To RCD or not?

[JohnW2]

OK, Devils Advocate, ... If you are enting a property and you get an unsat EICR you now have 28 days to rectify. ... If you then get, for instance, another 28 firms to do an EICR and 1 or more gives you a sat EICR then could you use that one to demonstrate compliance and merely ignore the others?

That's what we often discuss, and the answer seems to be 'No', at least when there is already a tenant.

The legislation appears to require that that a copy of the first ('unsatisfactory') EICR be provided to the tenant and for any C1/C2 to be remedied within 28 days- seemingly with no provision for 'appealing against' that EICR and/or getting another EICR in the hope that it might 'over-ride' the initial one.

However, as I wrote very recently, if there is currently no tenant (but maybe an intention to let the property out subsequently), the 'landlord legislation' would not apply - so the owner of the property is presumably free to ignore/'tear up' as many EICRs as they wish before getting one which is 'satisfactory'!

I would suggest (not for the first time!) that there is limited common sense in this legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Another example of a landlord that holds their tenants wellbeing and potentially their life in such low regard. Sad. .... But hey, you'll have a few extra quid in your pocket.

Yes, but it's far from a one-0sided issue.

As we've been discussing, if there is a tenant then the legislation, as written, appears to compel a landlord to have remedied anything and everying thing indented on the first EICR as 'unsatisfactory' (C1./C2/F1), even if it's a totally incompetent/fraudulent EICR which has 'identified' (perhaps to 'generate work', at landlord's cost) all sorts of (maybe 'expensive to 'remedy') non-existent faults - seemingly without any provision for appeal against the EICR findings and/or to get a ';second opinion'.

If that's the case, then it is unfair to even the most conscientious of landlords.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

I would suggest (not for the first time!) that there is limited common sense in this legislation.

Kind Regards, John

With Emma Clancy being the chair of the people who created is anybody surprised?

 

[ericmark]

From memory the LABC can mediate, I think idea is when EICR is not strict enough, but could be when too strict, however the cost is likely to be more than cost to fix.

And EICR's are not cheap, so once it has failed likely cheaper to correct defects than to try to get around doing upgrade.

The EICR is some ones personal opinion, unlike an MOT there is no set standard, so how can anyone say it's wrong?

Some years ago I did worry, if I say OK, then some one points out it was not, can the owner ask me to foot bill to correct? I was thinking about volt drop at the time, and if I design and install something which is non compliant then maybe?

So if we look at a home built say 1964 with wall lights with no earth, although it was allowed to have pendant lights with no earth, wall lights could be easy touched, so would still need an earth will metal fittings. They should be inspected every 10 years, so the inspector missing the error would one assume would now be liable, until next PIR as it was called then, and so on.

The same scenario could exist with RCD, or MCB size etc, each time a PIR or EICR is done, any faults missed could be charged to the inspector to have fixed. However the dropping of code 4 in a way removed that, and if reported even with no code, then inspector has still done his job.

I worried about volt drop, easy worked out with the loop impedance, but we don't often record both line - earth and line - neutral loop impedance, or PSCC.

We are suppose to be given the previous reports so we can see if there is any degrading, but rarely do we see that with domestic premises.

 

[JohnW2]

With Emma Clancy being the chair of the people who created is anybody surprised?

If I had some idea as to who she is and/or knew something about her, I might possibly be able to comment, but ..... !!

 

[JohnW2]

From memory the LABC can mediate, I think idea is when EICR is not strict enough, but could be when too strict, however the cost is likely to be more than cost to fix.

If you're still talking about the 'landlord legislation', it would be nice to think that there was some way in which the findings of an EICR could be 'challenged' (in either direction - but, as I've said, I can see nothing in the legislation that indicates any mechanism for doing that.

However, even if such an appeal process existed, it would still not really be satisfactory for landlords, the great majority of whom would not have the knowledge necessary to determine that an EICR was 'iffy' - it would need very much tighter regulation/control/oversight of these inspections, and those allowed to undertake them, to move things a bit in a better direction.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

If I had some idea as to who she is and/or knew something about her, I might possibly be able to comment, but ..... !!

People operating as sparks probably know who she is ……

 

[JohnW2]

People operating as sparks probably know who she is ……

Maybe - so perhaps one or more of them will enlighten me?

Mr Google seems to know primarily about an Emma Clancy who is (was) involved with water, not electricity or laws.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Used to be in charge of Elecsa and then NICEIC then other things.

Now - https://www.salixfinance.co.uk/salix-finance-appoints-new-chief-executive

 

[JohnW2]

Used to be in charge of Elecsa and then NICEIC then other things. Now - https://www.salixfinance.co.uk/salix-finance-appoints-new-chief-executive

Thanks. That's the 'water' Emma Clancy I mentioned, abut whom Mr Google knows a lot.

However, what has she got top do, or did she have to do, with HM Government's legislation that I was talking about?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thanks. That's the 'water' Emma Clancy I mentioned, abut whom Mr Google knows a lot.
However, what has she got top do, or did she have to do, with HM Government's legislation that I was talking about?

Well, Murdochcat said:

With Emma Clancy being the chair of the people who created is anybody surprised?

in response to your:

I would suggest (not for the first time!) that there is limited common sense in this legislation.

Then I told you what she has been doing since 2005.

I don't know if what Murdochcat said is true but if it is then along with my information; that's who she is and what she has to do with the legislation..

 

[JohnW2]

Well, Murdochcat said:

With Emma Clancy being the chair of the people who created is anybody surprised?

,.... in response to your:

I would suggest (not for the first time!) that there is limited common sense in this legislation.

Then I told you what she has been doing since 2005.

All true.

I don't know if what Murdochcat said is true but if it is then along with my information; that's who she is and what she has to do with the legislation..

That's my point. Nothing that you (or Mr Google) has told me gives any real reason to believe that she had anything to do with drafting the (2020) legislation in question. Hiowever, a little more potentially relevant that I have found is .....

..... formerly served as Chair of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC). She served the committee for over nine years and headed up a number of committees providing expert advice to Government, helping to develop the future regulatory framework for buildings .....

... but it is not at all clear whether that has any relevance to what we are talking about. Whatever, at most she may have "advised" government, but it was the government themselves that actually wrote, and approved, the legislation we are talking about, and are therefore responsible for what it says!

In any event, Murdochcat's comment seems to imply that we/you should be aware of 'something wrong with her' - what is the basis of that belief, I wonder.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

As said most electricians follow the Electrical safety councils best practice guide 4, which lists 4 reasons for giving a code C2 when no RCD, clearly it has always needed a RCD/ELCB when it is a TT installation at least back to the 70's although I would have thought a 100 mA version would have been good enough back then, so not sure what to code if not 30 mA version.

Even today, 100ma 300ma and even higher RCDs can still be acceptable for "fault protection".

So I would think a TT with only a 100mA RCD would be much the same as a TN with no RCD at all. A mix of C2s and C3s depending on the particular circuits.

 

[ericmark]

If up to me, no RCD would be a fail, but I feel I should follow the best practice guide and the IET advice where they said code 4 was unhelpful, and we should be looking at dangerous and protentially dangerous, and clearly the home when I was a boy was not protentially dangerous, but the home owner needs some guidance of what to do first, and the C1, 2, and 3 do that. It was never complied to force owners, just to inform, it is the English goverment who have tried to do things on the cheap. And until they did it really did not matter what code was used.

 

[JohnW2]

.... but the home owner needs some guidance of what to do first, and the C1, 2, and 3 do that. It was never complied to force owners, just to inform, it is the English goverment who have tried to do things on the cheap. And until they did it really did not matter what code was used.

I suppose the one 'bit of good' which might conceivably come out of this 'landlord legislation' is that it has highlighted the fact that EICRs are not 'fit for purpose', in the sense that (in the absence of any regulation/audit/policing) very few people are in a position to know whether or not any particular EICR is worth the paper it's written on.

It is true that only landlords are compelled by law to act upon findings of what could be a totally 'incorrect' EICR, but there are millions of other people who (in the absence of technical knowledge) are at risk of 'believing what they read' (on an EICR) and hence possibly have expensive unnecessary work undertaken.

Kind Regards, John