Commercial PIR's - Landlord or Tenant?

[Click-Sure]

Evening folks.

Been thrown a curved ball by a customer who has been asked to supply proof that the fixed wiring in the property they occupy is safe by their insurance company.

There is some wrangling going on as to who's responsibility it is to have these checks done, tenant or landlord?

With domestic rental properties I understand the landlord has duty of care to provide their tenant with a house that is safe to live in, a satisfactory PIR is an easy way to prove this, not sure if this still washes for commercial property.

I recon this is something that will be in the small print of their lease, but would like others opinions if you can spare the time

Not going to be a very nice job if I do get it, the place is a maze of additions and alterations, more federal electric gear than you can shake a stick at!

 

[RF Lighting]

Who owns the wiring?

Who paid for it to be installed in the first place?

 

[Click-Sure]

Cheers for the quick reply RF.

Well, I'd say the wiring is owned by the Landlord but any alterations have been paid for by the customer, a little bit difficult, may be worth telling them to put that to their landlord and see what they say to it.

 

[OwainDIYer]

It's required by the insurer, so whoever pays the insurance also pays for the report.

 

[dingbat]

Regulation 4(2) of the Electricity at Work Regulations.

Have a read here.

As RF asked, whose system is it?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ericmark]

In most the places I have worked the Land Lord has only supplied basic services and the tenant has added to those basic services.

Before adding any electrical wiring or machine the person designing the work must ascertain that the existing system is able to safely take the additions and we see again and again the problems where when adding to a system we take responsibility for the whole system not just the addition unless we don't have access in which case we will have written proof that the other party is aware of the additions. Like a request for connection.

As an employer one is responsible for workers safety and as such it is hard to claim the Land Lord is in a position to ensure any alterations are done in a way to ensure the safety of workers.

Therefore I would not expect the Land Lord would need to do an inspection to satisfy anything other than his own employees safety.
However when we see reports of something going wrong. For example the oil rig on the US coast it is not just the firm operating the oil rig that are bought to task but also the firm ordering the work.

Where I have worked the testing of lifting gear, and many of the other insurable risks are actually done by the insurers. And I would have expected the insurers would have wanted to inspect the paperwork as to all electrical work done. And only if this paperwork was not made available would they then ask for an inspection report.

So I would guess work has been done without raising paperwork which has resulted in the request for an inspection. If this is the case then it would be up to the tenant to correct his errors.

 

[SgtTrojan]

If it were a bar and the bar was owned by a brewery and the bar was run by a tenant (i.e. the license holder) it is the tenant's responsibility to ensure a PIR is carried out and not the brewery (e.g. for the issue of an entertainments license). If the same bar was ran by a manager then it would be the brewery's responsibility to ensure everything was in order. It falls down to who the Duty Holder is?

If a building owner is going to let out a property (e.g. a factory) then surely they must ensure the building is fit for purpose? The contract should be referred to but if the same customer is a tenant for 30+ years this will mean alterations, additions and/ or a complete re-wire will (probably) be required. The building owner is still responsible for them because if the customer just disappears they can't let it until they know it's safe. So no work should be carried out on the installation without the consent of the building owner and certification of work completed (paid for by the tenant) should be given to the building owner (landlord).

For a periodic inspection I would say, unless there is a change in occupancy, the tenant should ensure the installation is still fit for purpose and provide proof if they were to leave (but this would never happen so would be down to the building owner to ensure the installation is safe.

Without the contract to read I would say the building owner is in the driver seat and will dictate as such.

I'd be interest to hear from the HSE. Infact, I will email a guy who sat our CompEx course last month and report back here.

Good discussion point lads.

 

[ricicle]

Most commercial lets are 'fully repairing', this means the tenant is fully responsible for the maintenance of all the building services.

And if its not "fully repairing', the landlord does the work, but the tenants have to pay all of the costs.

So one way or another the tenant pays.

Yep - read the contract

 

[SgtTrojan]

Hi Gareth

Unless it was an unusual contract, I'd say its usually the landlords responsibility (gas and electric) but I have not been able to pinpoint any legislation that makes this clear.

You could check with the local authority

Bottom line is that the installation should have a 5-yearly BS7671 periodic

Hope this helps

 

[Click-Sure]

Thanks for your input,

I've emailed the customer with my/our thoughts on the issue, time for them to go back to building management, it does set an interesting president for the many units in the centre, which i think is why they will dig their heels in!

Its over a weeks work that i really really dont fancy!

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[digdilem]

I've had quite a few of these comes up, and the advise I get every time is "Depends what the lease says"

Quite often it doesn't, and as the renter I will approach the landlord and ask them to perform the fixed electrics safety test. I have about a 50% success rate so far with this approach - the good ones do it, the bad landlords don't and in those cases I pay for it to ensure the safety of our employees. In one instance the landlord paid for it and the remedial work required by skipping a couple of months rent.