DIY work and house sale, just need EICR?

[JohnW2]

... OR ANY FI!!!!!

Yep, that as well.

 

[JohnW2]

I do see your point, I have a C&G 2391 so can show I have the skill, but I am 71 and so dementure can't be ruled out ...

At any age, and in any state of health, the possession of paper qualifications offers no guarantee that work undertaken by the possessor of those qualifications will be even remotely competent/satisfactory/safe.

, and there is no way to evoke my qualifications, unlike my driving licence,

With very few exceptions (e.g. if it is discovered that they were obtained fraudulently), qualifications cannot be revoked, and that's as true of your Driving Test pass as anything else. However, in an increasingly wide range of disciplines and walks of life (and as always has been the case with driving), possession of the qualification(s) alone is not enough - one also has to be registered/licensed/whatever. Such registration/licensing (which commonly has to be regularly renewed, sometimes involving 're-assessments' or, at least, evidence of CPD/whatever) can be revoked in the case of someone whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory.

A code C1 easy, a code C2 is a personal opinion. So the buyer needs to trust the inspector, so he need needs to be the one paying the piper.

One might hope that would be the case, but we know only too well that, unfortunately, even the person who pays the inspector cannot necessarily trust him/her to produce an EICR of the standard and 'correctness' that the payer should be able to reasonably expect. That's why I feel that strict regulation and oversight of EICRs would help to make the situation more satisfactory - and, indeed, generally increase confidence in the industry.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

One might hope that would be the case, but we know only too well that, unfortunately, even the person who pays the inspector cannot necessarily trust him/her to produce an EICR of the standard and 'correctness' that the payer should be able to reasonably expect. That's why I feel that strict regulation and oversight of EICRs would help to make the situation more satisfactory - and, indeed, generally increase confidence in the industry.

Kind Regards, John

This does seem to be the main problem, when I did my C&G 2391 there were 4 codes, now we have 8, however the code A, N/V, LIM, N/A and even C3 don't seem to concern people, we lost code 4, which was does not comply with current edition of BS 7671 as it was felt this was unhelpful, and the whole idea is to report on the condition, not to if it complies with current BS 7671, yet the new forms give option to quote the regulation number for any faults recorded, which seems to reverse the whole reason for dropping code 4.

Codes now have C in front to show new code rather than old code, but there is no requirement to enter a code, if the inspector decides he will just do a written report, he can, however the scheme providers do two forms, one which anyone can use, which seems a bit daft as free down load from IET web site, and one which only authorised inspectors can use, both have the scheme logo on them, printed in two different colours, with green it states on them

but one has to question why anyone would buy forms with the logo on them other than to con the client into thinking these are issued as part of their scheme registration.

It did not really matter if code C1, C2, C3, or FI the main point was the writing told the client what the problems were, thought out the time when I was doing PIR the EICR (name changed) I have seen many reports where it seems to me wrong code was used, I have even seen a code C1 on the report and the power was still on to the circuit, how anyone can code C1 and leave it powered up I don't know?

But it didn't really matter what code, or even if there was a code, you client did not need to do anything after getting the report, it just told him the condition. That was until the English government decided to issue a new law and require landlords to have EICR's done and any C1, C2, or FI codes needed correcting by a qualified person. They also states what should be checked with an EICR and included items traditionally not included, and excluded items traditionally included.

The government EICR is normally really no good for a home buyer, as he is normally on interested in the current using appliances not classed as portable, and he does want to know about an unsafe DNO head. In the main the home buyer wants to know if the installation is safe, with the exception of lights, this does not cover current using appliances.

So the clients instructions are now rather important, he needs to specify the report is for letting out the property, so it will include the extras, the problem is when some one buys to let, as although the IET instructions say an EICR should be done each time the occupant changes, clearly to highlight anything untowards which the old occupant has done, or every 10 years with domestic, the government allows the old document to be used, but needs it doing every 5 years, before the MOT came out, during a service it was normal for garages to do a safety check, but it was like the EICR in there were no hard and fast rules, when the MOT came out mechanics were required to follow a book detailing exactly how much play was allowed in a king pin for example depending on the diameter of the king pin. Very little was left for the mechanic to personally decide, and when a wagon was prepared for MOT one was reasonably sure if it would pass or fail, and if it failed you would likely be in trouble.

But the landlord law was done on the cheap, it would have been better if it had required the inspector to be authorised by his scheme, I think it was due to still being in the EU when law passed, and could not draft a law stopping EU workers from doing the inspection, so no exam requirement, all it says is

“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;

note they must be competent to do the remedial work, so that does pose a question, if they can't do the remedial work as not a member of a competent persons scheme, can they do the EICR?

Competent person. A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others.

OK now removed from current edition.

In conclusion I would say since the seller does not know what the buyer is going to do with the house, i.e. if it will be rented out, it must be up to the buyer to get any EICR done.

 

[JohnW2]

This does seem to be the main problem, when I did my C&G 2391 there were 4 codes, now we have 8, however the code A, N/V, LIM, N/A and even C3 don't seem to concern people ...

As Risteard pointed out, F1 also 'concerns people', since it has to be taken to mean 'possibly C2' (and maybe even 'possibly C1'), and hence is regarded as creating an 'Unsatisfactory' report.

, and the whole idea is to report on the condition, not to if it complies with current BS 7671,

That's surely not correct in the eyes of BS7671 (which is the 'inventor of EICRs), is it?

... The government EICR is normally really no good for a home buyer, as he is normally on interested in the current using appliances not classed as portable ...

I'm not sure that I understand and/or agree with that.

But the landlord law was done on the cheap .... all it says is "... 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;" - note they must be competent to do the remedial work, so that does pose a question, if they can't do the remedial work as not a member of a competent persons scheme, can they do the EICR?

Well, for a start, as you say, this applies only to 'landlord EICRs', and not to EICRs in general. However, I don't think you're really right in relation to 'landlord' ones, since someone may be 'competent' to undertake both EICRs and any required remedial work without being a member of a CPS - and, in any event, I would imagine that a high proportion of 'remedial work' would not be notifiable (in England, where the 'landlord legislation' applies), such that even the self-certification/notification possible for a COPS member would not be relevant.

In conclusion I would say since the seller does not know what the buyer is going to do with the house, i.e. if it will be rented out, it must be up to the buyer to get any EICR done.

As I always say, I don't see why (other than in exceptional circumstances) a seller should ever consider arranging (and paying for) an EICR, any more than they would consider paying for a structural survey or LA Searches etc - but that's as a matter of principle, not the reasons you give. If a buyer requires some specific inspection for a specific purpose (e.g. if they intend to rent out the property), then that is obviously down to them!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

... note they must be competent to do the remedial work, so that does pose a question, if they can't do the remedial work as not a member of a competent persons scheme, can they do the EICR?

There is no requirement to be a member of a scam - not that it stops my agent lying to me periodically about that even after I've corrected them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have a C&G 2391 so can show I have the skill, but I am 71 and so dementure can't be ruled out,

I don't see what difference having false teeth makes .

 

[ericmark]

This house had an installation certificate, it looked good, however I found out it was only for the old garage under the main house, and had been done when it was turned into a flat. It did not bother me, however had I intended to rent out part of the premises it could have caused problems, there was nothing on it to say LIM to flat only, and this is a problem, the new owner has no idea what instructions were given to the inspector, so only option is to commission a report himself, there is no point the seller having an EICR done other than to show it was OK when sold, but I see no way I could take the seller to court because the main house electrics did not comply, only person I could get upset with was the surveyor who wrote out the home buyers report saying the fuse box in the false ceiling space was redundant when it was not.

I was actually surprised the surveyors report included the electrics. But it did.

 

[JohnW2]

This house had an installation certificate, it looked good, however I found out it was only for the old garage under the main house, and had been done when it was turned into a flat. It did not bother me, however had I intended to rent out part of the premises it could have caused problems, there was nothing on it to say LIM to flat only, and this is a problem, the new owner has no idea what instructions were given to the inspector, so only option is to commission a report himself, there is no point the seller having an EICR done other than to show it was OK ...

I'm not sure what you are arguing about, and why, since you seem to be saying the same as I did.

As I recently wrote, under any circumstances it is for the buyer to commission (and pay for) any inspections/surveys they might want and, in particular, if they want/need a particular inspection for a particular purpose (e.g. if they want to rent out the property), then it is even more obviously down to them to organise (and pay for) what they want/need.

... I see no way I could take the seller to court because the main house electrics did not comply ...

Nor can I. You always seem to be rather focussed on the idea of taking people to court, or people being taken to court, but that is so very rarely any part of these equations that I doubt that it is a very fruitful avenue of thought or discussion! Indeed, even if you did 'take someone to court' because of an imperfect EICR, then, although I'm no lawyer, I rather suspect that what it might achieve (financially) would probably not be worth the hassle (and probable further financial risk).

Kind Regards, John