Electrical certificate for renting out property

[EFLImpudence]

421.1.201
OK, so you can argue that it's not actually electrical, but it is part of BS7671.

Have I misunderstood your comment?
Yes, non-combustible is a requirement but
understairs or anywhere else is not mentioned - which is what I meant by not electrical.

Oh yes it is - it's nearly panto season , indirectly. Unless you intend to define "safe" in terms of some other regulations/standards or by derivation from first principles, then your EICR determines safety by reference to BS7671. And you always work to the current versions regardless of when the installation was installed.

Yes, but you said: "The EICR is an inspection & test to confirm compliance with the CURRENT edition of the regs."

It is not and you had already explained that older installations are not unsafe and do not have to be updated to 18th.

 

[JohnW2]

Not quite, it says all CUs in installations designed after a set date, (whether under stairs or otherwise) in domestic installations be 'non-combustible'.

It only specified that 'special implementation date' (1st January 2016) for just that one regulation ('non-combustible' CUs) in Amd3 of BS7671:2008, presumably because it was felt that the nature of the regulation was such that people needed more 'notice' than there would be if the implementation date for that regulation were the same as for everything else in Amd3 (1st July 2015) - i.e. there were giving them 6 months more 'notice' for this one regulation than for anything else in Amd3.

Since the original implementation of this regulation/requirement pre-dated BS7671:2018, there was no longer a need for a 'special implementation date' for just that one regulation, so that 'special' date no longer appears in BS7671:2018.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Code 4 has been removed, personally think this is wrong, but now no code 4 you have to give a sensible report as to condition of the installation, and in real terms no one worries about code C3, they have time to correct, it is the C2 with just 28 days which is the problem.

I ordered 2 x 32A RCBO's type A 6 weeks ago, and still waiting, it really does not matter what you write on the report if there are no parts available. In my case type AC fitted so not without protection, but to cause people to be rehoused over a RCD really is getting daft.

I would think it highly unlikely that any action would be taken in that sort of situation. If parts have been ordered then it's clear that the landlord has taken action within the 28 days to have the problem sorted - and it's circumstances beyond his control that prevented the works taking place in the time specified. While it's not mentioned in the earlier bits, when you get to remedial notices, there are clauses in there "A private landlord is not to be taken to be in breach of the duty under paragraph (1) if the private landlord can show they have taken all reasonable steps to comply with that duty." And that wording is repeated (in a way that makes it applicable to getting the initial EICR done and to getting remedial works done) in the official guidance.

Have I misunderstood your comment?
Yes, non-combustible is a requirement but
understairs or anywhere else is not mentioned - which is what I meant by not electrical.

Looking back it seems we may have been looking at things from different angles
But as I said before, while the regs they came out with don't say it, "a representative of the IET" has basically told me to treat things differently and that the clause allowing departures from the regs allows for that departure. As has been said, there is a look of LFB having forced this rule in, it getting passed without anyone realising the implications, and then the IET trying to sort out the problems created in the best way they can.
It certainly seems a pragmatic approach - at least for the time being.

Yes, but you said: "The EICR is an inspection & test to confirm compliance with the CURRENT edition of the regs."
It is not and you had already explained that older installations are not unsafe and do not have to be updated to 18th.

Actually, for rented properties it is now a legal requirement to upgrade installations if the change in regs represents a potential danger. Take RCD protection for example. Not long ago it was only needed for certain circuits/socket outlets - now it's required for almost everything.
So something may have been 100% compliant with edition 16, and until earlier this year there was no legal requirement to upgrade, but now it could get a C2 in an EICR and the law now says that it needs to be upgraded for a rental property.
But I don't think I've ever advocated that an EICR should be performed to previous regs have I ? There is a difference between advocating retrospective application of regs (as in requiring upgrades) and inspecting to current regs while noting any non-compliances without necessarily "failing" it for minor non-compliances. Even the gas world allows for NCS elements on a "pass" certificate - effectively what we'd use a C3 for.

 

[JohnW2]

... if the change in regs represents a potential danger.

If the changes in regulations represented a "potential danger", then I think the authors of the regulations would need a serious talking to However, on the basis that "we know what you mean (something I'm apparently not allowed to say!) ....

Actually, for rented properties it is now a legal requirement to upgrade installations if the change in regs represents a potential danger. ... Take RCD protection for example. Not long ago it was only needed for certain circuits/socket outlets - now it's required for almost everything. So something may have been 100% compliant with edition 16, and until earlier this year there was no legal requirement to upgrade, but now it could get a C2 in an EICR and the law now says that it needs to be upgraded for a rental property.

... but that brings us back to the total reliance on the judgement of an individual electrician, which is not very satisfactory. Some, like eric, take the fairly extreme view that anything that was compliant with BS7671 when installed (since 1992) should never be given a C2. Others of us believe that, at the least, something which was compliant when installed under the most recent previous edition of BS7671 (which, currently, might not be much more than a couple of years ago) should never (or 'almost never') be given a C2.

One has to assume that virtually all changes in regs arise because 'they' believe that the change 'increases safety' ('decreases potential danger'), so, as above, we're totally down to the judgement of an individual electrician as to the degree of 'reduction in potential danger' that 'matters' - otherwise anything non-compliant with current regs would presumably have to be given at least a C2.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would reiterate - anything that used to be compliant (e.g. no RCD), and according to BS7671 is not necessarily unsafe can hardly be "potentially dangerous" and warrant a C2.

 

[JohnW2]

I would reiterate - anything that used to be compliant (e.g. no RCD), and according to BS7671 is not necessarily unsafe can hardly be "potentially dangerous" and warrant a C2.

As I recently wrote, that's all down to individual judgement.

As you say, what BS7671 says is that things which were compliant when installed, but which are not compliant with current regs are "not necessarily unsafe for continued use". As I said, that surely carries the implication that they may be "unsafe for continued use". Much as I doubt that you or I (or many others) would ever say that that they were "unsafe for continued use", it's the view/judgement of the individual undertaking the EICR which is what matters, and that may be different from 'ours'.

Things would be different if the word "necessarily" was not present in what BS7671 - but but it is present!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Actually, for rented properties it is now a legal requirement to upgrade installations if the change in regs represents a potential danger. Take RCD protection for example. Not long ago it was only needed for certain circuits/socket outlets - now it's required for almost everything.

This has been the point raised, it is required for any new design, it is not required for old designs. The 18th, 17th, and 16th (BS 7671:2001) all say what date they affect the design, remember not install date, it is design date. So following the 18th Edition it directs one with existing designs to an earlier edition so it still complies. It also states it is not law.

I would agree with rented properties where the occupant has no control over the electrical design it morally should include the safety aspects afforded with the RCD. And it is clear if no RCD it should be recommended that one is fitted, however the question is really to what time scale?

So should the landlord be able to talk to tenant and say "I want to upgrade the CU when would it suit you?" and tenant to say "I am going on holiday last week in may, so freezer will be run down, can it be done then?" and the landlord can try to arrange it. It should not be "The CU needs changing in next 28 days I have found an electrician who can do it a week Tuesday." yes I know the tenant can refuse and if he does then it is not the landlords problem, but clearly far better to be able to plan in advance and select a time to suit all.

So the inspector can give either a C2 or C3 for a CU without RCD protection, either way he is telling the landlord it needs doing, but what it means is how urgent it needs doing, so we come again to potentially dangerous, so if lack of RCD is potentially dangerous so is an inoperative RCD, in fact an inoperative RCD is more dangerous to a missing one as the occupants think they have protection so may not be as careful with water leaks for example. So if a missing RCD is a C2 then also a frozen RCD due to DC currents is also a C2, so a inverter washing machine on a type AC RCD would be a C2.

I was going to say "clearly" but it is not clear, if the RCD is wrong type should it be C2 or C3? If there was an electric car charging point coming from a type AC RCD that could be a C2, but I would say a washing machine, fridge or freezer using inverter drives is taking it a bit too far.

However my point is if no RCD is code C2 then so is a RCD which is frozen by DC currents, and that would open a whole can of worms, so I would say no RCD or wrong type RCD is only a C3, or it becomes really complex as how do you know if a tenant buys an inverter washing machine? OK car charging point is clear when fitted, but even then the EICR is mixing with the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment. So I would say no RCD is a C3.

 

[davelx]

Even with an electric vehicle charging point it's not clear, as many home charging points like the one I've just installed, incorporate both a type A RCBO and 6ma DC protection per 722.531.2.101 in the unit itself. In that case, installation method of cable permitting, you don't need an RCD on the circuit at the CU at all.

 

[SimonH2]

It also states it is not law.

Except that now, BS7671 IS law to all intents for rented residential properties. Already for any new tenancies, from next Aug for all tenancies.
That's a key change - there is now a LAW that says (for certain types of property) you MUST abide by BS7671 - and the current version, not whatever was in force when the installation was designed and installed. So all the discussion about "doesn't apply retrospectively" and so on go out the window - the law says that yes it does apply retrospectively.
The only debate left is how any particular non-compliance should be coded - which in turn determines whether you are allowed to leave it in place (C3, non compliant but not considered unreasonably dangerous) or must fix it quickly (C1 or C2).
I know you are of the opinion that anything which met the regulations at the time it was installed cannot be anything other than C3 now. But I think you are in a minority. Things have moved on, our (collective) appetite for risk has changed, and so has the financial element to the equation. As Low As Reasonably Practical includes an element of cost - and the cost of some protective measures (especially RCDs) has dropped dramatically. So now, some measures that were considered too expensive to be "reasonable" some years ago, would now be considered so low cost that it would be considered unreasonable not to include them now (for many/most circuits).

 

[JohnW2]

Except that now, BS7671 IS law to all intents for rented residential properties. Already for any new tenancies, from next Aug for all tenancies. That's a key change - there is now a LAW that says (for certain types of property) you MUST abide by BS7671 - and the current version, not whatever was in force when the installation was designed and installed. So all the discussion about "doesn't apply retrospectively" and so on go out the window - the law says that yes it does apply retrospectively.

Whilst that is all strictly true, the important point is:

The only debate left is how any particular non-compliance should be coded - which in turn determines whether you are allowed to leave it in place (C3, non compliant but not considered unreasonably dangerous) or must fix it quickly (C1 or C2).

... since the Guidance document published by the government in relation to the new LAW says that, even though the legislation says that rental properties should 'comply with' the current version of BS7671, it is adequate to have an EICR which has no C1s or C2s.

As you go on to say, there are clearly varying views about whether, say, a plastic CU should be given a C2 or a C3 but, although eric's position may be at the extreme of those views, I think most of us think more in that direction than you seem to. Early days, but if you look at the poll I started earlier today, the great majority of the few who have so far responded feel that a plastic CU should be given either a C3 or no code at all - with just one person so far saying it should be given a C2 - and that only if 'under the stairs' etc. (otherwise no code at all).

I personally think that it would be stretching things to suggest that a plastic CU which maybe had been installed as little as 5 or so years ago could have come to be regarded as so "potentially dangerous" after such a short period of time that "urgent remedial action" is now required, wouldn't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I would say most of us are guided by the organisations, and they seem to think even an old fuse box is still able to give more service. As to C3 code it is not a code 4, if the C3 was to contain all that was in code 4 then there would be no point in ever removing it.

The government may say BS 7671:2018 but BS 7671:2018 says you only use it for designs after a set date, so it is following BS 7671:2018 if for an installation designed in 2009 you follow the requirements for BS 7671:2008, however for an installation designed in 2019 then it must follow BS 7671:2018 and the government saying BS 7671:2018 insures you use the version current at the time of design, but does not require you to follow anything asked for in the future. However this is more a subject for the English student than the electrician, it tests your ability to read and comprehend, not any electrical ability. As to Wales there is a problem, to be legal in Wales there must be a Welsh version, and there is not as yet a Welsh version of BS 7671. Even if one was produced it would be a translation, and we have seen the mistakes many times when even road signs are translated.

There is a common phrase "Let the courts decide" and it will require court cases to clarify new laws as always.

But when an inspector does an EICR he does it to inform, he has no special powers, or any special qualifications, or requirement to be a member of any schemes or other organisations, it is down to the owner to select an inspector who complies with the laws requirements, with the insurance and qualifications, not down to the electrician or other to refuse to do an EICR unless he has them. The same with Part P, with a proviso, if the electrician advertises he is a member of a scheme then he is breaking the law if he is not, but he can do work in any factory, shop, railway premises, or domestic the only thing is, unless a scheme member the owner of domestic premises would need to inform the LABC first and pay their fees.

The point I am making is it is down to the owner, not the electrician to ensure the person he employs has the insurance, qualifications, membership, and any thing else required, and it is the owner or his representative who has to take the exam to show he knows what is required and is looking after his tenants.

So as electricians we must ask our selves what happens if we get it wrong?
We have all read the the report on the Death of Emma Shaw and I will be frank it was not the result I expected, so it is hard to know what a court will say. But the big question, be it C1, C2, C3 or F1 if the electrician has highlighted a danger has he really failed in his duty?

I have said before, I considered my mother with alzheimer's and my 14 year old son with an amateur radio licence to be at risk, but my father-in-law, and son-in-law are not at risk, as father-in-law knew enough to keep himself safe and son-in-law would not dream of playing with anything mains powered. At work either a guy is trained, or not allowed to touch 230 volt, so at work the problems are a lot less than in the home. Even in public places children or others with reduced awareness are not left unattended.

The home is rather unusual in that people will do daft things, like my mother putting an extension lead in a bucket of water, and for the owner occupier you know the risks, but the landlord does not know the risks, neither does the electrician doing the inspection, and I personally would not want to rent out any property without RCD protection, however that does not mean no RCD is a code C2.

So if we assume any fault or non compliance is give a code, what is the risk to the electrician if he gives a code which is wrong? Clearly with exposed live parts, he should not leave it still with live parts, either corrected or isolated. But what about a missing or a blank that can be removed without a tool on a consumer unit? Let us say the consumer unit is under the stairs, and a toddlers goes under the stairs and plays with it and removes the blank and gets a fatal shock, so what code would the electrician have needed to have given to not get a custodial sentence, and what code or action not to get a fine. Lets face it this is an electricians worse nightmare, I really hope it never happens, but it could, and we want to have done the right thing.

So is a consumer unit with a plastic blank which can be removed without a tool C1, C2 or C3? the space left is over 12.5 mm so clearly not compliant and has not been compliant as far back as I can remember, so likely who ever fitted the plastic blank would be guilty, but what about an electrician who did the EICR, if he has given it a C3 is he also guilty? It has likely been like that for many years, so why should it need urgent repairs? But even with a C2 it is not cut and dried, however the bus bar was not actually exposed so could hardly be a C1. I would have likely given it a C3 although with some thought maybe it should be a C2, but the same thing in commercial premises would never likely cause a problem, and there is no difference to an EICR in commercial to domestic. Or is there?

So big question if a C3 is given instead of a C2 what legal difference does this make to the electrician giving the code?

 

[davelx]

My house had the old 4-way Wylex 3036 box with the open backed wooden base frame when I bought it back in '83. I still have the unit in my props store in case I need it for a show.

The house next door still has that model in use, not an RCD in sight. It's a rented house and on Tuesday an electrician (organised by the landlady) turned up to do an EICR (that'll be the first time it's ever had one done!!). The tenants are going to let me see the report - if there is anything interesting/contentious I'll report back.

In the meantime, how would you code that CU (it's under the stairs).

 

[JohnW2]

The house next door still has that model in use, not an RCD in sight. It's a rented house and on Tuesday an electrician (organised by the landlady) turned up to do an EICR (that'll be the first time it's ever had one done!!). The tenants are going to let me see the report - if there is anything interesting/contentious I'll report back.
In the meantime, how would you code that CU (it's under the stairs).

Assuming that the CU is otherwise 'OK' (i.e. not damaged etc.), I think I would still stick to what I've been saying, and only give it a C3 (because it's 'plastic', per se), even though it's under the stairs.

The absence of any RCDs (even for circuits 'likely to be used for outdoor equipment') is a bit different, and I can see an argument for giving it a C2.

Do I take it that the wiring is PVC?

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

Yes, imperial sized PVC.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, imperial sized PVC.

Fair enough. If not, the entire installation would presumably get at least a C2, if not C1.

Kind Regards, John