Annexe consumer unit - must it be in annexe?

[Murdochcat]

The confusion has been caused by the OP claiming to be the tenant .............. and I'm certain we're not getting the whole story.

I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7.5

 

[Murdochcat]

It's certainly not clear, I'm reading this like there have been 3 owners and currently being managed by solicitors and not sure if that makes it 4.

The number of owners is pretty much irrelevant - but the solicitor in charge of things now "appears" to be getting everything in order - but that is based on whats been stated by the OP and how different people interpret whats been written.

The PRS laws now are fairly black and white

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

Two owners - change of ownership about four years ago.
new owner's affairs managed by lawyers because he isn't entirely capable.
Lawyers seem very keen to 'manage' work, presumably because they get to invoice for their efforts in said management.
Issue is simple. It is clear that I as tenant should have access to the CU. Fair enough. It also seems that that can be achieved by either: (a) ripping apart both properties, ceilings down etc or: (b) the CU can be placed in a lockable, water resistant cabinet on an outside wall closely adjacent to where it is now within the property.
Option (b) makes sense, massively less cost and disruption. Lawyers have plumped for (a).

I requested a copy of the electrical inspection on 25/08/2023, no response.

Lawyers have a seven figure sum on deposit with them, and in my opinion a nasty case of sticky fingers. Vulnerable landlord has to survive on his money for many decades, he is in his twenties...

 

[JohnW2]

The confusion has been caused by the OP claiming to be the tenant .......

I don't think that there has ever been any doubt that the OP IS (and has for a long time been) the tenant, has there?

The confusion has been caused by the OP claiming to be the tenant .............. and I'm certain we're not getting the whole story.

That's very possibly true, but also very understandable, given the complex and sensitive nature of the situation, and the 'public' nature of this forum.

 

[JohnW2]

I requested a copy of the electrical inspection on 25/08/2023, no response.

As I said before, the landlord (or someone acting on their behalf) is under a legal obligation not only to arrange for an electrical inspection to be undertaken but also to provide a copy of the report immediately after the inspection has been undertaken - so, as I said, if either/both of those things have not happened, you can 'complain' to your LA about that.

If you don't want to actually 'rock the boat' to that extent, I suppose you could 'threaten' whoever is 'in charge' (presumably 'the solicitors') that you will complain to the LA unless they provide the electrical inspection report very soon (maybe 'by a specific date').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I requested a copy of the electrical inspection on 25/08/2023, no response.

I would think some one has now realised it should have been sent to you, however even with no solicitors involved I know how long it took me to get things done in this house, four years now, and still the outside steps have not been fixed, mainly as got some silly quotes and decided to DIY.

I am still not sure as I said before if you are classed as a tenant?

The confusion has been caused by the OP claiming to be the tenant .............. and I'm certain we're not getting the whole story.

I am considering two things, one have we got whole story, and two will complaining help or hinder?

My question then is: does an existing consumer unit have to be moved from main house to tenanted annexe. Annexe was built like this about thirty years ago.

I still see no reason why it NEEDS to be moved, it may be more convenient, but can't see that it needs to be moved, I have had the same problem with a caravan, the electric box being locked, and when it tripped I had to wait for office opening hours to be reset, it is common even when the electric supply is within the home it serves to have seals so fuses can't be changed by the occupier.

Regulation 7 –. Supply restoration. – category 1 severe weather conditions. Distribution companies have 24 hours to restore electricity supply if it fails due. Regulation 5 – Supply Restoration in normal weather conditions Distribution companies have 12 hours to restore electricity supply if it fails during normal weather conditions.

and in essence the landlord is your electricity supplier.

To my mind this is too long, as you may be without heating and freezers may defrost, but can't see any way you can force their hand, if my lodger (My daughter) was to complain, answer would be simple, go home. We don't want her in the flat, we put up with her, as she is my daughter, she has no agreement, so if the house was sold she would have to move out.

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

SO.. do we actually know if the CU has to be moved? Or is it more a nice-to-have deal?
Bearing in mind it means major works to two homes is there room for common sense or is it a cast iron go-to-prison-if-you-don't-do-it legally mandated thing - or what?

Also while I'm here I don't understand the 'not getting the whole story' comments - I think I have laid things out pretty clearly - what more could be relevant or helpful?

 

[JohnW2]

I would think some one has now realised it should have been sent to you, however even with no solicitors involved I know how long it took me to get things done in this house, four years now ....

Normally, people sometimes 'involve solkcitors' to help resolve problems with landlords. In the OP's case, it seems to be that 'the solicitors'; may actually be the 'culprits', since they are allegedly acting on behalf of the landlord. Given the nature of these professions, fiund a soicitor prepared to act against another solicitor might not be easy!

However, the law id very clear about the obligations of a landlord (or someone acting on theiir behalf) as regards electrical inspections and the resulting reports:

(3) Following the inspection and testing required under sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) a private landlord must—
(a)obtain a report from the person conducting that inspection and test, which gives the results of the inspection and test and the date of the next inspection and test;
(b)supply a copy of that report to each existing tenant of the residential premises within 28 days of the inspection and test;

Hence, if an inspection has not be undertaken OR if one has been undertaken but the OP (the tenant) has not received the report within 28 days of the inspections, then 'the landlord' is in breach of the law, and the OP can simply 'report him/them' to the LA, without the need to involve any other solicitors.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I have not followed the detail but you need to be able to access the consumer unit if there is an electrical fault.

If it is locked away in another building then you will :-

(1) be unable to switch of OFF power when there is a fault

(2) be unable to reset an MCB or RCD after a fault has been repaired

(3) find that some electricians will refuse to work on the installation until you can arrange access to the CU in the main house.

 

[JohnW2]

I have not followed the detail but you need to be able to access the consumer unit if there is an electrical fault.
If it is locked away in another building then you will :-
(1) be unable to switch of OFF power when there is a fault
(2) be unable to reset an MCB or RCD after a fault has been repaired
(3) find that some electricians will refuse to work on the installation until you can arrange access to the CU in the main house.

Yes, we established all that several pages ago. The OP is aware of those potential issues and is happy to live with them (as he apparently has for ~20 years) and the real question was whether or not it was considered appropriate/reasonable for an EICR to code that as C2, thereby requiring the landlord to 'remedy' the situation (within 28 days), even though the OP was not concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

I understand it is 'best' to be able to access the CU whenever the need arises, that much is clear. The question is whether that is a cast-iron legal requirement or is it to some extent situation specific. The caravan example would be a situation where instant access isn't available but it all works out reasonably well.

So - is it law or nice to have. Opinions of individual electricians who will or won't work on a particular installation are not helpful - just the stone cold law.

 

[Murdochcat]

So the inspecting spark walks into the annex - and can't locate the CU within the property and there is no direct access to it.

As far as I'm concerned that's a C2 immediately

If it is locked away in another building then you will :-

(1) be unable to switch of OFF power when there is a fault

(2) be unable to reset an MCB or RCD after a fault has been repaired

(3) find that some electricians will refuse to work on the installation until you can arrange access to the CU in the main house.

In a nutshell.

Your LL or agent has a responsibility to provide you with a satisfactory EICR.

I suspect that most sparks wouldn't give a satisfactory - and presented with this situation the wouldn't be able to conduct an EICR without access to the main house.

132.12 / 513.1 apply

 

[Murdochcat]

Yes, we established all that several pages ago. The OP is aware of those potential issues and is happy to live with them (as he apparently has for ~20 years) and the real question was whether or not it was considered appropriate/reasonable for an EICR to code that as C2, thereby requiring the landlord to 'remedy' the situation (within 28 days), even though the OP was not concerned.

Kind Regards, John

I don't believe that the PRS legislation permits a tenant or landlord (or agent) to allow an installation continued use without remedial work on C1 and C2 issues reported

 

[JohnW2]

SO.. do we actually know if the CU has to be moved? Or is it more a nice-to-have deal?

You are highlighting one of the worst aspects of the legislation relating to electrical installations in private rented property.

The short answer is that we cannot tell you, since, because of the way the legislation (and associated guidance documents) has been written, it is all; down to the opinions, discretion and judgment of the person who undertook the EICR - which is why I think you need to see that document.

We are all agreed that it would be 'better' if the CU were moved, so it's very probable that an inspector would raise this issue in an EICR. However, in the absence of any official 'rules', or even 'guidelines' (other than some from trade organisations, who have no authority), it is entirely down to the opinion/judgement of the inspector to decide whether to 'code' this issue as 'C3' ('improvement recommended') or C2' ('potentially dangerous - remedial action required'). If C3, then the CU does not have to be moved. If C2, then the legislation would require 'the defect to be remedied' (i.e. the CU moved) within 28 days of the date of the inspection.

Until you see the EICR (if there is one) you cannot know which of those situations applies.

At least in my opinion, it is very poorly thought-through legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

C1 = Dangerous, C2 = Potentially dangerous so question is if you can't turn off a circuit, is that potentially dangerous?

I can't really answer that, if for example your washing machine weights came loose, and it is wandering around the floor, smashing cupboards either side you would want a method to isolate without knocking on some one else door, but not sure you can call it dangerous.

It is for the courts to decide, but would not say it is cut and dried.