Compliance certificate should there be a hard copy?

[JohnW2]

I agree but many people buy with mortgages and solicitors can be quiite insistent about getting the right paperwork. One problem is that Council’s don't allow access to detailed building control records, completion certificates often contain little useful information about what work was done.

Blup

You seem to be talking about something different from what I was responding to (the suggestion that buyers would be foolish to buy without having an EICR done at the time).

Mortgage lenders will rely on their own surveys, including an inspection of the electrical installation if the surveyor suggests that is necessary.

However, you seem to be talking about past work which has been done and, as I always say, one simply has to be honest. Neither lenders nor solicitors can get blood out of a stone. If one tells them that past electrical work has been done but not notified (when it should have been), then there is obviously not going to be any official 'paperwork', and very probably no documentation at all that they could be given. It's then for the buyer to decide whether they want to proceed with the purchase. However, as I recently implied, it would be a very daft prospective buyer who declined to buy what would otherwise be their 'dream home' because of non-notification of prior electrical work (which may well have been perfectly satisfactory, anyway even if not notified).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

After @RandomGrinch gave the link for Powis, I decided to look for the completion and compliance certificates which for a time I could not find when selling my late mothers old house in Flintshire, I know there are three, as latter I did find them, however when I looked there was an entry in the street for 2002 under the post code, but nothing for my mothers old house.

So it seems lack of entry on the application search results means nothing. So if one says I have lost the certificate, but it was registered, they can't show one is not telling the truth. I am talking about not just one not listed, but three, seems whole street has same post code, and just 4 jobs registered since 2002. That seems unlikely.

I have got the certificates printed, but am told I will get a pack with all the certificates in it. It just has not arrived yet. It will not worry me, when this house is sold that is likely because I am dead or reached the seventh age, and some one else is looking after me due to my loosing my marbles, so I will not care anyway.

However I have had problems with digital stuff in the past, with a foreman using VB to alter dates on PAT testing records, so it said they had been tested when they hadn't, after he was caught we went back to printing out and signing the records.

 

[blup]

You seem to be talking about something different from what I was responding to (the suggestion that buyers would be foolish to buy without having an EICR done at the time).

Mortgage lenders will rely on their own surveys, including an inspection of the electrical installation if the surveyor suggests that is necessary.

However, you seem to be talking about past work which has been done and, as I always say, one simply has to be honest. Neither lenders nor solicitors can get blood out of a stone. If one tells them that past electrical work has been done but not notified (when it should have been), then there is obviously not going to be any official 'paperwork', and very probably no documentation at all that they could be given. It's then for the buyer to decide whether they want to proceed with the purchase. However, as I recently implied, it would be a very daft prospective buyer who declined to buy what would otherwise be their 'dream home' because of non-notification of prior electrical work (which may well have been perfectly satisfactory, anyway even if not notified).

Kind Regards, John

I've come across building reg approvals being revealed in local searches without any real clue as to what work was done, or being ambiguous about it. That doesn't help the purchaser because BC wont release anything beyond the certificate because it's "personal data", so causing problems for purchasers down the line.

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

I've come across building reg approvals being revealed in local searches without any real clue as to what work was done, or being ambiguous about it. That doesn't help the purchaser because BC wont release anything beyond the certificate because it's "personal data", so causing problems for purchasers down the line.

As you say, that doesn't help the purchaser.

However, what I am questioning is whether it would significantly 'help the purchaser' if they did 'know what work had been done' (maybe a long time ago). As I keep saying, I think a prospective purchaser would be pretty daft to allow such matters to influence their decision as to whether or not to buy!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So it seems lack of entry on the application search results means nothing. So if one says I have lost the certificate, but it was registered, they can't show one is not telling the truth.

Maybe true but, as I keep saying/asking, "So What?".

I really don't think that any sensible prospective purchaser should be very concerned about such matters. Let's face it, even if their were impeccable documentation relating to electrical works that had done in the past, that would in no way prove that something had not been done, or 'happened' to the installation subsequently which may have rendered it 'dangerous' - only a current EICR would go a fair way towards providing reassurance about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

As you say, that doesn't help the purchaser.

However, what I am questioning is whether it would significantly 'help the purchaser' if they did 'know what work had been done' (maybe a long time ago). As I keep saying, I think a prospective purchaser would be pretty daft to allow such matters to influence their decision as to whether or not to buy!

Kind Regards, John

Lack of maintenance or formal approval of works can affect insurance, both premiums and claims, so yes it would assist to know when, for example the fuse board had been upgraded.

B;up

 

[JohnW2]

Lack of maintenance or formal approval of works can affect insurance, both premiums and claims, so yes it would assist to know when, for example the fuse board had been upgraded.

You seem to be moving goalposts in attempts to support your point - this is the first you've said about insurance

You were previously suggesting (and I was questioning) that knowing what notifiable work had been done (and notified!) in the past would be useful to a prospective buyer - but I seriously doubt that considerations such as you now mention (insurance) even cross the mind of (m)any buyers!

Maybe you've encountered different insurers than I have, but I'm sure that premiums I've paid have never been influenced by such issues, since no insurer has ever asked me about the history of the electrical installation before I bought the property (questiopns that I would probably not have been able to answer, anyway). As for settlement of insurance claims, policies will generally impose some obligation on the policyholder to maintain the property (including the electrical installation) satisfactorily but that obligation obviously only applies from when the policy comes into effect, and is not influenced by past events.

As for "knowing when the fuse board had been upgraded", notification has only existed for about 18 years, so there would be no LA record of any work prior to that - so LA records would be of limited value (to anyone).

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

You seem to be moving goalposts in attempts to support your point - this is the first you've said about insurance

You were previously suggesting (and I was questioning) that knowing what notifiable work had been done (and notified!) in the past would be useful to a prospective buyer - but I seriously doubt that considerations such as you now mention (insurance) even cross the mind of (m)any buyers!

Maybe you've encountered different insurers than I have, but I'm sure that premiums I've paid have never been influenced by such issues, since no insurer has ever asked me about the history of the electrical installation before I bought the property (questiopns that I would probably not have been able to answer, anyway). As for settlement of insurance claims, policies will generally impose some obligation on the policyholder to maintain the property (including the electrical installation) satisfactorily but that obligation obviously only applies from when the policy comes into effect, and is not influenced by past events.

As for "knowing when the fuse board had been upgraded", notification has only existed for about 18 years, so there would be no LA record of any work prior to that - so LA records would be of limited value (to anyone).

Kind Regards, John

Yes, insurers can and do refuse to pay out if there is no proof of appropriate maintenance.

Since when has replying to a point by broadening out the issue to give context been moving the goalposts? This forum would gave withered on the vine in such a case. We are ordinary people not Greek logicians.

Blup

 

[blup]

As you say, that doesn't help the purchaser.

However, what I am questioning is whether it would significantly 'help the purchaser' if they did 'know what work had been done' (maybe a long time ago). As I keep saying, I think a prospective purchaser would be pretty daft to allow such matters to influence their decision as to whether or not to buy!

Kind Regards, John

Ok so a double negative doesn’t make a positive but I would want to know what work had been done, it goes to the value of the property, and an assessment of the cost of bringing it up to standard. Of course it also depends on how much you want it and what the competition is.

Blup

 

[ericmark]

As to buying a house, complete rewire likely £5k, which on a £200k house is not much, and the home buyers report will likely pick it up if whole house needs a rewire. New consumer unit maybe £500, but that is nothing compared to house price. There are far more important things to consider when buying a house, leaking roof, blown double glazing, damp issues etc. So in the whole scheme of things, the EICR is rather minor.

And one only has to read reports on this forum to see the problems with an EICR, OK we would hope not to get a repeat of the "Pembrokeshire County Council Trading Standards v Mark Cummins" court case, but to do an EICR covering all aspects is not cheap, and one can't trust one commissioned by anyone else, so one has bought the property before you get a report.

But it does seem solicitors want to see an installation certificate, however they also if mine is anything to go by, no idea as to how valid, I looked at the document and commented those readings don't seem right for a house of this size, but not worried about the electrics anyway. I was right, the certificate only covered the flat under the main house.

Maybe other people had a better surveyor doing their home buyers report, which was why we got the house for the price we did. And I ask myself if the electrics were so bad with the Pembrokeshire County Council Trading Standards v Mark Cummins case, why did the home buyers report not pick it up?

As to for how long one can claim for faulty installations I am not sure, parents house built 1954 had no earths to the lights, for ceiling lights at that time it was permitted, however it said before the 1966 change "mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched and are out of reach of earthed metal." so wall lights should have been earthed. Could I have called the builders back to correct it? We normally consider 25 years and after that point tough.

However my son stopped as a sole trader some 20 years ago, and has moved house three times since then, unlikely he could find insurance details of work he did while sole trading. In real terms even 2 years is stretching it, however had recalls for my car which is over 10 year old, I would be considering it as an old banger.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, insurers can and do refuse to pay out if there is no proof of appropriate maintenance.

That would be very harsh (and I'm not even sure contractually 'legal'), given that a high proportion of policyholders would probably not bee able to provide such 'proof'. What insurers can, and do, do is to refuse to pay out (or reduced what they pay) when there is proof of the lack of appropriate maintenance - i.e. "innocent unless proved guilty".

In any event, as I've said, that obligation to maintain obviously only starts when someone buys the house and insures it, regardless of history.

As I recently wrote, even if there is an impressive and impeccably-documented history of work on the electrical installation, and even if there is a fairly recent 'satisfactory' EICR, that does not preclude the possibility that something has subsequently happened to render the installation unsatisfactory, or maybe even 'unsafe'. It is therefore for the the new owner to either 'gamble' (with or without the aid of historical information) or to take steps (e.g. an EICR) to themseelves confirm that the electrical installation is satisfactory when they acquire it - and then subsequently 'maintain it appropriately'.

Since when has replying to a point by broadening out the issue to give context been moving the goalposts?

It's not, per se. However, one gets closer to 'moving of goalposts' when each new 'broadeening' appears afteer the previous one has been questioned/'countered'

My personal view of the bottom line of all this is that people get far too concerned about the possible impact on a future salee of a property of the absence of documentation relating to the past history of an electrical installation.

I see a lot of properties being bought and sold and, although the refurbishment sometimes includes notifiable electrical work, it often doesn't. In such cases, and given the circumstances of the property (mostly acquired as repossession or probate sales), the answer to the question which used to be on the standard (TA6) conveyancing form as to "whether any electrical work has been undertaken since 1st January 2005" was always inevitably something like "We have no information on this matter" - and I'm not aware of that every having deterred a prospective buyer (or their solicitor/conveyancer). However, that was the "2nd edition" of the TA6 form. In the (I believe) current (3rd ed.) form, introduced in 2013, that question has actually disappeared. Hence, for the past 10 years a seller has not been asked anything about past electrical work.

I think that, even when thee question was there, it was only ever a 'box-ticking' exercise on the part of solicitors/conveyancers, who didn';t seem to care how thee question was answered, provided it was answered!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Ok so a double negative doesn’t make a positive but I would want to know what work had been done, it goes to the value of the property, and an assessment of the cost of bringing it up to standard. Of course it also depends on how much you want it and what the competition is.

Sure, if information on the history of the electrical installation is available, then that would be of interest and potential value to a prospective buyer - even though, as I have said, I wouldn't think that even the need for a complete re-wire should often deter a person who was otherwise very keen to buy the property.

However, although you have subsequently broadened the discussion, I was talking in the context of your 'complaint' that LA records available to buyers did not disclose the nature of any electrical work that had been notified. As I've said, notification has only existed for about 18 years (and, in England, has applied to very few types of work for the past 10 years) - so LA-derived information was very often not going to be of much use anyway (i.e., in a high proportion of cases, there will never have been any notified electrical work).

Kind Regards, John