Interest only, the difference between wiring a rental home, and owner occupied.

[ericmark]

I would not expect to see solar panels on a rental home, but there must be other differences as well. The tenant can't really fit his own RCD, RCBO, SPD, etc. So he has to accept what the landlord fits, but also I remember with council house refurbishment how chandeliers would not only be removed and binned, but tenants charged for the work to return it to standard.

I have electronic TRV heads in every room, but as a landlord would not want to pay out for that type of energy saving, be it smart devices, or storage radiators, how much difference is there in real terms, between rented homes and owner occupied?

 

[plugwash]

Whether owner-occupied or rented, I think there were a lot of properties with electrical installations in really poor condition. Years of dodgy DIY, not a RCD in sight (or maybe one just for some recent additions) and sometimes old rubber cables to top it off.

As imperfect as the "Electrical safety standards in the private rented sector" law was and is, it has effectively forced landlords in England whose properties don't meet at least 16th edition standards* to get them sorted out. There are still no such requirements for owner-occupiers.

* The law doesn't explicitly say that, but that seems to be where the guidance has settled as to what merits a C2 (legally must be fixed) vs as C3 (can and probablly will be ignored by the landlord).

 

[ebee]

it has effectively forced landlords in England whose properties don't meet at least 16th edition standards* to get them sorted out.

I think it`s the 18th Edition that is referenced plug

 

[JohnW2]

I would not expect to see solar panels on a rental home, ...

In the private sector, very few single 'rental homes' were born as such ('blocks of flats' etc. are obviously different), so a house which had solar panels when owner-occupied will generally still have them if/when subsequently rented out, and it would be daft for the tenant not to make use of them.

.... but there must be other differences as well. The tenant can't really fit his own RCD, RCBO, SPD, etc. So he has to accept what the landlord fits....

Indeed, just as with the bathroom suite, any built-in furniture, carpets and often (depending on rental agreement) aspects of decoration etc. What is your point?

 

[plugwash]

I think it`s the 18th Edition that is referenced plug

Yup, the law itself references the 18th edition, but the 18th edition has a statement at the start that existing installations wired to earlier versions of the standard are not nessacerally unsafe for continued use or something to that effect.

What matters in practice is whether or not the EICR says "satisfactory" and when you read through the guidance that basically means "16th edition or better", though they don't state it explicitly.

Of course if the CU does need to be replaced, it will generally be replaced with one to current standards.

 

[JohnW2]

Yup, the law itself references the 18th edition, but the 18th edition has a statement at the start that existing installations wired to earlier versions of the standard are not nessacerally unsafe for continued use or something to that effect.

I don't think the legislation is entirely clear. Yes, every recent edition of BS7671 has included the statement you mention, and that presumably could refer to 'earlier versions' all the way back to the first, not just 16th.

However, the requirement is that the landlord should ".... ensure that the electrical safety standards are met..." and the legislation defines "electrical safety standards" as being what is published in BS761:2018(3). Some might well argue that such is a reference to what BS7671:2018 requires of new installations, regardless of that statement at the start of it ?

Of course if the CU does need to be replaced, it will generally be replaced with one to current standards.

I think that would be essential. Every edition of BS7671 is pretty clear in saying that work Undertaken (well, 'designed') after its implementation date must comply with the 'new' edition, so the statement about 'earlier editions' really doesn't apply there.

 

[ericmark]

The 16th Edition can be roughly split into 3, in 1991 it was not BS7671, that started as BS7671:1992 so that was the first edition of BS7671. So yes, can see that complying with BS7671 can't be items changed before 1992. In BS7671:2001 when it came out was considered as the 17th edition, as there were many changes, and when in 2008 we got BS7671:2008 that was the point when near all items in the home needed RCD protection, but the major change was the change in bonding requirements, mainly in the bathroom, which now makes it hard to ensure compliance with any edition without RCD protection, as it is all too easy for bonding to be lost, due to plastic pipes.

But each edition has a clause something like "Installations designed after 30th June 2008 are to comply with BS 7671:2008." so we need proof of the design date to show compliance, fortunately we are not required to show it ever complied. And I noted my parent's house, built 1954 had wall lights, which were not earthed, 13th Edition did allow not to earth, but it did require "(ix) Lighting fittings using filament lamps installed in a room having a non-conducting floor, mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched and are out of reach of earthed metal." so it would not have been allowed under 13th Edition to have non earthed wall lights, and to get filament lamps today would also cause a problem in most cases. However, the house may have been built under the 12th Edition, but one would need to see the installation certificate, which I have never seen, and my last house built in 1979 I never got an installation certificate, and it was not until BS7671:1992 that we started to see installation certificates issued.

But code 4 was dropped, so it does not really matter what BS7671 says, as the inspector we have to decide what is potentially dangerous to personal, so lack of SPD is only a danger to equipment, but lack of RCD's will. But only where one could get into contact with live parts, so if a rental agreement does not allow drilling of walls, then cables buried in the walls present no danger. However, in real terms the inspector is unlikely to view the rental agreement, so would have to assume drilling could take place.

On finding a fault, the inspector has three options, correct it, report it, or disconnect it. Once coded as a code C2 or C1, it needs correcting, with a rental, but owner-occupier can simply ignore it.

However, I was more looking as what I do in this house, without really thinking about it, renew switches for smart switches, also some sockets, although today more likely to us an adaptor, swapping outside lights from 500 watt halogen to 12 watt coach lights. Adding the odd socket, completely changing how my central heating is controlled, and also powered as not backed up with solar and battery. And even items which would be strictly speaking illegal, I actually got a scheme member to add 4 sockets in the kitchen, but I would have had it not been part of the solar installation, and I think most people would fit sockets in their kitchen, even if strictly speaking here in Wales it is notifiable.

 

[plugwash]

I get the impression there are different types of tenants, some are very careful to avoid doing anything that will get them in trouble with their landlord others don't give a f*ck. Personally when I was a tenant I did a few things that I perhaps shouldn't have but overall I gave the property back in a state that enabled me to keep my deposit. I'd certainly have done more if I owned the property.

I wonder if the pound shop pendant set I fitted when I was a tenant is still there.

 

[ebee]

Yup, the law itself references the 18th edition, but the 18th edition has a statement at the start that existing installations wired to earlier versions of the standard are not nessacerally unsafe for continued use or something to that effect.

What matters in practice is whether or not the EICR says "satisfactory" and when you read through the guidance that basically means "16th edition or better", though they don't state it explicitly.

Of course if the CU does need to be replaced, it will generally be replaced with one to current standards.

Yes indeed, I think we agree in the main part of the idea, how far do we go back before we condemn something as unsatisfactory, it is all relative, whilst most of us might agree that lack of bonding (either main or supplementary) is unsatisfactory we might or might not agree that lack of an RCD or the wrong type of RCD which was previously allowed/not allowed gives cause for concern. There is no actual set reference and it is up to the individual inspector to make that decision. All we have is some guidance which is subjective, the law itself references the 18th and I think pretty much of what was in the 16th would not cause an unsatisfactory in many cases so yes you do have a point but I was merely pointing out the 18th as the one decided by parliament. I did consider you might have made a typo but I now see your connection. I remember the 14th being the standard of the day in many electrical quotes, I was more or less brought up with it being viewed a bit like a modern day saviour.

 

[JohnW2]

Yup, the law itself references the 18th edition, but the 18th edition has a statement at the start that existing installations wired to earlier versions of the standard are not nessacerally unsafe for continued use or something to that effect.

I should perhaps have added to my previous response ...

... as we've often discussed, that statement about "not necessarily unsafe" obviously implies the possibility that something IS 'unsafe' - so, as so often, we are back to the judgment/discretion of EICR inspectors. That's bad enough with EICRs in general (since they can be 'ignored' if one so wishes), but when they relate to rented property, remedying the reported C1s & C2s become a legislated requirement - making it less satisfactory that different inspectors may (will!) give C2 or C3 for the same 'defect'

 

[Jurassicspark]

In the private sector, very few single 'rental homes' were born as such ('blocks of flats' etc. are obviously different), so a house which had solar panels when owner-occupied will generally still have them if/when subsequently rented out, and it would be daft for the tenant not to make use of them.

Not if the roof is leased.

 

[JohnW2]

Not if the roof is leased.

If the roof is leased, everything becomes potentially complicated, particularly if there is a change from owner-occupancy to rental A lawyer friend of mine spends much of her time dealing with disputes over such matters!

 

[SUNRAY]

If the roof is leased, everything becomes potentially complicated, particularly if there is a change from owner-occupancy to rental A lawyer friend of mine spends much of her time dealing with disputes over such matters!

Roof leasing was a very popular thing, where the owner received an income for the space but no feed-in benefit. When the property changed hands they often effectively became leasehold until the PV lease expired and the new owner had no options on the energy tarriff available to them. It does get very complicated. An elderly couple I knew (through their son) had signed up to such a scheme (believed to a cold caller knock at the door) several years before they both passed and basically it made the property unsellable for a number of years as the lease included several roofs but only one PV system on a terrace, additionally he struggled to find a rental agency because of it.

Thankfully the Freeholder (of which I am a share holder but MD is a block management company) of one of my rentals was voted down on fitting PV to our block of 22 properties, we were able to trace where they had done it elsewhere and found the block had paid the very expensive installation costs but income went into the management companies accounts rather than the block accounts.

 

[JohnW2]

Roof leasing was a very popular thing, where the owner received an income for the space but no feed-in benefit.

Indeed so - but, as we both have said, with all sorts of potential problems - as you say, sometimes to extent of making a property effectively unsellable and unrentable.