laws house we employed a gas safe guy, who seemed to think gaffa tape will stay in place on a hot flue, having seen how a gas safe guy seals in flue gases sorry not impressed, may as well DIY and do a proper job.

It sounds as if yopu must have encountered a 'black sheep' - which, as we know, exist in all trades and professions. When we have a situation, like the one you mention, in which a DIYer would have done the work more properly/safely than the 'professional', then something is clearly very wrong about the individual concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It seems it is the trading standards who fight cases where the EICR is not good enough, not the LABC, so yes @JohnW2 is correct, ...

You seem to be moving the goalposts all over the place We're not talking about an EICR which is "not good enough". We're talking about an inspection report (as you know, the legislation does not call it an EICR) which is very probably fine, but which the Housing Authority might not want to accept because they do not regard the person doing it to have been adequately 'competent'!

If there is no suggestion, let alone evidence/proof, that there is anything wrong with the report, Trading Standards will obviously not be interested.

The problem seems top be that the legislation does not 'define competent', and it's a bit ridiculous to have a situation in which a Housing Authority (presumably with no knowledge of electrical matters) is left to make that decision in any way that takes their fancy. As I've suggested, I would hope that 'innocent until proved guilty' would apply, and that a Housing Authority would have to accept a report unless they had evidence/proof of 'incompetence' - but who knows what actually happens in practice? !

What I would like to see, is what happens when some one does an EICR sampling 20% and states on the certificate that not faults found on the sample tested, this has been accepted by HSE for years with commercial premises, as long as each time a different 20% is selected, so we should be able to do same with domestic.

Interesting question but, again, the legislation we are discussing is silent in relation to the required extent (20%, 100% or whatever) of the inspection - so, again, it's anyone's guess as to How a Housing Authority would react to a "20% inspection".

Even if commercial practice, and the HSE, think differently, one could argue that it's impossible to 'certify' that an entire electrical installation is "compliant with safety standards" without undertaking I&T of the entire installation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

What "law" are you talking about?

Sorry there are two laws, The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, and The Building Regulations 2010, as the first one directs to second on for the definition "“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;" the problem is the "fixed electrical equipment" bit.

Even the regulations are a bit vague "Electrical installation (abbr: installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil Specific purposes." but we have "Electrical equipment (abbr: Equipment). Any item for such purposes as generation, conversion, transmission, distribution or utilisation of electrical energy. Such as machines, transformers. apparatus, measuring instruments, protective devices. wiring systems. accessories, appliances and luminaires." which again is not that plain. But all needs testing and inspecting, and we tend to use the IET forms as a basis for the testing, and we have traditionally split the testing into appliances (current using equipment) and installation which supplies those appliances with power.

This works well, as we can easy separate the appliances and although listed on one register we can simply enter against the item serviced by Joe Blogs electrical who keep the records. The PAT testing exam is two separate parts, one for management and the other the testing and inspecting.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry there are two laws, The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, and The Building Regulations 2010, as the first one directs to second on for the definition "“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;" ...

Yes, I know that - which is why I asked which of those two laws you were referring to.

the problem is the "fixed electrical equipment" bit. ...... Even the regulations are a bit vague "Electrical installation (abbr: installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil Specific purposes." but we have "Electrical equipment (abbr: Equipment). Any item for such purposes as generation, conversion, transmission, distribution or utilisation of electrical energy. Such as machines, transformers. apparatus, measuring instruments, protective devices. wiring systems. accessories, appliances and luminaires." which again is not that plain.

It seems pretty clear ('plain') to me. Once one has included things that 'utilise electrical energy' as well as 'wiring systes' and protective devices etc., one is surely talking about "everything", isn't one? What can you think of which would not be covered by that definition?

But all needs testing and inspecting, and we tend to use the IET forms as a basis for the testing, and we have traditionally split the testing into appliances (current using equipment) and installation which supplies those appliances with power.

Which "IET forms" have any provision for recording results of testing of "current-using equipment"?

However, as you are highlighting, one of the problems is relates to the definitions used in some of the legislation, some of which I suspect have not been adequately 'thought through' by people who understand about such matters!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

I think the time has come for the inspector to be the inspector only.

Remedial work should be undertaken by another spark.

This would help prevent the cheap inspections which lead to dubious and often unnecessary remedial to stop, or at the least to reduce.

The OP would need to think about having sufficient PI insurance to cover them too

 

[JohnW2]

I think the time has come for the inspector to be the inspector only. Remedial work should be undertaken by another spark.

There's a fair bit to be said for that. As I often explain, it is our practice when using a 'new' person to undertake EICRs to make it clear that, unless/until we get to know him/her and come to 'trust them', we will never aske the inspector to undertake any remedial work that they may indicate is needed.

This would help prevent the cheap inspections which lead to dubious and often unnecessary remedial to stop, or at the least to reduce.

Maybe, But one danger then is that, unless we ever come to see the regulation I think it needed (to control who can, and cannot, undertake inspections) one might end up with a herd of people who have never done anything other than 'inspections', and I'm not sure that's a very desirable thing, either.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

There's a fair bit to be said for that. As I often explain, it is our practice when using a 'new' person to undertake EICRs to make it clear that, unless/until we get to know him/her and come to 'trust them', we will never aske the inspector to undertake any remedial work that they may indicate is needed.

Maybe, But one danger then is that, unless we ever come to see the regulation I think it needed (to control who can, and cannot, undertake inspections) one might end up with a herd of people who have never done anything other than 'inspections', and I'm not sure that's a very desirable thing, either.

Kind Regards, John

The issue these days is that people want to pay the least for inspections.

Letting agents don’t help either as they want to pay peanuts

Some guidance on what to expect is lacking too.

Nothing is going to change and retirement for me is looming

As for controlling who can and can’t. Too many people use the CPS’s to claim they are competent - and believe me many of them aren’t

 

[JohnW2]

The issue these days is that people want to pay the least for inspections.

That's understandable - who wants to pay 'more than necessary' for anything ? However, I don't think it alters what I wrote. It's not going to happen, but if rigorous regulation existed, such that the great majority of inspections were 'adequately competent', then there would be no problem with choosing one of the cheapest inspectors.

Some guidance on what to expect is lacking too.

Very much so, as we often discuss her.

Nothing is going to change and retirement for me is looming

Your retiring will not make the issues/problems go away, so it's a perfectly reasonably topic for discussion.

As for controlling who can and can’t. Too many people use the CPS’s to claim they are competent - and believe me many of them aren’t

In the first instance, paper qualifications are about all there is to go with (ideally plus some measure of 'experience', albeit often difficult to quantify, document or 'prove'). However, the teeth of 'proper regulation, would (in my opinion) be based on ongoing audit of randomly selected inspections that an inspector had undertaken, with the perpetrators of unsatisfactory reports being banned from undertaking inspections for evermore. However, again, that's not going to happen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

One might think that the grossest incompetence of all is that of the government (surprise, surprise) mandating something that, because it is uncontrollable (because there are no controls), is therefore unachievable.

 

[JohnW2]

One might think that the grossest incompetence of all is that of the government (surprise, surprise) mandating something that, because it is uncontrollable (because there are no controls), is therefore unachievable.

One could say that. However, I don't think there is doubt that the legislation was 'well-intentioned', the problem being that there is currently no effective (and 'fair' to everyone) manner in which it can be implemented.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's what I said.