What is the English law on EICR?

[ericmark]

I don't think it really matters too much as to when the law is passed, but what does matter if a landlord is going to get an EICR done, that the report will comply with what the law requires.

In real terms some one doing an inspection and test uses some common sense, so if I was to ask the firm who re-wired my mothers house to do an EICR it would be reasonable that they only removed for inspection items which show signs of alteration, they did a full inspection 4 years ago, so only looking for changes.

Where I worked there was a continuous process of inspection and testing, one DB at a time, so there was no fixed point where the certificates ran out, and the HSE could and did view the computer records, they were rarely printed out, it was held as computer records, so as such one could send them as an email to anyone who required them.

I note there are many records held by government as digital records, so the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local government holds records of for example Energy performance certificates so I can access the certificate at any time, but it also means the person doing the survey needs to be registered in some way so he can upload the certificate, I would expect any other government certificate to be the same.

So if I as an electrician do an EICR for a landlord, then the government says I must be registered and should upload the certificate to some web site, then that landlord has just wasted his money. Be the EICR needing to be done by a scheme member, or a person holding a C&G2391 surly there must be some thing to say this person has the qualifications, ability, insurance, or some thing, and has followed the government proscribed system to ensure it is done as required. I know the Scottish one said something about resent training, so it seems their electricians have to attend some sort of refresher course. I suspect this course tells the electricians what they must check, and what is down to their professional judgement. I would also expect they would need professional indemnity insurance to cover if they make errors?

I dropped my membership of the IET and have not been to a lecture for years, I would guess had I continued to go to lecturers this would both be regarded as recent training and would have told me exactly what needs to be done, I am sure some sparks on this forum are still members and as such know what is needed?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think it really matters too much as to when the law is passed, but what does matter if a landlord is going to get an EICR done, that the report will comply with what the law requires.

I cannot speak for Wales but, as I said, the upcoming legislation for England mentions absolutely no explicit "requirements" as regards the nature/extent of the inspection/testing or the report produced therefrom.

The legislation only talks about the frequency of inspections, consequences of their not being undertaken, and any remedial action required as a result of the inspection/testing (and consequences of it not being done). Even in terms of who does the inspection/testing, it only requires that a 'qualified person' does it, but then goes on to define that as:

... “qualified person” means a person 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;

... and, in the absence of any explicit definition of 'competent', I can but conclude that they intend the everyday meaning of that word. As such, to be frank, I would suggest that even I (who never has been an electrician of any sort) could probably argue that I am 'competent' to do such things!

So, I think the bottom line is that it will be entirely up to the person undertaking the inspection/testing (and the landlord instructing him/her) to decide on what nature/extent of inspection/testing, and what format of report, is required - so goodness only knows what is going to happen in practice! I certainly suspect that landlords/electricians will decide that something appreciably (possibly far) less than 'a full EICR' would be adequate!

Kind Regards, John

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Why not a 'full' EICR? Any realistic form of EICR is unlikely to reveal any subtle nasties (cables outside permitted zones for example) but merely (rather like an MOT) inspect and report on safety critical items. Up here at the moment (well 2 years ago last time I had one done) it was £120 which in the scheme of things would annoy me (and my tenants) if it had to be done every year, as a 5 year exercise it would be no problem.
Main purpose of the exercise-
(a) today there are no lifethreatening faults on the installation and all protective devices are installed and operating correctly as required at their date of installation (rough guess here usually)
(b) today this (sheaf of inspection report) details what the electrical installation is (how many sockets, cable type, that sort of stuff). If in 2 years time a tenant or someone instructed by a tenant bodges something onto the installation that report (plus tenancy Ts and Cs) protects me from liability for any damage/injury associated with said bodge.
(The EICRs I've had done have checked the incoming supply and main bonding, checked RFCs as actually being rings with correct impedance readings end to end, checked far end earthing on lighting circuits and radials, opened a random set of sockets, switches and ceiling roses to check terminal tightness, grommets, polarity), wandered round every socket with a Martindale to check polarity & that there were no cracked or otherwise risky items, tested all RCDs for correct operation and wrote it all up).
As usual with all these things, enforcement will probably be underfunded so the real fly by nights won't bother, gambling that by the time the enforcement agency actually gets round to getting the case to court the slumlord and his/her cash will have vanished into a maze of financial instruments.

 

[JohnW2]

Why not a 'full' EICR?

I've never suggested that such wouldn't arguably be desirable - but my point, in response to eric wanting to "...comply with what the law requires", was to point out that the upcoming law (in England) requires nothing specific - merely requiring that 'inspection/testing' be undertaken by a 'competent' person at the intervals they specify.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... Up here at the moment (well 2 years ago last time I had one done) it was £120 which in the scheme of things would annoy me (and my tenants) if it had to be done every year, as a 5 year exercise it would be no problem.

A "5-year exercise" is, indeed, what the upcoming legislation will require (unless the need for an earlier inspection is indicated by the prior one). Contrary to what some people seem to think/expect, it doesn't seem to require an inspection upon change of tenancy.

Kind Regards, John

 

[oldbutnotdead]

A "5-year exercise" is, indeed, what the upcoming legislation will require (unless the need for an earlier inspection is indicated by the prior one). Contrary to what some people seem to think/expect, it doesn't seem to require an inspection upon change of tenancy.

Kind Regards, John

Aye that sounds about right. Last tenant change I had a good look round (dad was a Polish builder so there was potential for 'modifications') but nothing visible, all they'd done was repainted a couple of walls (with the wrong make of magnolia) to hide some scuff damage- annoying, the paint types are on the house instruction manual I left them, if they'd used Leyland it wld have saved them £50 off their deposit.

 

[JohnW2]

.... all they'd done was repainted a couple of walls (with the wrong make of magnolia) to hide some scuff damage- annoying, the paint types are on the house instruction manual I left them, if they'd used Leyland it wld have saved them £50 off their deposit.

As a matter of interest, why are you concerned about the make of paint (particularly when it's the right colour) in a rental property?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I trust the modulator will remove this ? His money obviously good enough for you, yes ?

I would have thought that it would have been his son's money that would have interested oldbutnotdead.

 

[ericmark]

I've never suggested that such wouldn't arguably be desirable - but my point, in response to eric wanting to "...comply with what the law requires", was to point out that the upcoming law (in England) requires nothing specific - merely requiring that 'inspection/testing' be undertaken by a 'competent' person at the intervals they specify.

Kind Regards, John

You are correct, if it was my house the law would make no difference, it would be tested, and if some thing wrong corrected, what I was concerned about was doing an inspection which for some legal reason was not valid. I work as a volunteer on a heritage railway, to get the volunteers they have a hostel where volunteers can stay, it is a problem working out the law, as since railway premises there are a lot of specials, for example trespass is a crime, most places actually walking through a yard, field etc, is not breaking the law, only when you damage some thing has the law been broken, that is not the case with railways. I have to be careful that I am authorised to do things, I may not be paid, but still need to follow the rules.

Since I hold a C&G 2391 and other qualifications from time to time I will do electrical work, don't really want to do electrical work, but I am one of the few who can do it without there being a problem. Most of the time it is mechanical engineering not electrical what I do.

As to paint colour, I know there is a special shade of blue used for the ground frame leavers and locks which lock points into place, but wrong make of magnolia that is really going OTT.

 

[JohnW2]

You are correct, if it was my house the law would make no difference, it would be tested, and if some thing wrong corrected, what I was concerned about was doing an inspection which for some legal reason was not valid.

Well. as I implied, it cannot be 'explicitly invalid' in law, since the law specifies no explicit requirements - so I'm afraid it's down to you (or whoever) to make a judgement as to what, in your opinion, constitutes an 'inspection and testing'. A Court might, of course, have a different opinion, but that's anyone's guess.

It's not really any different from the situation as regards electrical work/safety in general. There is only one 'law' with which one has to comply, and that is the (literally) single sentence which constitutes Part P of the Building Regs. Again, it is up to the judgement and opinion of the individual undertaking the work to decide what is necessary/adequate to comply with that (one sentence) law.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I am sure the electricity at work act is a little more than one line, as to shops and railway premises act sure that will also kick in, not even sure if Part P is even required for a hostel? Plus expect there is a load of case law, although the Emma Shaw case was about installation certificate I am sure there are some about periodical inspection reports or as latter called electrical installation condition reports, what the Emma Shaw case pointed out was the need to insure the person doing the report has the ability to do the work. I would also say time is important, if a manager permits reports to be done in a time scale where it is clear it is a drive by report, then it is the manager at fault. I knew with my Robin PAT tester that the tests took on average 3.5 minutes each, it did a self test before it started, and each test has a settle time, so in an 8 hour day maximum number of tests using the machine was around 140, so if some one submits 250 tests in a day using that machine, you know he has cheated. Manual machines with needles on the meter are faster, as you can see when needle has become steady.

I have not timed a RCD tester, but you should test each RCD 6 times, and you need to physically reset 4 times, so if that takes 5 minutes then my house with 14 just doing that is over an hour. I remember doing my C&G2391 we had a board to test with a selection of items fixed to the board which was to represent a building, with CU, lights, sockets etc fixed to the board, even with everything to hand to test took best part of an hour, he could just about test two students per night and night class was 2.5 hours, even with a small house, it is unlikely testing to that standard you could test more than 2 houses a day, even with a little over time, and to part test a house and return next day to complete is not really on. And really you should not with today's health and safety laws be working alone, so I look at prices advertised. Some start at £90, some more reasonable at £200 for 6 circuits plus £20 for each additional circuit so my house £360 so that would pay for enough time, but it is clear some can't be doing a full test.

The C&G2391 was a two part exam, one for the testing, and one for managing the testing, I know we now need to take a landlords exam, but it seems rather easy from what I am told, so the big question now is if the training to be a landlord actually is good enough for the building manager to know when the work is clearly not up to IET standard, or even if it matters, and until the law comes in, the knowledge may not be taught or tested.

Maybe there are some landlords on here who have taken the exam and can say what is included in the training and exam?

 

[JohnW2]

I am sure the electricity at work act is a little more than one line, as to shops and railway premises act sure that will also kick in ...

I'm sure that's all true. However, we are talking about the upcoming legislation (in England) which relates to privately rented residential premises - and, therefore, the only relevant legislation will be Part P of the Buildings regs (which applies only to 'dwellings'. It would be very unusual for either the EAWA or the Shops and Railway Premises Act to apply within a residential property/dwelling (other than, perhaps, someones whilst electrical work is being undertaken within the premises.

... not even sure if Part P is even required for a hostel?

Dunno. My first reaction was to say that, in common sense terms, it is in the spirit of being a 'dwelling' - but then I thought more, and I don't think that hotels count as 'dwellings' - so I just don't know.

I think you probably worry far too much about these things. It would be exceedingly rare for such issues to get anywhere near a Court but, if/when they do, I doubt that a Court would find against you if you could demonstrate that you were 'competent' and had exercised 'sensible common sense' (backed by whatever non-mandatory regulations/guidelines you cared to cite).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Reading the links on this thread it seems new law does apply to voluntary organisations so if in England the hostel would be included in the EICR law, but not Part P. With Part P anyone working on homes needs to be in some way connected to the over seeing organisations, be it the LABC or scheme operator, and as such they should be telling people what they expect to be done. However it is only with forums like this that we thrash out what it really required. We tend to do a rolling inspection, any work is covered by a Minor works or Installation certificate and we will inspect all around it, and where there is a resident electrician a rolling inspection is accepted by HSE.

So in real terms the EICR is only to satisfy the new law, everything is already inspected and tested, but a single document is not raised.

 

[JohnW2]

Reading the links on this thread it seems new law does apply to voluntary organisations so if in England the hostel would be included in the EICR law, but not Part P.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, or where all that comes from.

The only mention of voluntary organisations I see in the legislation is in the long list in Schedule 1 of types of properties (including hostels, student accommodation, care homes etc. etc.) which are excluded from the legislation.

With Part P anyone working on homes needs to be in some way connected to the over seeing organisations, be it the LABC or scheme operator, and as such they should be telling people what they expect to be done.

I don't really understand that, either.

However it is only with forums like this that we thrash out what it really required. We tend to do a rolling inspection, any work is covered by a Minor works or Installation certificate and we will inspect all around it, and where there is a resident electrician a rolling inspection is accepted by HSE.

How did the HSE get into this discussion?

So in real terms the EICR is only to satisfy the new law, everything is already inspected and tested, but a single document is not raised.

Again, I don't really understand what you are saying.

Kind Regards, John

 

[oldbutnotdead]

As a matter of interest, why are you concerned about the make of paint (particularly when it's the right colour) in a rental property?

Kind Regards, John

Cos they'd patched some walls and fully painted another wall- looked fine under artificial light but in daylight there was an obvious colour difference.
The original paint used was Leyland, I patched the patches with Leyland and they vanished.