rental with no rcd.

[Murdochcat]

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

As previously stated, I don’t really care about people’s views on this because as mains smokes ARE part of the inspection, if I note that are out of date they get coded accordingly.

My report, my decision

Rather get them updated than get hauled in front of somebody to answer why I didn’t.

I’ve seen EICRs noting C2’s for lack of extractor fans and smoke / heat alarms, also for cables with “old” colours …….

 

[JohnW2]

I’ve seen EICRs noting C2’s for lack of extractor fans and smoke / heat alarms, also for cables with “old” colours …….

I realise that you don't care about the views of anyone other than yourself, but I feel sure that the great majority would regard that as plain wrong and, in most cases, outwith the scope of an EICR.

 

[ericmark]

I realise that you son't care about the views of anyone other than yourself, but I feel sure that the great majority would regard that as plain wrong and, in most cases, outwith the scope of an EICR.

I agree with you, what I wonder is what a landlord options are when some one exceeded their remit?

We have seen a court case where the electrician admitted he passed the property when he should not have done, but not where it has been failed when should have passed.

I know around here landlords have been giving up, and simply selling the properties, and social media is full of people looking for accommodation.

I would hate to think my OTT EICR has made some one homeless.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with you, what I wonder is what a landlord options are when some one exceeded their remit?

As we've often discussed, that seem to be the problem since, with the legislation as it is now written, there appears to be no way to deal with such a situation ...

... as I read the current legislation, once an ECR has been undertaken, and a copy provided to the tenant, the landlord is required to have all CIs/C2s identified on that EICR 'remedied' within 28 days, with no apparent means of 'appeal' against that - and regardless of how crazy the EICR might be.

Can you, or anyone else, indicate any other possible interpretation of the legislation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

I don’t really care about people’s views on this because as mains smokes ARE part of the inspection

Yes for electrical safety regarding overheating, causing shock risk etc but it nothing to do with the effacy of said alarm. That is not within the remit of an EICR.

Murdochat,
I am very happy that would be diligent enough to check that the smoke alarms are in fact not out of date and if you decide to test the efficay of said those smoke detectors too.
I am also very happy that you would comment to the owner/end user if you have any concerns with this either.
That is showing due diligence and great respect to you for that.

Most folk undertaking an EICR should have the competance to undertake an EICR, in an ideal world, this competance would be a knowledge, experience and qualifications to suit.
Me and thee might well have such but we both know that some who undertake EICRs clearly do not, sadly that is the real world and me and thee and plenty of others would like to change that.

You going the "extra mile" in addition to an EICR in this might well just help your customers enough in avoiding harm so is commendable I think we all agree.

By all means make a note on or attached to the EICR about any concerns you have about smoke detectors etc etc and bring it to the attention to those it might affect. Good.

What we should not be doing is including those additional concerns as if in the remit of an EICR or requiring a coding in the EICR itself.
It is a different remit.

But hey ho, you shout what you have noticed if you like.
I am sure we will all back you in that. It is part of the greater good for all but it is not part of an EICR, neither is coding it on an EICR.