Domestic Electrical Installation Condition Report

[ericmark]

One of the conditions of the mortgage being that the rent had to be at least double the mortgage payment.

This is what I meant when I said why does anyone rent? Half the house needs to have been paid for if going to rent at what it would cost for 100% mortgage. When we got first house 100% mortgage from council I think it was around 17% interest, it was a fixed rate from council, and only way out was to sell the house, so basic forced to move to get a lower rate mortgage I think it had dropped to 12%, but we still over stretched the mark and I ended up working in Algeria to make enough money so did not loose the house. 2½ years latter sitting pretty, the mortgage rate had dropped further and wages had gone up. So first 8 years was hard, then we reaped the benefits.

But it seems born in wrong era, when we owed money interest rates were high, when we were owed money interest rates are low. Maybe it will reverse again now we have left the EU?

But the change has resulted in it being cheaper to buy than rent, when my granddad had a house rented out there were very strict rules on how much rent could go up each year, and if you had a sitting tenant you were locked in to how much you could charge, and there was a huge shortage of home to rent, rules have changed over the years, and the landlord was encouraged to rent with the changing rules, but also people were encouraged to buy, so the huge council estates were broken up, as council houses sold off, but it seems rental market is on the swing again giving the tenant more rights again.

I really am not worried, it will in good time level out, but if you don't pay mortgage you loose the house sold by auction and likely a huge lump of what you considered as savings, but if you don't pay rent, often government will help in one way or another, basic they can't take what you have not got. Unlike what happened to me, as the person going out to work, I had to leave my family and work away. And the conditions in Algeria were far worse to what one would live in with the UK, never mind the hot desk, we had the hot bed, were leaks had caused over ½ the cabins we slept in to be useless. No one had expected rain in Algeria. The locals even worse, they lived in tents, (The Bedouin) any least our accommodation was reasonably scorpion and camel spider proof.

My family never knew the half of it, what I did to make ends meet. They lived in the lap of luxury. But things change, at one time the gypsy was liked where I lived, they paid on the dot, no waiting for ship to return, and no one minded them stopping on the common, today they have to resort to invading school yards in Rhyl and Mold as no where to pitch caravans.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the “not” must be for non urgent situations, where 21 days is given to comply, and maybe a right to appeal. The rules presumably allow for Councils to serve an emergency notice with immediate effect for C1 type situations, where there is no right for the landlord to drag things out at the expense of the tenants safety.

I really can't make much sense of that bit of the legislatioin, given that "not".

It sounds as if you are perhaps overlooking the fact that, at least in terms of EICR definitions, the "urgent remedial action is required" in the legislation's "the most recent report under regulation 3(3) does not indicate that urgent remedial action is required" relates to C2s (as well, presumably, as to C1s)".

That being the case, the legislation appears to be saying that the housing authority only have a duty to issue a Remedial Notice (within 21 days of becoming aware of an issue) if there are NOT any C2s or C1s on the most recent EICR (or whatever) - which seems (to me) to make absolutely no sense at all.

I wondered whether they perhaps had a different understanding of "urgent remedial action is required" from BS7671 (which clearly indicates that it means "C2") - but the Guidance document which accompanies the legislation seems to make it clear that they understand the BS7671 meaning - so I just don't know.

Kind Regards, Joihn

 

[blup]

It seems to cover a situation where no EICR is carried out, or the danger arises between EICRs. The rules seem to assume that a responsible landlord (and his electrician) will carry out work identified in a report as a C1 or C2. Don't forget rule 3(1)(a) says the landlord must ensure electrical standards are met during the tenancy, so the Council or the tenant could presumably take legal action under this more general rule.

Difficult to know whether an oversight or deliberate, unless/until a court rules on it.

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

It seems to cover a situation where no EICR is carried out, or the danger arises between EICRs.

I really don't get it. That clause of the sentence cannot really relate to a situation in which there have been no EICRs, since it explicitly relates to "the most recent report under regulation 3(3)" - and, as for 'between EICRs', that would/could only arise if a tenant reported an issue to the Housing Dept., and I very much doubt that there are many tenants who are aware of the new legislation and that such would perhaps be an option for them.

The rules seem to assume that a responsible landlord (and his electrician) will carry out work identified in a report as a C1 or C2.

In a way, yes, but it seems to make no sense to have legislation which assumes that no-one will contravene it?

What seems to be missing [ but would not be missing were it not for that word "not" in 4(1) ] is provision (I would actually expect an obligation/duty) for the Housing Dept to issue a Remedial Notice (and, ultimately, if necessary have the work undertaken themselves) in the event that there were C1/C2 items on the most recent report which a landlord had failed to have remedied within 28 days - which is surely the most likely transgression of the legislation that they are likely to encounter?

That seems such a fundamental omission that I cannot help but wonder if the word "not" may simply be a typo (i.e. the word should not be there)?

Don't forget rule 3(1)(a) says the landlord must ensure electrical standards are met during the tenancy, so the Council or the tenant could presumably take legal action under this more general rule.

That's true but, as above, it relies on action by tenants, most of whom will probably not even be aware of the legislation or of what action they might be able to take as a result of it.

However, as I've said, (IF that word "not" is intended to be there) there would appear to be a fairly fundamental omission from the legislation, which, on the face of it, would seem to relieve a LA of its duty to enforce remedial action if the need for that remedial action were indicated on the most recent EICR - which seems crazy!

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

Is there a difference in reality between a recent report which does not mention urgent remedial action and a non existent report? They both fail to address a situation that has or might arise requiring council enforcement?

I wonder if these regs were the subject of consultation with the professional electricians bodies. Maybe they were rushed through with everything else that was going on at the time......

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

Is there a difference in reality between a recent report which does not mention urgent remedial action and a non existent report?

No, not really, but that's not the issue that concerns me.

What does concern me is that, whilst Part 2 of the legislation (i.e. Clause 3) imposes requirements on landlords (for failure to comply with which they could presumably be prosecuted), Part 3 does not seem to include any provision (let alone obligation) for the Housing Authority to take any enforcement action (presumably starting with issuing a Remedial Notice) in a situation in which a landlord had failed to remedy (within 28 days) defects which a report HAD identified the need for "urgent remedial action"

As I've said, the whole thing would seem to make more sense if that one "not" word were not there.

I wonder if these regs were the subject of consultation with the professional electricians bodies. Maybe they were rushed through with everything else that was going on at the time......

I imagine that there probably was some consultation process. However, I don't think one can really say that either any consultations or the drafting of the legislation was "rushed through" - although the pandemic will probably have impacted on the final stages, we have been hearing about consideration (and 'imminence') of such legislation for a goopd few years!

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

What does concern me is that, whilst Part 2 of the legislation (i.e. Clause 3) imposes requirements on landlords (for failure to comply with which they could presumably be prosecuted), Part 3 does not seem to include any provision (let alone obligation) for the Housing Authority to take any enforcement action (presumably starting with issuing a Remedial Notice) in a situation in which a landlord had failed to remedy (within 28 days) defects which a report HAD identified the need for "urgent remedial action"

Part 3 doesn't cover it as you say, but Part 4 rule 10 covers urgent remedial action when the inspector's report is not acted on. Quite logically, it deals separately with the really serious situation of a C1 (or C2) not being remedied when the electrician has advised it should, and for whatever reason doesn't (or can't) do it himself.

That I think explains why the "not" you refer to isn't an accidental addition.

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

Part 3 doesn't cover it as you say, but Part 4 rule 10 covers urgent remedial action when the inspector's report is not acted on. Quite logically, it deals separately with the really serious situation of a C1 (or C2) not being remedied when the electrician has advised it should, and for whatever reason doesn't (or can't) do it himself.

Ah, I have to confess that I hadn't noticed that - for some reason, 'rule 10' is on a different page of the on-line version from all the rest of Part 4, and I hadn't "turned over the page"!

As you say, that goes a fair way to addressing the concern I was voicing. However, what remains a little surprising is that rule 10 seems only to relate to the Housing Authority arranging for the (required per C1/C2) remedial work to be undertaken - whereas I would have rather expected a prior stage of issuing a Remedial Notice (as in the case of 'rule 4') 'requiring' the landlord to get the work done.

It's also interesting to see that the Housing Authority can only arrange to have the remedial work undertaken "with the consent of the tenant". What happens, I wonder, if the tenant withholds such consent?

That I think explains why the "not" you refer to isn't an accidental addition.

Yes,. that seems to be the case. Thanks.

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

There is no landlord's appeal in a rule 10 situation because - presumably - parliament thought that with risk to the tenants life and limb, nothing should delay urgent remedial action. Bear in mind in the rule 10 situation, the landlord has not even bothered acting on his own electricians recommendations.

For non urgent remediation the appeals system is in place because by definition there is no immediate risk

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

There is no landlord's appeal in a rule 10 situation because - presumably - parliament thought that with risk to the tenants life and limb, nothing should delay urgent remedial action. Bear in mind in the rule 10 situation, the landlord has not even bothered acting on his own electricians recommendations.

I'm a bit confused by what 10(6) is saying but, ignoring that, this lack of landord's appealis the very problem that we have discussed at length in previous discussions here. Don't forget that, in the context of all the discussions over the past year, this thread is unique in coming from the tenant's perspective.

All the previous discussions have arisen because landlords have been confronted with EICRs which contain C2s which many/most of us feel should not have been C2s, but without any clear route whereby the landlord can appeal against, or otherwise 'get out of', an obligation to have those alleged C2s 'remedied' within 28 days. That seems to be very unjust, particularly given some the the crazy EICRs we have been shown.

For non urgent remediation the appeals system is in place because by definition there is no immediate

I think I've just realised the reason for some of the potentially major confusion.

This legislation defines “urgent remedial action” as "such action identified in a report under regulation 3(3) as is immediately necessary in order to remove the danger present and risk of injury." - which (and also your comment about "urgent remedial action" above) sounds as if it is referring to what be a C1 on an EICR (which requires "immediate", not just "urgent" remedial action).

However, for the purpose of an EICR a C2 code (which is explicitly referred to in the guidelines accompanying the legislation) is defined as "potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required"

... which seems to make this whole thing a bit of a mess, in that something of which the EICR says "urgent remedial action" is required does not require "urgent remedial action" does not require "urgent remedial action" in the eyes of the legislation. Whoever drafted this legislation surely should have taken steps to avoid this conflict/ambiguity between a term they defined and the definition of the same term for the purpose of the report they were relying on, shouldn't they?

At least this probably explains my confusion about the "not" in regulation 4(1). If I now understand correctly, when that regulation says that a Remedial Notice should only be issued if "... the most recent report under regulation 3(3) does not indicate that urgent remedial action is required" then it is only talking about C1 items, and not about things reported on the EICR as "urgent remedial action required" (aka "C2"). In other words, if an EICR reports only C2s (="potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required", then a Remedial Notice not only can, but must, be issued. Is that your understanding?

If, so, then, as I said .... "what a mess"

Edit: it occurs to me that all this confusion (at least, in my mind!) could have been avoided if, assuming they meant to refer to the most serious of defects (EICR C1s), they had stuck with the long-established EICR/BS7671 phraseology of "immediate remedial action required", rather than "urgent remedial action required" (which, per EICR/BS7671 is C2 - and is presumably what you referred to {and the legislation regards} as "non-urgent remediation"?!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have to agree with @JohnW2 it seems we are no longer electricians but English students. We are left to work out what laws and regulations mean. Years ago I have talked about the 3 meter rule, for cable length before the protective device and reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation. And I have said one limits an unfused spur to 3 meters and the other means we need to measure the leakage and two RCD's may not comply.

At this point I am not worried if I was write or wrong, what I am saying is to read laws and regulations is more down to the English to the Electrics.

The one which keeps coming up is the Installations designed after date are to comply with BS 7671:date. Once one reads to that point if the installation was designed before that date one can stop reading, and the regulations basically direct one to an earlier edition. And one is still complying with the latest edition as it is that edition which is telling you what design date it applies from.

There has to be a limit, at one point we used knife switches with exposed contacts clearly can't still have that.

The Regulations are non-statutory. They may, however, be used in a court of law in evidence to claim compliance with a statutory requirement. The relevant statutory provisions are listed in Appendix 2 and include Acts of Parliament and Regulations made thereunder.

The listing under Appendix 2 means nothing as I don't have access to what it refers to. However we all know Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, and ESQCR etc. Have laid down the law, and BS 7671 has encompassed those laws. So although using English we may say the old rules apply, many of the laws, like the insulated bits on the live pins of a 13 amp plug, even having a 13 amp plug one equipment one buys are covered by a host of laws.

Lucky we have Code 3, so we can point out where the installation does not comply with BS7671 without forcing the landlord to act. In other words pass the buck, we can tell the owner without forcing the owner to act, and I think reserving potentially dangerous for when it really is potentially dangerous is good, we should not cry wolf.

 

[JohnW2]

The one which keeps coming up is the Installations designed after date are to comply with BS 7671:date. Once one reads to that point if the installation was designed before that date one can stop reading, and the regulations basically direct one to an earlier edition. And one is still complying with the latest edition as it is that edition which is telling you what design date it applies from.

As I've said a good few times before, I think you 'over-interpret' this.

I would say that it's pretty clear that the view of the authors of BS7671 is that only installations fully compliant with the current edition are 'definitely safe per current thinking'. All it says about things which are not fully compliant but which were compliant with the edition when installed is that this "does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". I would hope that you would agree that "not necessarily unsafe" is very different from "safe".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

However we all know Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, and ESQCR etc. Have laid down the law

So it can't say it complies it can only say

"does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe

and where rules in bathrooms for example have relaxed on condition an RCD is used, clearly there must be RCD protection if bonding removed. Also new equipment like EV charging points have to be considered but we still see this in the best practice guide saying can still be used, however we also see this pointing out the dangers of a lack of a cut out, but there is only danger if the heater tank is thermal plastic, with a solid fuel boiler having a cut out is a pain with the back boiler tripping it out. But it is easy to make errors the old wylex is rated 60A and so often we find the DNO has fitted a 100 amp fuse, so we have to be wary and use our knowledge rather than blindly following a book, or best practice guide.

 

[blup]

Urgent remedial action must, I would have thought, relate to C1's, hence para 10 (6) suspends the right of appeal, so that the landlord cannot use delaying tactics.

I've not followed the discussions where landlord's have complained about coding, but the pro electricians on the forum seem to recognise there is an element of discretion in some aspects of coding, as do the professional bodies, whilst "calling out" any obvious bad practice.

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

Urgent remedial action must, I would have thought, relate to C1's, hence para 10 (6) suspends the right of appeal, so that the landlord cannot use delaying tactics.

I agree that, now that you have pointed it out, "urgent remedial action" within the legislation "must" relate (for the purpose of the legislation) only to C1s in order for the legislation to make sense, but I have to say that such has never previously occurred to me - hence my confusion ... and I can't believe that I am the only person who has been confused.

Although the legislation does not explicitly mention EICRs at all, the associated Guidance document makes it clear that EICRs are what they have in mind, and that the defects which have to be remedied to satisfy the legislation are those which are coded as C1 or C2 on an EICR. As you will be aware, for many years (decades) a C2 on an EICR/PIR has been defined as meaning "potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required". If you don't think that confuses interpretation of the legislation, then you have a lot more insight into the workings of the minds of those who draft legislation than I do

I've not followed the discussions where landlord's have complained about coding, but the pro electricians on the forum seem to recognise there is an element of discretion in some aspects of coding, as do the professional bodies, whilst "calling out" any obvious bad practice.

We are all agreed that there will inevitably be some areas of coding which require judgement/discretion, and therefore some situations in which there will be disagreement between individuals and/or trade organisations etc. However, the sort of examples we have seen here indicate that there are far too many cases of what most people would regard as 'over-coding' - in some cases probably due to inadequate competence/understanding/experience (or even common sense) but, worse, in some cases seeming probably an attempt to 'generate work'.

This didn't matter quite so much in the past, but for the last year the legislation we've been discussing has given teeth to EICRs which can have considerable financial consequences for landlords (I'm not one, so I have no axe to grind!). That's why I keep saying that we now really need some regulation (e.g. by registration/licensing) of who is allowed to undertake 'landlord EICRs' and how they conduct those EICRs.

A fairly common one seems to be a C2 for an otherwise OK 'plastic CU', which clearly can have considerable financial consequences for a landlord, but we have been shown far worse things than that. Just a couple of days ago we saw one in which a C2 was effectively given for "not enough sockets" (leading to over-use of extension leads), and the person who did that coding quoted £900 for adding five new sockets to 'remedy' that C2.

Edit: if you have a moment, look at this one , which has appeared today. We clearly do not yet know enough (particularly about the actual IR figures), but we have here some C2s given for IR measurements recorded as "<1,000 MΩ".

.... whilst "calling out" any obvious bad practice.

As above, that's what would help. However, unless I am again missing it, I don't see any provision in the legislation (even for C2s - which you and the legislation are calling "non-urgent") for a landlord to appeal against the coding of an EICR. All I can find about appeals (and, even then, only afrer a Remedial Notice has been issued) is:

Appeals relating to remedial action by local housing authorities
7.—(1) A private landlord on whom a notice under regulation 6(2) has been served may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the local housing authority to take that action.
(2) An appeal may be brought on the grounds that all reasonable steps had been taken to comply with the remedial notice, or reasonable progress had been made towards compliance with that notice, when the local housing authority gave notice under regulation 6(2).

... which are not the grounds on which these landlords would like to appeal. This has meant that we have struggled to advise landlords what they can do, within the legislation, if they are confronted with EICRs which contain arguably 'inappropriate' C2s. This seems very unsatisfactory.

Kind Regards, John