Electrical certificate for renting out property

[SimonH2]

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? ...

Tricky one, I'd be leaning towards C2 if it can be removed by hand (without having to have chrome steel fingernails ). But I dare say that you're the same as me - seen a range of plastic blanks that range from "struggling to hold themselves in" to "needs the Kango to get them out". And they can change over time, especially if in a hot environment. So C2 or C3, judgement call on how easy it is to remove - and bearing mind that there's a big difference doing it with the cover off (so you can press from behind) to getting one out that's nestled between a couple of breakers so only the ends are accessible for prying it out.

My house had the old 4-way Wylex 3036 ...
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).

Not a good move by the landlord. I'd have got someone in to do a "not an EICR" insp...err I mean look around, first to see what needs doing - as long as it's an existing tenancy, that would give the landlord until next aug to sort things out unless there's something properly serious. Once he's got an EICR with C2s on it, then he's only got 28 days to sort it.
Personally I would code it C2. It's obviously not an immediate danger - and yes, I agree that they are better built than a lot of the modern rubbish. But two reasons to give it C2 and not C3 :
1) The regs specifically don't allow them for domestic installs since they aren't under the supervision of an instructed (or skilled) person.
2) But mostly, because it's too easy for the unskilled and uninstructed person to work on the basis that if the fuse blows it obviously doesn't have thick enough wire in it. I suspect this being the reason for reason 1
There's also the issue that when you pull the fuse carrier out, there's relatively large holes someone can poke things into. When you consider that for trunking carrying single insulated cables, the containment needs to be IPxxD or IP4x (which means you can't touch anything live with a 100mm long 1mm dia probe), it seems strange that the same regs also allow big holes with live terminals immediately behind. Cue mention of lamp holders

EDIT: I suspect that come next summer, there'll be a lot of busy electricians when "put it off for as long as possible" landlords have their first ever EICRs done and are "surprised" to have a long list of faults. Based on my very limited sample size, I think quite a high proportion of properties are going to have C2s.
EDIT: Do you think we'll see a surge in "My electrician has gone on holiday ..." threads ?

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

Tsk tsk, you know the installation doesn't get a C1 or C2 - but I know what you mean

 

[JohnW2]

Tsk tsk, you know the installation doesn't get a C1 or C2 - but I know what you mean

As you say, you know what I mean - namely if the entire installation were wired with rubber cables, a complete re-wire would be necessary, even if some of the accessories were still usable)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

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.

That may well be true in some contexts but you need to remember that much of the recent discussion has arisen from the fact that at least one such organisation seems to have suggested that a plastic CU 'under the stairs' is sufficiently potentially dangerous that it "requires urgent remedial action".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I see a problem with time to correct a C2, when I got my mothers house rewired, from point when I decided it needed doing to being complete took 11 weeks, with out new laws or virus causing a delay.

Ordering 2 RCBO's I have waited 6 weeks still no sign.

So if you need a RCBO to correct the problem, but could also be corrected by fitting a new consumer unit, then would you be allowed to wait?

It seems the LABC can get the job done and charge you for the work, however if the home is considered uninhabitable then can you simply say to tenants sorry can't afford to correct the problems within the time, I am pulling out of the rental market, and selling up, you will need to move out before the 28 days have been used up.

This does seem an extreme measure, however it seem the Welsh goverment has not followed suit due to worries that this could happen.

 

[JohnW2]

I see a problem with time to correct a C2...

I agree that 28 days may not be realistic - and, if that proves to be the case, I suspect that things will have to change.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

So if you need a RCBO to correct the problem, but could also be corrected by fitting a new consumer unit, then would you be allowed to wait?

Yes - for teh simple reason that this law won't be enforced any more than any of the others applying to PRS that are not enforced. But in any case, you'd have a reasonable argument for saying that fitting two RCBOs was a reasonable course of action and it's a factor outside of your control that's stopping it happening. Replacing the CU would not be a reasonable course of action given the significantly high cost and disruption involved. If the council tried to enforce 28 days in the situation you describe, then you could have a PR field day at their expense.

It seems the LABC can get the job done and charge you for the work

They do have to tell you they are doing it, and you have the chance to object. Again, I would seriously doubt that they'd do this in anything but a very serious situation.

Remember, councils have limited resources and they won't be bothering with this beyond a token measure so they can say they are doing something. But where the law will come into play is when something else happens and then it becomes a bonus charge to use - or even an alternative to something a bit harder to prosecute.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - for teh simple reason that this law won't be enforced any more than any of the others applying to PRS that are not enforced. But in any case, you'd have a reasonable argument for saying that fitting two RCBOs was a reasonable course of action and it's a factor outside of your control that's stopping it happening. Replacing the CU would not be a reasonable course of action given the significantly high cost and disruption involved. If the council tried to enforce 28 days in the situation you describe, then you could have a PR field day at their expense.

Agreed, on all counts.

As for 'plastic CUs', if they become a big issue (i.e. a lot getting C2s) (which I suspect/hope will not be the case), then it's possible that some of the big landlords will challenge this in the courts.

Whilst courts can be unpredictable, and are limited in what they can do (i.e. they can't change or over-ride legislation) most judges are pretty good at 'being reasonable' when it comes to interpretation of the law. If it is demonstrated to them that virtually all domestic CUs were plastic until very recently, and that there are countless millions of them out there in-service, then I would hope that a sensible judge would decide that it was not reasonable to say that they were so 'potentially dangerous' that they required 'urgent remedial action'. I think that the wording of the legislation (as regards 'compliance with BS7671:2018') is probably sufficiently vague/unclear to allow a court to 'interpret' it in a 'reasonable fashion'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

I thought the requirement date was April? Has it been extended ?

There were some comments on YouTube saying that if the IR of VIR is ok, no reason to reject it.