NAPIT touting for more work - a.k.a. EICRs for rented properties

[SimonH2]

Electrical Safety in the Private Rented Sector is “poor” – Says NAPIT
I've mixed opinions on this - yes I'm sure there's scope for improvement in some parts of the industry, I do wonder whether loading more ocsts onto everyone is the right answer. But there's one thing that particularly caught my eye ...
We propose the introduction of a one-page record to be presented to the landlord ...
They suggest reducing the whole report down to a summary with a simple satisfactory/not-satisfactory choice. It's not clear to me, but it sounds a bit like this is instead of, not in addition to, the current paperwork.
I'm not sure how this helps since the existing form has these tick boxes.
That leads me to think that the idea is that for the landlord this becomes "just another bit of paper" he needs - look for the "satisfactory" tick on the front and ignore everything else (though I'm sure many will be doing that anyway). But also I see scope for the unscrupulous part of the sparks industry to make extra work. For example, AIUI plastic cased CUs will warrant a C3 as not to current regs but the installation can still be satisfactory. If someone is expected to summarise the whole thing into two tick boxes - how many will be tempted to declare it unsatisfactory for this reason alone ?
If this single sheet is to be "the report" - does this mean that a C3 would get lost, or that the installation would be declared not satisfactory because of it ?
But then, I'm sure neither NAPIT (nor NICEIC) would be in the slightest bothered about making more work for their members

 

[Iggifer]

I read it a bit more as you would carry out and complete an EICR as normal, but you would use that as a 'summary cover note' there's an 'EICR Number' section so essentially it's just duplicating the 'Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory' section of a standard EICR making it much easier to find. Why they couldn't just re-design their forms to make the front page more clear for the recipient I don't know.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Haven't read it.

It just seems to me the 'Tinkering Departments' are the most prolific these days.

As I've said for years about Councils, when will the minutes contain the proposal that "Everything's alright now, they don't need us any more"?

 

[SimonH2]

Why they couldn't just re-design their forms to make the front page more clear for the recipient I don't know.

Well that would make too much sense

 

[Adam_151]

There's a certain part of the rental sector, that as you probably know Simon want to cut costs down to the bare minimum they can get away with. Hence things like the recent legal requirement for smoke detectors... now I dare say that didn't affect any decent landlords one bit.... they'd would have already provided them for years!. Now I will say the requirement for mains interlinked smokes north of the border is a bit bit over the top, mind.

Anyway, I'd seen a few properties rented out to friends of friends, etc while helping move furniture in that would be unsatisfactory on a periodic and I thought... "why didn't the letting agent advise a periodic"

Now when buying a house back in 2013, which has been let out for a few years previously by the same agent that was now selling it (it was let out while the owner came to his senses about what a sensible price was!) The EA made a point to me that there was a gas safety certificate for the very old looking boiler... without looking up I said "anything for the electrics?" having seen enough to know a rewire is pretty much a cetainty ,"No", she explained "the previous owner signed our form to say he was happy that the electrics were in a safe condition" I politely nodded and moved on.

I never did work out which one was more morally bankrupt... but the landlord was the dafter one of the pair, he'd just signed to say the electrical installation was in a good condition, when there was no means of earthing (and there wasn't even an RCD in sight anywhere)

 

[EFLImpudence]

Devil's advocate:

I would counter that by saying that it states that the landlord has a duty of care to ensure the electrics are safe, but there is no legal requirement to have the electrics checked, like the gas - but from what I read the gas inspection is not worthy in a lot of cases.
The comment about RCDs is irrelevant.
What do you mean about no means of earthing? There must be means.

Obviously there are rogue landlords but his signature is no less of a guarantee than the advertised drive-by "landlord inspections" for forty pounds. They are just a buck-passing exercise to absolve the agent and landlord of any blame. If the landlord has signed this, then on his own head be it.
In many case, British law is introduced, not to actually enforce and improve anything, but to have someone to blame when it all goes wrong.

The country is not awash with electrocuted tenants.

 

[Adam_151]

What do you mean about no means of earthing? There must be means.

I mean there was no means of earthing, nothing provided from the DNO and no rod. Just out going CPCs of the twin and earth cables in the earth bar. There was a disconnected bonding clamp hanging next to the stop tap (don't recall seeing the other end at the board though), and anyway the incoming pipe was plastic (although undoubtly there would have been lead there previously)[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, the plumbers took it.

 

[SimonH2]

I would counter that by saying that it states that the landlord has a duty of care to ensure the electrics are safe

Indeed, but it seems to be one of those laws that's noted for it's lack of enforcement rather than it's efficacy. In all the years I've been a landlord, I cannot recall a single case related to electrics - other than tacked on as one of those "bonus charges" to something more serious.

, but there is no legal requirement to have the electrics checked, like the gas - but from what I read the gas inspection is not worthy in a lot of cases.

I'm sure there are plenty of "half blind" gas inspectors to serve that part of the market. Mind you, if you go over to the plumbing forum and suggest that a Gas Safe registered person is anything but perfect then you end up getting accused of attempting manslaughter

In many case, British law is introduced, not to actually enforce and improve anything, but to have someone to blame when it all goes wrong.

I'd say this law is being suggested because there is something to improve and this is a way of doing it. Sadly I think you are right that for the part of the market it's targeted at, it will be "just a bit of paper" to be obtained at the lowest cost.

The country is not awash with electrocuted tenants.

Nor with electrocuted owner occupiers. I've seen as much "dodgy wiring" in owned homes* as in rented homes

* The guy my parents bought their last house from was a right BIYer. And my wife's late father (who's old house we now live in) had some "interesting" ideas about how wiring should be done

 

[JohnW2]

The country is not awash with electrocuted tenants.

Nor with electrocuted owner occupiers. I've seen as much "dodgy wiring" in owned homes* as in rented homes

Whist that's true, I don't think it is unreasonable for a tenant to expect the system/law to do what it can to ensure that rented accommodation is as 'safe' as possible. In the case of an owner-occupier, it is essentially "their problem" if they allow their home to be/become 'unsafe' (because of electrical,, gas, structural or whatever issues), but rented accommodation is a rather different matter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have read PIR's and EICR's and gone to look at what is involved to correct the points raised. I have many times scratched my head wondering what the tester has seen as a fault and been unable to find it. The reference is so vague. Looking at the guides they list things which to me has nothing to do with fixed wiring. The multi adaptor into multi adaptor may cause a strain in the socket, and is of course as a result something which should be pointed out. However it is nothing to do with the fabric of the building and when some one returns to fix it, it may no longer exist, the same as extension leads under doors.

The old previous edition has become the new C3 but it shows

as an example of not being departures and other than being plastic it would conform today, I still use a pair of fuse boards like that in my house, both supplied from separate RCD's so yes until Jan this year it would have complied, where it would get a problem is 533.1.1.2 and 560.7.5 refer as with many other regulations to skilled persons, having a adaptable box with built in DIN rail holding two RCD's is OK for me as I am skilled, so is every male in the family, however if I was to rent my house then maybe that box would not comply? I see this as a problem when doing an EICR as the person in control does matter.

I went to a hotel where the bursar was puzzled over the EICR issued, she was a radio ham and so had quite a lot of training as to electrics and I would not consider her as an ordinary person, in more ways than one! As I went through the hotel, I could only identify about 40% of the faults recorded, there were no regulation numbers, and no locations, and I was also not sure if I had missed something they had seem or if the electrician was suffering from Charles Bonnet syndrome!

Note:- In Charles Bonnet syndrome, a person whose vision has started to deteriorate sees things that aren't real (hallucinations).

 

[Echo the husky]

I've always been under the impression that rewireable fuses weren't permitted in rented properties as the risk of the tenant replacing the wire with something unsuitable is unacceptably high. It is certainly something I used to experience quite a lot when I started, and Wylex standard boards were all over the place. It's far less of a problem now with MCBs in the majority of homes.

Perhaps I'm wrong. IIRC I read it in a booklet provided by the NICEIC as information about electrical safety for landlords.

 

[JohnW2]

I've always been under the impression that rewireable fuses weren't permitted in rented properties as the risk of the tenant replacing the wire with something unsuitable is unacceptably high.

Sensible though that sounds, if it were true, what rules/regulations/laws would it be that "did not permit" that in rented properties?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Iggifer]

That'll just be another ruling the NICEIC have made up in their all-knowing wisdom to enforce upon it's members that they can't back up with a regulation or legislation.

 

[Echo the husky]

533.1.1.2
Fuses having fuse links likely to be removed or replaced by an ordinary person shall be of a type which complies with BS88-3, BS3036 or BS1362...

So it appears there is no regulation saying rewireable fuses shouldn't be used.