Indded so - but, as I said, each of them (including the first one) appears to trigger a requirement to 'remedy' any C1s/C2 (coded on that particular EICR) within 28 days.If there is a tenant in-situ then one is supposed to supply each EICR to them. If there isn't, then it's perfectly OK to only offer the latest.
As I've said before, I suspect that they never request an EICR unless a tenant complains to them about something.I do have to wonder how often they ever ask for one unless there's something else going on to attract their attention ?
As I see it, that's where it starts getting a bit messy/unclear. If the C1/C2 defect related to something 'measured', then if the second EICR shows a satisfactory measurement then that does, indeed, indicate that the defect reported in the first EICR has probably been 'dealt with' satisfactory. However, if it's not a case of a 'measurement' but, rather, an alleged 'defect'/non-compliance which is not mentioned on the second EICR, then who are officialdom meant to 'believe'?.....A second (or subsequent) EICR is sufficient to prove having dealt with any C1 or C2 defects on the earlier one.
.... Is there some reason why they should 'believe' the chronologically second EICR (which didn't mention the defect), rather than the chronologically first one, which said that there was a defect that was at least 'potentially dangerous', triggering a requirement for it to be 'remedied' within 28 days of that initial inspection ?? A true defect present at the time of the first inspect may indeed, be due to it having been remedied before the second inspection, but it may also mean that the second inspector didn't regard it as a C1/C2 'defect' - and, if that's the case, why should officialdom believe the second inspector rather than the first one?
Kind Regards, John