Hi John, sorry I misread what you said here, i think we do pretty much agree on thisd too.
Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)
- Thread starter RandomRash
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 239
- Country
"at least every 5 years"? So every 10 years would be fine then...
no
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Hmmmm. No
Does "you should brush your teeth at least every day" mean that 'once a month' or 'once a year', would be fine?
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 25,101
- Reaction score
- 2,920
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
I can't believe this is still going on. However as pointed out, it says the electrical installation must be inspected, and since it says copies must be sent to the tenant and if requested the LABC it clearly must be in writing. It also gives a 5 year limit, one would hope the reference to BS7671:2018 means it should be done by electrical personal, and the fact it says codes C1, C2, and FI are fails also points to being done following the best practice guide from the electrical safety council.
However it is so loosely worded, likely due to still at the time of writing being part of common market, so labour from other member countries could be used, so as it stands, it would seem, a home buyers report which contains references as to the state of the electrics could be used, I don't think it should be used, but there is nothing to say the report has to be in a form using codes at all, only if they are used what means a fail, so the old codes 1 to 4 could also be used.
In other words there is loads of wriggle room for the bad landlord to try and use. I am often criticised for saying it is up to the courts to decide, but that is how British law works, a poorly written law is made, then the courts generate case law to refine the original law. But up to now the only case law I have seen, is one in Wales so does not really help, and two the electrician admitted he did not do his job, so he was fined, but non of the items which he missed were listed, so we are no better informed as to what is permitted.
However the main point is, I am sure no electrician or landlord wants to be dragged through the courts, even if the landlord wins, it is cheaper to fit a RCD than to fight a court case, so just fit the RCD.
I do wonder, what would happen if a plumber comes to repair my central heating and gets injured or killed with an electric shock when the boiler was RCBO protected and when the solar panels were fitted the RCD protection was removed, and a compliance certificate issued? I hope I will never find out.
However it is so loosely worded, likely due to still at the time of writing being part of common market, so labour from other member countries could be used, so as it stands, it would seem, a home buyers report which contains references as to the state of the electrics could be used, I don't think it should be used, but there is nothing to say the report has to be in a form using codes at all, only if they are used what means a fail, so the old codes 1 to 4 could also be used.
In other words there is loads of wriggle room for the bad landlord to try and use. I am often criticised for saying it is up to the courts to decide, but that is how British law works, a poorly written law is made, then the courts generate case law to refine the original law. But up to now the only case law I have seen, is one in Wales so does not really help, and two the electrician admitted he did not do his job, so he was fined, but non of the items which he missed were listed, so we are no better informed as to what is permitted.
However the main point is, I am sure no electrician or landlord wants to be dragged through the courts, even if the landlord wins, it is cheaper to fit a RCD than to fight a court case, so just fit the RCD.
I do wonder, what would happen if a plumber comes to repair my central heating and gets injured or killed with an electric shock when the boiler was RCBO protected and when the solar panels were fitted the RCD protection was removed, and a compliance certificate issued? I hope I will never find out.
Have you not heard of 'electronic copies'? - or,alternatively, what do you mean by "in writing"?
How did the ESC get into this? Those codes are defined in(all editions of) BS7671.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 25,101
- Reaction score
- 2,920
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
Yes for all safety items must be in writing includes text messages, fax, emails, etc. I does not need to be on paper, I have done a search for C1 and C2 in my 2008 edition of BS 7671 and failed to find it. Found codes AD5, ADD when hunting for codes, but no code C1 or C2.
It does say
1 = requires urgent attention.
2 = requires improvement.
3 = requires further investigation.
4 = does not comply with BS 7671:2008 amended to ............ This does not imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe.
Since in 2008 it was recommended that domestic be inspected every 10 years, there may be some properties where the PIR/EICR still uses the old codes. Since the new forms are a free down load from the IET website, I would have thought most people are by now using the new layout.
However the question remains, if I was asked to have a quick look at a house electrics, and I did just that, and wrote a What's app report to the friend to say things like "there is no RCD protection, to add it would really mean a new consumer unit needs fitting" he has a written report for some one with his C&G 2391 which was written without the inspector being made aware it was going to be used as an EICR who if anyone is braking the new law? Same applies with a surveyors home buyers report, it is not written as an EICR to satisfy the new landlord law, however it is still a report on the condition of the installation.
Had the vendor taken him to court, or the vendor had contacted consumer protection then I would have said fair enough, but it seems odd that it was the buyer who started it all.
I suppose we should simply not do favours, which would include giving advice on a forum, it can be miss read, and some one can act on the advice in error.
But fact remains I would not want my own house to be devoid of RCD protection, so why should I feel some one who needs to rent a house should no be protected in the same way, I think all houses should have RCD protection, but not so sure as to if the rules and regulations actually say that.
It does say
1 = requires urgent attention.
2 = requires improvement.
3 = requires further investigation.
4 = does not comply with BS 7671:2008 amended to ............ This does not imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe.
Since in 2008 it was recommended that domestic be inspected every 10 years, there may be some properties where the PIR/EICR still uses the old codes. Since the new forms are a free down load from the IET website, I would have thought most people are by now using the new layout.
However the question remains, if I was asked to have a quick look at a house electrics, and I did just that, and wrote a What's app report to the friend to say things like "there is no RCD protection, to add it would really mean a new consumer unit needs fitting" he has a written report for some one with his C&G 2391 which was written without the inspector being made aware it was going to be used as an EICR who if anyone is braking the new law? Same applies with a surveyors home buyers report, it is not written as an EICR to satisfy the new landlord law, however it is still a report on the condition of the installation.
It seems this may have been some thing similar, where an electrician as a favour has had a quick look. Since he pleaded guilty this was not brought out in the court, what we can read here Says he spent less than an hour, which would equate to having a quick look around, his mistake was in issuing an EICR in a standard format, however his contract was with the vendor, not the buyer, and it does seem a strange case. As it was the buyer who complained to their mates within the council who in turn took him to court under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 of engaging in a commercial practice which was misleading action. Not sure how it would be if the vendor had just got him a pint of beer in the pub?
Had the vendor taken him to court, or the vendor had contacted consumer protection then I would have said fair enough, but it seems odd that it was the buyer who started it all.
I suppose we should simply not do favours, which would include giving advice on a forum, it can be miss read, and some one can act on the advice in error.
But fact remains I would not want my own house to be devoid of RCD protection, so why should I feel some one who needs to rent a house should no be protected in the same way, I think all houses should have RCD protection, but not so sure as to if the rules and regulations actually say that.
What about a landlord who is not bothered about RCD protection in his own home?
Not yet but eventually with new work requiring it, the time will come.
You cannot legislate that thirty million homes do whatever new idea comes along instantly.
It's a mess. Although 'the law' itself does not once mention "EICR", the associated guidance for landklords makes it pretty clear that what the legislation thought it was talking about was actually an EICR.
As for "... without the inspector being made aware it was going to be used as an EICR", if you mean that literally, it presumably could only be "used as an EICR" if the inspector had presented in the format of EICRs as defined in BS7671 ?
Kind Regards, John
Possibly, but possibly not.
By the day when "that time [may have] come", it's far from impossible that the current 'requirements' for RCDs/RCBOs, which are gradually coming to be implemented in an ever-increasing proportion of 'all homes', will have been superseded by a requirement for something "newer-fangled"
Kind Regards, John
@ Ericmark
Your 2008 version of the regs is well and truly out of date so referencing that isn’t relevant
Your 2008 version of the regs is well and truly out of date so referencing that isn’t relevant
A mess 100% but you would have hoped that having the ex boss of cert sure on the committee would have avoided all these conversations
I wouldn't say it wasn't relevant, since my assumption was that eric was responding to my comment in the immediately preceding post which included ...
Your 'hopes' seem to be based on wishful thinking, which is probably misplaced.
... and what "committee" do you think wrote the legislation?
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
