Gas Safety Certificate - confusion

[lauriehurman]

Hi Simon
As I said to the OP the information is widely available.

As with most of these things there is no regulation saying "you have to keep up with the latest regs". There is something saying "you have to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the tenants".

Most people interpret this as meaning you have to comply with the latest version of the regs. The thinking is that if you don't then after an accident it would be easy to show that there was something that you could have done which you chose not to do. You would then have to defend that decision.

It is generally accepted that defending yourself in court is going to cost you a lot more than complying with the latest regs.

That's the situation as I understand it.

Laurie

 

[SimonH2]

As I said to the OP the information is widely available.

I think that in this case, as with many, if you didn't know (more or less) before, then you are unlikely to find everything you need by googling. One of the things membership of an association gets you (I'm with NLA, I assume RLA are similar) is access to collated information. NLA have a document library with an easy to digest setting out fo the facts -plus references if you want to look up the actual legal stuff.

As with most of these things there is no regulation saying "you have to keep up with the latest regs". There is something saying "you have to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the tenants".

That's not what you implied by your wording - and why I questioned it.

Most people interpret this as meaning you have to comply with the latest version of the regs. The thinking is that if you don't then after an accident it would be easy to show that there was something that you could have done which you chose not to do. You would then have to defend that decision.

It is generally accepted that defending yourself in court is going to cost you a lot more than complying with the latest regs.

That about sums it up. But as in all things, you need to apply some common sense. If you apply Reductio ad absurdum then you'd not allow gas at all since having gas means there is a risk of explosion or poisoning with combustion products - all electric cooking and heating isn't known for either though electric has it's own risks.

In the OPs case, the socket has been there for 15 years and not been a problem, I wouldn't move it unless I was doing other work that made it easy - eg refitting the kitchen. In the meantime, the risk can be mitigated by instructions to the tenant - "don't be a stupid numpty and pour water over the socket".
And the bonding issue is easy to deal with - if you know it's there then just ignore the "fault". I've been in that situation myself when I last had an EICR done, I'd forgotten that the bonding for the gas was behind the fridge (where the service comes through the wall) and so it was listed as a defect on the EICR - but I actually remembered before the electrician left so it got crossed off (but it's still there on the hand-written paperwork).

As a practical case of "what is reasonable" …
Most heating systems run at temperatures where leaning against a radiator can cause injury. We don't insist that all rental properties have LST (low surface temperature) radiators as that would be unreasonable. However, they are often specified where more vulnerable people are likely to be found (eg hospitals, care homes, etc).

 

[chantelle]

Your obligation as a landlord is to pay some numpty gas fitter 40 rips to test your house is gas safe,if he gives you that doc, cushty,if he highlights anything,he should explain in writing if you are not present any further action required by you. End of. Bing Bang Billy Bish Bosh.!

 

[SimonH2]

Your obligation as a landlord is to pay some numpty gas fitter 40 rips to test your house is gas safe,if he gives you that doc, cushty,if he highlights anything,he should explain in writing if you are not present any further action required by you. End of.

That's a very simplistic attitude, and I can't help wondering if you are one of those landlords that cause us to get lumbered with these safety regulations ? I assume they were made because there's been some "incidents" relating to unqualified people, or the landlords themselves, doing unsafe gas work.

Our obligation as landlords is, as lauriehurman points out, to provide a property that is "reasonably safe". That means the electrics are reasonably safe, the gas installation is reasonably safe, the plumbing is reasonably safe, it's not likely to have bits fall off and injure someone, there aren't worn out carpets creating trip hazards, there are bits of furniture with "any old filling" to create toxic fumes in a fire, and so on. I'm sure that if all landlords had always made sire that the gas installations were reasonably safe then we'd not have the requirement - but we do, and the more I read about some segments of the rentals market, the less I am surprised.

Like insurance etc, I just take the gas safety checks as an expense of letting (one more thing people forget about when accusing us of ripping off tenants). if it weren't law, I'd do it anyway - partly because it's a sensible thing to do, and also because should the brown stuff ever hit the fan, it's a good way of showing that you've taken reasonable steps to make the place safe.

If there's a failure, or at least an NCS, then yes I'd expect the fitter to explain what the problem was - but that's going to be hard if you are an absentee landlord, in which case you really need a good management agent* Leaving it isn't really an option IMO - unless you have a good argument for doing so. It's the sort of thing that a bad tenant can use against you - and I've had a bad tenant try and play the system (made the place damp and mouldy, then complained to the council before saying anything to me, later scammed nearly a grand out of a neighbours car insurance). And of course, if the brown stuff ever did hit the fan, the first thing the prosecution would ask is "how do you believe you have made the property reasonably safe when the gas safety inspection found defects that you didn't fix ?"
In the OPs situation, he's had two fitters say there's no problem (so it can't be a big issue), and one saying it's NCS. Based on it having been there for 15 years, and the small risks are easily mitigated, I'd leave that - particularly if you have a good tenant you can trust.

 

[chantelle]

That's a very simplistic attitude, and I can't help wondering if you are one of those landlords that cause us to get lumbered with these safety regulations ?

It`s not simplistic,it`s the law.Thanks for the rambling monologue though.
I am a Landlady and as far as I am concerned as long as I have the relevant safety certificates,that`s my job done.Simples!
As for the comment about the gas installation being `reasonably safe`you may want to edit that one out.

 

[SimonH2]

No, your attitude is simplistic and worrying. You give the impression that the only reason for doing the gas safety check is because the law says so - and that hints at having an attitude in common with some of the "not so quality" landlords.

The reason I mentioned "reasonably safe" is because that's what the law requires - the property and the services in it must be reasonably safe. Gas cannot be "completely safe", and nor can electric or water - there is no such thing as "completely safe", only "reasonably safe".

 

[chantelle]

Gas cannot be "completely safe",

I`d like to see you run that little `gem` by a Gas Engineer.

It`s either: Not to current standards. At risk or Immediately dangerous,don`t think there is a certificate for `reasonably safe.`Me being a `not so quality`landlady understands that them`s the rules.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Gas cannot be "completely safe",

I`d like to see you run that little `gem` by a Gas Engineer.

It`s either: Not to current standards. At risk or Immediately dangerous,don`t think there is a certificate for `reasonably safe.`Me being a `not so quality`landlady understands that them`s the rules.

You don't understand the "At Risk" classification though

 

[chantelle]

You don't understand the "At Risk" classification though

I do though.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Apologies.... minds eye skipped that bit


However. I would disagree that gas can be completely safe. There are things like tenants to consider; and the stupidity they can come with should be of no surprise to a landlord/lady.

 

[chantelle]

Apologies.... minds eye skipped that bit

No, you were too arrogant and quick to be smart that you failed to read my post. Apology accepted.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Assume much.... know little.

Some people do more than one thing at a time. A simple over sight on my part due not wanting to burn sone BLo0dy expensive steak.



Which tasted marvellous. So enjoy the apology. 'cos it was worth it.

 

[chantelle]

Assume much.... know little.

Know a lot.. assume little Danny lad. Sad life if you`re cooking a delicious steak whilst logged on to a diy site...Get a girlfriend.

 

[bazdaman]

Just because you have a valid cp12 as a landlord does not mean you have a get out of jail free card for 12 months, i pity your tennants

 

[bengasman]

...I've had a Gas Safety Cert done the last 2 years with no problems, all passes...

Common misconception: a LGSC neither passes nor fails. In itself it is a report, nothing more, although it is common to add recommendations for anything that isn't perfect.

...Firstly, he put a FAIL against the 'equipotential bonding satisfactory' question and has made a note: 'no earth bonding advised'. I haven't been advised of anything and he hasn't mentioned or suggest I do anything about this in any of our email correspondence....

That is an electrician's job, so unless he also is a qualified electrician, he should not even touch it.

...The gas main IS earth bonded as it comes into the house. The gas meter is right outside the front door on the kitchen wall and you can see the earth bonding under the kitchen cupboards in that exact spot. He won't come back and recheck unless I pay him again...

He doesn't have to come back as the inspection was not a pass/fail situation and if it is bonded correctly, you got nothing to worry about

...Secondly, on the cooker: He has marked it a SAFE TO USE, but with an NCS (not to current standards) and put an advisory note that the plug needs moving from above the cooker to a side wall. He is now insisting that we MUST get the plug moved as he says it's dangerous and a serious fire risk. He's supplied a 200 quid quote....

You 'must' nothing.
NCS means that it is not quite as it should be but not unsafe. Unless, of course, he didn't do his inspection correctly and he left a dangerous situation under the wrong qualifier.

...I am confused about this. I'm of the impression that an NCS just means that when the kitchen was rewired 15 years ago it was OK but it now doesn't comply with current safety requirements (and, even if I did move the socket today, new safety requirements next year might mean that it doesn't comply again, etc, etc).....

Not 100% accurate but close enough.

...Reading the Regs, it looks as if that is just advisory for me but the gas man is insisting that it's "dangerous and a serious fire risk" and that I MUST move it....

It is either NCS which means advisory or it is ID which means he should have capped it.

...1. Should I have expected the engineer to check where the main gas pipe was earth bonded?...

Yes.

...Is it reasonable to have at least expected him to check the pipe as it comes into the house, even if he didn't check anywhere else?...

Yes.

...2. An item marked as NCS but passed as safe - what are my obligations as a Landlord in dealing with this?

The 'recommendation' is to get it 100% correct, obligation is to maintain the gasinstallation to a safe level.

edit

If you are really bored, there is lots more information about landlords' obligations, landlord certificates and such on my blog attached to my website.
NB
The info is written for broad guidance and discussion, not to start a legal battle over it.