Wrong
Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)
- Thread starter RandomRash
- Start date
Wrong
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,889
- Reaction score
- 507
- Country
My recollection is that it used to be in the Approved Document but was later removed.
As I said, I don't think so.
Maybe it was Approved Doc P, then. The original version contained this ...
... but that seems to be absent in the 2013 (in England) version.
Kind Regards, John
So my mate the landlord has been ripped off then and did not need to spend £600 on a new metal CU, and the tenant's rent did not need to go up either to pay for it.
Seems like the agent is running a nice little business with their chosen electrical contractors. Evil landlords you say
Sponsored Links
Probably not. The problem is that the current law seems to say that, for a rented property, if an EICR identifies things that 'need' to be done, then the landlord is legally obliged to have them done, no matter how daft/wrong the EICR may be.
As above, it's the person who undertook the EICR who is 'to blame', whether in allegiance with the agent or not.Seems like the agent is running a nice little business with their chosen electrical contractors. Evil landlords you say
I image that deliberately providing an incorrect EICR for the purpose of generating work (financial gain) (or conspiring to do that) would qualify as fraud.
Unfortunately, we will continue to see this problem unless/until EICRs (or, at least, 'landlord inspections') come to be effectively and strictly regulated.
Kind Regards, John
So my mate the landlord has been ripped off then and did not need to spend £600 on a new metal CU, and the tenant's rent did not need to go up either to pay for it.
Seems like the agent is running a nice little business with their chosen electrical contractors. Evil landlords you say
I said nothing about landlords and as for the rent going up - landlords must factor maintenance costs into their business plans. Whether it be an EICR or a leaking tap or a broken fridge.
The spark who did the EICR is incorrect unless there was damage to the existing CU
Sadly too many people are being advised incorrectly.
Agreed, but when it come to 'landlord electrical inspections', it's not just "advice", because it now has (potentially expensive) legal teeth.
You know what I think is needed.
Don’t suggest a scheme to be members of. It’s the members of NAPIT who pay to be registered to do EICRs who are mainly to blame
I suppose any system of regulation that could bee called 'a schemes', but ones like our current CPSs are not fit for purpose.
I am talking about some sort of legally-based 'licensing' to be allowed to carry out 'landlord inspections' (and, preferably all EICRs in general). 'Entry Requirements' would be demanding, and would include several years' experience of working as an electrician. Competence (and knowledge of current rules and regs) would be regularly re-assessed and.most important of all, some EICRs they had undertaken 'in anger' would be 'audited'. Those who repeatedly, or seriously, 'fell short of the mark' would have their 'licenses' revoked, and would be banned from every getting one in the future.
I would not single out any particular CPS. There are members of all the schemes who are 'to blame'.
The EICR does not mean that the installation has to be "up to the current Edition" it means one particular edition until the renting law changes it.
In reality it actually it means it must be compared with the named Eidition, it must be the jugded Sat or Unsat
In reality it actually it means it must be compared with the named Eidition, it must be the jugded Sat or Unsat
Yes, I think that most/all of us involved in this discussion are aware of that.
However, most of the discussion has been about whether it was or was not the intent of the law that the inspector should 'judge' in relation to the regs in BS7671:2018 that would be applicable to new work/installations (which is what I strongly suspect was the intent) OR, whether one might be able to squirm out of that by saying that something which was compliant with regs in an earlier version, but is not conformant with the regs in BS7671:2018 is "not necessarily unsafe for continued use" (hence not necessarily a "non-compliance" by BS7671 definition) "because it says that in the Introduction of BS7671:2018".
The latter might sound 'better' in some senses, but I do doubt that it was the intent - it would effectively mean that an installation which had been totally installed under, say, "the 16th" would effectively have to be inspected today in relation to conformity with the 16th ed.
As I've said, one hopes that sensible/competent inspectors will avoid much of the problem by liberal awarding of C3s ("not compliant with regs in BS7671:2018, but not considered to be 'potentially dangerous' ")
Kind Regards, John have
I dont think I agree with you John.
I would say that any installation, irrespective of when installed and whether for rental or not, must be inspected and compared to A/ a normal inspection by the standard applying today (if not a rental) or B/ a normal inspection to the sopecifically named BS7671:2018 standard.
In either event any C1 or C2 or FI results in unsat.
If it`s a rental then the corrections must be done within 28 days of the unsat declaration.
It is difficult to imagine any C1 or C2 or FI differing under either of those alternatives.
As time goes by the situation might change due to our perception of relative danger - how comparitively long or short ago was main bonding deemed so important? RCDs too?
I am still relatively suspicious that a few landlords might get more than one EICR unitil they get one that declares sat then ignore the unsat ones and let them become "lost".
Even if that were specifically not allowed.
I am also relatively suspicious that many corrections when done do not fall into the 28 day period and,possibly, in practice nothing gets said by some who could enforce it.
I also reckon that if a more reasonable timescale was stated then that would also be pushed over the limits.
So the 28 days now could, in reality be near to 56 days with some but if 3 months were allowed as a sensible option then 6 months might be taken.
Human nature tends to be like that, give folk an inch and they take a mile, sort of thing.
Poloticians often do it and they are the ones setting some of the rules in the first place.
Gov depts, notably DWP for a start and Insurance comps and travel comps all have instances where they do it.
It happens a lot in the workplace a lot, employers make rules about time off/sick pay etc etc and some start pushing and twisting it so the rules get tougher for everyone, have to apply in every situation in that workplace so get worse for everyone thanks to a few pilchards pushing the bounadaries.
Big firms/Gov depts sometimes push push push until they are brought to task, but most folk give up.
Personally I am in deadlock with an insurance co and at last minute they agreed my objections , too late for them to enjoy my renewal because I went elsewhere so they lost out.
But then I reminded them of an historical amount they needed to correct in my favour so they had 8 weeks to sort it before ombudsman could get involved, very near the 8 week deadline they asked for another 6 weeks but stated that I was still allowed to refer to the ombudsman before that 6 weeks had passed as the 8 weeks rule has passed already.
I have decided to hold fire to see what excuse they dig up after that additional 6 weeks but I did notice that they stated that they will strictly apply the 6 months deadine for me to make a complaint to the ombudsman as from the date of my initial complaint, making it clear they would not even consider that addditional 6 weeks.
Cheeky Custards, anyway I will not give in.
I would not claim that I have been to court/tribunals many times but I have been a few times, more than most and I have never lost, yet.
I would say that any installation, irrespective of when installed and whether for rental or not, must be inspected and compared to A/ a normal inspection by the standard applying today (if not a rental) or B/ a normal inspection to the sopecifically named BS7671:2018 standard.
In either event any C1 or C2 or FI results in unsat.
If it`s a rental then the corrections must be done within 28 days of the unsat declaration.
It is difficult to imagine any C1 or C2 or FI differing under either of those alternatives.
As time goes by the situation might change due to our perception of relative danger - how comparitively long or short ago was main bonding deemed so important? RCDs too?
I am still relatively suspicious that a few landlords might get more than one EICR unitil they get one that declares sat then ignore the unsat ones and let them become "lost".
Even if that were specifically not allowed.
I am also relatively suspicious that many corrections when done do not fall into the 28 day period and,possibly, in practice nothing gets said by some who could enforce it.
I also reckon that if a more reasonable timescale was stated then that would also be pushed over the limits.
So the 28 days now could, in reality be near to 56 days with some but if 3 months were allowed as a sensible option then 6 months might be taken.
Human nature tends to be like that, give folk an inch and they take a mile, sort of thing.
Poloticians often do it and they are the ones setting some of the rules in the first place.
Gov depts, notably DWP for a start and Insurance comps and travel comps all have instances where they do it.
It happens a lot in the workplace a lot, employers make rules about time off/sick pay etc etc and some start pushing and twisting it so the rules get tougher for everyone, have to apply in every situation in that workplace so get worse for everyone thanks to a few pilchards pushing the bounadaries.
Big firms/Gov depts sometimes push push push until they are brought to task, but most folk give up.
Personally I am in deadlock with an insurance co and at last minute they agreed my objections , too late for them to enjoy my renewal because I went elsewhere so they lost out.
But then I reminded them of an historical amount they needed to correct in my favour so they had 8 weeks to sort it before ombudsman could get involved, very near the 8 week deadline they asked for another 6 weeks but stated that I was still allowed to refer to the ombudsman before that 6 weeks had passed as the 8 weeks rule has passed already.
I have decided to hold fire to see what excuse they dig up after that additional 6 weeks but I did notice that they stated that they will strictly apply the 6 months deadine for me to make a complaint to the ombudsman as from the date of my initial complaint, making it clear they would not even consider that addditional 6 weeks.
Cheeky Custards, anyway I will not give in.
I would not claim that I have been to court/tribunals many times but I have been a few times, more than most and I have never lost, yet.
In italics below from gov.uk - this is black and white as far as I'm concerned.
If an inspection took place and a satisfactory report was issued before the 18th edition of the Wiring Regulations came into force, but less than 5 years ago, will a landlord always need to have the property inspected again as soon as the Electrical Safety Regulations come into force?
Regulation 3 requires that landlords have the electrical installation inspected and tested at intervals of no longer than every 5 years. Electrical safety standards (the 18th edition of the Wiring Regulations) must be met throughout the period of that tenancy.The 18th edition of the Wiring Regulations came into effect in 2019, so if a landlord already has a report for a property that was carried out after this date and has complied with all the other requirements of the Regulations, they won’t have to have another inspection for 5 years, provided the report does not state that the next inspection should take place sooner.
Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Wiring Regulations may not comply with the 18th edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.
It is good practice for landlords with existing reports to check these reports and decide whether the electrical installation complies with electrical safety standards. Landlords might also wish to contact the inspector who provided a report to ensure the installation complies with electrical safety standards.
yes with the wiring regs of the 18th edition, not the 17th or 16th or 14th or the first one etc etc etc, it must be tested and inspect whilst comparing it to the 18th. I will buy that one - do we differ Murdo Lad?
was published in July 2018, and came into effect in January 2019. so as usual anytime between those dates could be designed, installed and tested to either but on Jan 2019 must be to the 18th not a previous edition. There is usually such a 6 month crossover but I think once it was two years
was published in July 2018, and came into effect in January 2019. so as usual anytime between those dates could be designed, installed and tested to either but on Jan 2019 must be to the 18th not a previous edition. There is usually such a 6 month crossover but I think once it was two years
My take on it was that the 18th edition was the benchmark but liberal use of C3’s is be appropriate
Our house, refurbished in 2013 , if inspected to the 18th edition, would get
C3 for the plastic CU
C3 for no rcd on the shed lights
And if inspected to 18th edition AMD 2
Possibly C3 for no SPD (this imho is really debateable)
C3 for type AC rcbos
At the end of the day, I’ve inspected some truly AWFUL rentals, which are now safe - without this legislation the landlords would never have agreed to spend money.
Lettings agents always, in general , told LLs not to bother with EICR’s
Last edited:
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
