This is one of the major problems with the new legislation that has been discussed (here and elsewhere), since it does not seem to offer any option to get a 'second opinion', even if the initial EICR appears to be crazy.
Quite so - and not only does the report clearly indicate that there were no RCDs, but one assumes that (in the absence of specific details) many of the observations coded as C2 relate to an alleged absence of any RCD protection.
I presume that you mean "...which should be C1" I'll change it to either or both of these:
In the context of the PRS legislation (at least, if one takes it literally), I'm not sure what your mean by that. As I understand it, one has to be able to provide, within 28 days, evidence that anything coded as C2/C1 on the initial EICR has been 'remedied'. I'm not sure that changes if a 'competent person' undertaking the remedial work doesn't believe that some of the C2/C1s coded by someone else actually require any 'remedy' (i.e. should not have been coded as they were).
Sure, but the sad thing is that many landlords are going to (unwittingly) be stuck with inspectors rather different from the ones that you and I trust and could recommend. The worse thing of all is that most landlords will, understandably, not even realise that they are suffering (financially) at the hands of ('professional') people that they had assumed they could trust - the more decent/responsible of them will simply pay for what 'a professional' has indicated needs to be done, in the belief that they are acting in the interests of the safety of their tenants (as well as complying with the law).
As I understand the system, and I'd genuinly prefer to be wrong on this one, documentation has to be attached to the original report to demontrate the 'fault has been rectified' and this can be in many forms, ie a broken socket simply requires a receipt for a replacement?
There will always be the work creation schemes, just like my dentist in the 60's who would always produce a list of problems at every visit, however all the time it is down to the opinion of the inspecter and not hard cold facts there is little we can do to avoid that problem other than your MOT analogy, which I'm in agreement with.
That is also my understanding.
Of course, but you are making the big mistake of 'talking common sense', whereas we are talking about 'the law'
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
