new house no paperwork

[gasman1987]

I Have recently purchased a house to rent. After i gained access to the property i noticed that the fuse board if new and the cabling colours are brown and blue. on my paperwork i noticed "electrical alteration work since 2000 -no"

The question i would like to ask is what check should i have done as i have no paperwork for the installation and i am renting out the property.

Also approximate costing

 

[EFLImpudence]

I Have recently purchased a house to rent. After i gained access to the property i noticed that the fuse board if new and the cabling colours are brown and blue. on my paperwork i noticed "electrical alteration work since 2000 -no"

Sue your solicitor for any incurred costs. They should have checked.

Edit - Second thoughts - I suppose they must have asked to get a 'no' reply. You wouldn't win anyway.

The question i would like to ask is what check should i have done as i have no paperwork for the installation and i am renting out the property

Legally you don't need any.

However, you have a duty of care to ensure it is safe.

To cover yourself, commission an Electrical Installation Condition Report.

Also approximate costing

£150 - £200 for an average size property done properly.

 

[gasman1987]

thank you for the reply, visually the work looks tidy clipped ect. i know legally i do not have to get the electrics tested but for a one off cost it is piece of mind for me.

Does the EICP carry out all the relavent safety checks like , earth loop - rcd times - polarity ect
Would they also check visually

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes.

 

[RF Lighting]

Yes an EICR is a full visual inspection of all circuits and accessories. Confirmation of bonding, suitability for external influences, mechanical damage, device ratings, adequacy of basic and additional protection etc etc.

Ze & Ipsc test

Then every circuit tested for

Continuity of protective conductors
Ring final circuit continuity
Insulation resistance
Polarity (dead)
Polarity (live - confirm after energising.
'Lectrode (if applicable and if using a loop tester))
Earth eault loop impedance
Devices - incluidng RCD and functional switching

 

[securespark]

Thanks Rob!

Never learnt of "Crippled" before.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Edit - Second thoughts - I suppose they must have asked to get a 'no' reply.

And anyway it might be true - how long had the previous owners been there?

You wouldn't win anyway.

gasman - if the EICR uncovers any horrors, and you are up for it, the people to go after are the sellers, not your solicitor.

 

[IJWS15]

AFAIK new wiring colours were not available until around 2004 so the sellers have incorrectly answered the question - either deliberately or negligently.

Room to go after them.

 

[JohnW2]

AFAIK new wiring colours were not available until around 2004 so the sellers have incorrectly answered the question - either deliberately or negligently.

Yes, that's seemingly true.

Room to go after them.

I'm not really sure what the issue is - 'go after them' for what? Sure, it is wrong that the vendor gave an incorrect answer, but what consequences are there? I very strongly suspect that the OP would still have purchased the property, for the same price, if they had answered 'yes' (indeed, may well have been happy to have been spared cost if the property has been rewired since 2004), whether or not there was any 'paperwork'. The OP would also be strongly advised (in terms of his duty of care to tenants) to have an EICR undertaken prior to letting the property - whether the true answer to that question is 'yes' or 'no'. ... so, as I said, I don't really understand what the issue is.

[BTW, to the OP ... the standard TA6 'Property Information' form which is usually used in conveyancing asks about electrical work since 1st January 2005, not since 2000 - as a result, an awful lot of electrical work, using new colours cable, was allegedly undertaken in 2004 , often without any 'paperwork' ]

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

AFAIK new wiring colours were not available until around 2004 so the sellers have incorrectly answered the question - either deliberately or negligently.

I must admit I didn't read the OP properly - it was a bit early. I replied assuming that the date in Q would have been 1/1/2005.

 

[JohnW2]

I must admit I didn't read the OP properly - it was a bit early. I replied assuming that the date in Q would have been 1/1/2005.

As I said, assuming it was a standard TA6 form (solicitors/conveyancers very rarely ask questions of their own creation these days!), it will have been 1st January 2005.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not really sure what the issue is - 'go after them' for what?

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.

Sure, it is wrong that the vendor gave an incorrect answer, but what consequences are there?

Depends how big a can of worms can be laid at the previous occupants' door.

I very strongly suspect that the OP would still have purchased the property, for the same price, if they had answered 'yes'

Maybe, but you don't tell them that.

I don't really understand what the issue is.

The chance to get some money back.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not really sure what the issue is - 'go after them' for what?

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.

As I went on to explain, I'm not sure what pecuniary loss one could claim. Indeed, as I said, it's even possible that the deception (if it were intentional) resulted in a 'pecuniary gain', if the buyer found him/herself with a fairly recently re-wired house that, because of the 'deceptive' answer to the question, the buyer wasn't expecting!

If there were a genuine pecuniary loss then I agree with you, but the OP said nothing to suggest that there had been one. 'Going after people' for the sake of it (or in the hope of a basically undeserved pecuniary gain!) is a seemingly fashionable practice which I find difficult to support.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bear in mind I did say

if the EICR uncovers any horrors...

 

[JohnW2]

Bear in mind I did say

if the EICR uncovers any horrors...

Indeed you did - but also bear in mind that it was not you to whom I was responding (or quoting) when I entered this discussion. If you look, you'll see that I was responding to ISWS15's apparent suggestion that one could/should 'go after them' simply because of the (possibly) incorrectly answered question. I say 'possibly' because, as we've been discussing, if the question actually did relate to 1/1/2005 (which I strongly suspect it did), then the presence of 'new' cable colours does not even prove that the answer was incorrect.

Kind Regards, John.