rental with no rcd.

Sponsored Links
This is certainly going off topic.
Quite so - which is why I suggested that he starts a new thread if he wants the very off-topic discussion to continue - although I have no great confidence that the mods would leave it or very long n a place where I would be prepared to contribute!

Kind Regards, John
 
That's an interesting view, given that being 'out-of-date' only affects the functionality of the device (which is not an electrical 'accessory' in the normal sense), not is electrical safety. If one regards smoke alarm functionality as being within the siope of an EICR (which I personally don't believe it is) then those undertaking EICRs would have to 'properly test' them (with smoke, not the 'test button') - which is something which seems to be rarely, if ever, done in the context of an EICR.

I wonder if anyone else agrees with you?

Furthermore, most people seem to think that if one 'codes' something on an EICR one should (or, at least, should be able to) cite the regulation in BS7671 which is being violated - what reg would you cite in relation to an 'out-of-fate' smoke alarm, I wonder?

I don’t really care what you think

A mains powered smoke or heat alarm, out of date or damaged, as far as I’m concerned falls under the EICR

Any damaged accessory or fixed appliance is the same. If it’s plugged in it’s not my issue

If I don’t code it as a C2 will the landlord realise they need replacing - the vast majority Don’t so I’m doing my part in for safety.
 
The wiring connected to any smoke/heat detector etc any burglar alarm etc etc, unless specifically excluded by agreement and noted on the limitations is tested and inspected as part of the fixed wiring for safety.
Whether that alarm system/doorbell/CCTV or whater actually functions correctly is covered or not by completely seperate certification.
an EICR/PIR is all about safety of the wiring system as regards persons, livestock and property.
 
Sponsored Links
The wiring connected to any smoke/heat detector etc any burglar alarm etc etc, unless specifically excluded by agreement and noted on the limitations is tested and inspected as part of the fixed wiring for safety.
Indeed so - and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.
Whether that alarm system/doorbell/CCTV or whater actually functions correctly is covered or not by completely seperate certification.
an EICR/PIR is all about safety of the wiring system as regards persons, livestock and property.
Exactly. There are countless things which are 'hard wired' into electrical installations, and I don't think that an sane electrician would even dream of there being a requirement for them to inspect/test those things (which would not necessary be within their sphere of competence, anyway), beyond the point at which the supply entered the items in question.

Is he really suggesting that an EICR should include (is required to include) inspection/testing of the innards/functionality of, say, boilers, EV chargers, heat pumps, hard-wired kitchen/utility appliances etc. etc.?

... and I would still be interested to know what regulation he would cite to support the C2 he says he would give to an 'expired' smoke alarm!

Kind Regards, John
 
... and I would still be interested to know what regulation he would cite to support the C2 he says he would give to an 'expired' smoke alarm!

Kind Regards, John

651.2 (v)

As I previously stated I think this is justifiable as it’s safety, and down to the inspector

there you go

And seeing as people are handing out C2’s for no extractors …..
 
651.2 (v)

As I previously stated I think this is justifiable as it’s safety, and down to the inspector

there you go

And seeing as people are handing out C2’s for no extractors …..
The C1, C2, and FI are in regard to Electrical safety only, nothing like does the smoke alarm system actually work or detectors in date etc. Totally irrelevant in an EICR.

PS I have seen comments in EICRs/PIRs stating "no smokes" suggesting that they should be present, that is not relevant in such circumstances but if they are present they must be electrically safe
 
The C1, C2, and FI are in regard to Electrical safety only, nothing like does the smoke alarm system actually work or detectors in date etc. Totally irrelevant in an EICR.
As you will understand, that is certainly my view (and, I strongly suspect, also the view of almost everyone else).

In any event, none of 615.2 represents a regulation with which something may 'fail to comply', such that coding on an EICR would be appropriate (city the regulation that was not being complied with - it is merely a list of things that should be inspected/tested. It's really a bit confusing that it is given a 'regulation number'.
PS I have seen comments in EICRs/PIRs stating "no smokes" suggesting that they should be present, that is not relevant in such circumstances but if they are present they must be electrically safe
'Comments' are fair enough. If I were undertaking an ECR (which I never will) and I happened to notice something like a smoke alarm which was 'out-of-date' (or even 'broken', in an manner which did not affect electrical safety), I would certainly bring that to the intention of the owner, whether as a written comment of an ECR or otherwise - but that very different from 'coding it as C2'.

Kind Regards, John
 
651.2(v) - "no member of the Chinese delegation shall engage in oral sex whilst riding a unicycle"... defiantly a C2 in my opinion. But seeing as the testing and operation of smoke alarms is part of annual Fire risk assessment one wonders what a spark has to do with it. Two dead bulbs is that a C2 now.
 
Last edited:
.... Two dead bulbs is that a C2 now.
Quite so. Maybe "definitely a C2" if either of the dead bulbs is in a place where the lack of light could possibly represent a hazard ??

... or, if the defect is observed during the hours of darkness, maybe a C1, because it then represents an 'immediate danger' ??

Kind Regards, John
 
My smoke alarms are plug in type, you can remove the alarm from base.
Any damaged accessory or fixed appliance is the same. If it’s plugged in it’s not my issue
The landlord law does to be fair say
“electrical installation” has the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Building Regulations 2010(2);
which in turn says
“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;
so yes many items normally considered as PAT testing items, cooker, extractor fans, smoke alarms, and central heating of course would come under “electrical installation” which means of course the covers on the electrical connections on the boiler need removing for inspection.

I seem to remember when first reading the landlord law is also referred to items not items not normally moved, so would include dish washer, washing machine and tumble drier. Being on a plug and socket does not mean not considered as part of the installation, however clearly items normally considered as part of the inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment would have the results entered on a different form. So would not have a code assigned to them.

Also items on the DNO side of the supply meter should be entered on an EICR and coded, but even if a code C1 it would not mean it fails the landlord inspection, seems rather odd to me.

Although in some cases we know the property is a rental, we often don't know, so an EICR should be the same be it private or rented, and if we are going to include fixed equipment then we will likely need to be gas safe registered, so safer not to include any equipment, and only inspect the installation which is after all what the I in EICR stands for.

The smoke generator is a rather large clumsy lump to be carrying around with all the other test equipment, and is another item needing buying, so I would limit my tests to the installation. Hand driers, etc, are equipment and come under PAT testing. The only exception is the lights.
 
Last edited:
On the very few EICR/PIR I have done I have included the limitation "No current using equipment has been inspected or tested" just for clarity and a CYA excersize
 
On the very few EICR/PIR I have done I have included the limitation "No current using equipment has been inspected or tested" just for clarity and a CYA excersize
That makes sense and, in any event, even if it is not stated explicitly as a limitation on the report,, I feel that it is describing what virtually all EICR actually do.

Let's face it (and as has been discussed), if one started inspecting (let alone testing) smoke alarms, where would that thinking stop?

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top