Oh great, yet another scheme - PRS inspections !

[JohnW2]

And what of those who are competent but are prepared to throw competent work practices out of the window for commercial gain?

I discussed them in my recent post. The risk of being caught by audit in the form of 'random re-inspections' might persuade some of those people to actually perform fully to the maximum extent of their competence/capabilities, rather than to maximise profit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You think?

With the sort of sanctions you would consider appropriate?

 

[JohnW2]

You think? With the sort of sanctions you would consider appropriate?

I wonder what sort of sanctions you think I would consider appropriate?

Since it's a question of ascertaining whether people are undertaking EICRs competently, and hence whether they should be 'allowed' to continue undertaking them, then the appropriate sanctions would seem pretty obvious (maybe on the second occasion, after an initial 'warning').

You may be thinking that the likes of NICIEC might be too interested in subscriptions to throw anyone out. If so, the audit could be undertaken by 'uninterested' independent third parties - but that might need legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Bear in mind that carrying out EICRs is actually nothing to do with the schemes - anyone may do them.

 

[JohnW2]

Bear in mind that carrying out EICRs is actually nothing to do with the schemes - anyone may do them.

Indeed - that's why I said that legislation would probably be required if people undertaking them were to be audited and subsequently 'not allowed' to do them if they were shown to be sufficiently lacking. That's what happens in many regulated trades and professions, but it does require some sort of 'licensing' of people who are allowed to undertake EICRs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So what would be the legal framework within which the licensing would take place? What would be the sanctions for people doing EICRs who were not licensed, or who had had their licence revoked?

Would the {probability of getting caught} x {the penalty} be any deterrent? Would it make people think "No way - not risking that"?

If not, no point.

 

[Adam_151]

If we are going down that route, Bas, then surely it would be easier to make it so that those unlicensed simply cannot do it. very few people get an EICR because they want one... its because the insurance company, internal health and safety dept., local licensing authority, etc require them to get one, so all that would need to happen is for the likes of these to be aware that its not valid unless the issuer is licensed, and to refuse to accept them from unlicensed companies and there would be no need to worry about sanctions for those doing it unlicensed, it just wouldn't be a problem, anyone who accepts one from an unlicensed person knows that what they are getting may not be very good.

Not that I necessarily think that licensing is the way to go, but if it did happen, it could very much be enforced by the market.... unless of course the market wants cheap EICRs of questionable accuracy....

 

[EFLImpudence]

From the report:

"The group recognised the need to minimise cost burdens for landlords and agents whilst maintaining adequate protections for tenants. They did not support mandatory inspections and tests at the change of tenancy, nor mandatory testing of electrical appliances supplied by the landlord or the tenant as the costs to landlords and agents would be disproportionate to the more limited benefit. The group agreed these were all examples of good practice and recommends this is set out in guidance for landlords and agents. Similarly, the installation of Residual Current Devices (RCDs) should also be set out in guidance as an example of good practice rather than be introduced as a mandatory requirement."

Could those with experience of such bureacracy please explain why it is decided NOT to make something mandatory but, at the same time, in effect deeming it bad practice to NOT do it?

 

[JohnW2]

So what would be the legal framework within which the licensing would take place? What would be the sanctions for people doing EICRs who were not licensed, or who had had their licence revoked?

You're the one who is seemingly so interested in 'sanctions', so maybe you should answer that question, or at least make some suggestions.

Would the {probability of getting caught} x {the penalty} be any deterrent? Would it make people think "No way - not risking that"? If not, no point.

As with any such situation, the probability of getting caught has to be reasonably high, otherwise there is no point in the system at all. If people had to be licensed to undertake EICRs, and if the public were made aware of the fact that someone undertaking an EICR had to show their licence to anyone for whom they were undertaking an EICR, then, other than for those stupid enough to compound their criminality by obtaining and using falsified documents, that ought to be sanction enough, shouldn't it? Isn't that essentially how it works with gas work these days?

I would imagine that that the risk of losing a driving licence, and the possibly serious consequences of continuing to drive after having their licence revoked, leads to a lot of people deciding 'not to risk it', and probably would continue so to do even if there were no, or minimal potential financial and/or custodial penalties in addition to the disqualification.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Could those with experience of such bureacracy please explain why it is decided NOT to make something mandatory but, at the same time, in effect deeming it bad practice to NOT do it?

Could it perhaps be just 'pragmatic' in that, whilst they do not like these 'bad practices' happening, they realise that there is no point in making something 'mandatory' unless one is going to police the situation effectively, and 'they' might not have the resources (aka money) to do that policing?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but surely it means that landlords who do not have RCDs or PATs are guilty of bad practice and not good enough even though the EICRs and PATs will end up being just worthless pieces of paper and a buck passing exercise for letting agents.

You know it would lead to the less scrupulous 'electricians' telling people they must have it done.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but surely it means that landlords who do not have RCDs or PATs are guilty of bad practice and not good enough even though the EICRs and PATs will end up being just worthless pieces of paper and a buck passing exercise for letting agents. You know it would lead to the less scrupulous 'electricians' telling people they must have it done.

Indeed on all points. We know that these 'systems' are not satisfactory and, in many cases, probably not fit for any purpose!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You're the one who is seemingly so interested in 'sanctions', so maybe you should answer that question, or at least make some suggestions.

No point - you will only argue against the concept of meaningful penalties.

As with any such situation, the probability of getting caught has to be reasonably high, otherwise there is no point in the system at all.

Then there is no point, as we will not afford the cost of making that probability reasonably high.

If people had to be licensed to undertake EICRs, and if the public were made aware of the fact that someone undertaking an EICR had to show their licence to anyone for whom they were undertaking an EICR, then, other than for those stupid enough to compound their criminality by obtaining and using falsified documents, that ought to be sanction enough, shouldn't it? Isn't that essentially how it works with gas work these days?

Indeed.

And it works stunningly well - there are no people illegally doing gas work, and no customers seduced by low prices for them to do work for.

 

[JohnW2]

And it works stunningly well - there are no people illegally doing gas work, and no customers seduced by low prices for them to do work for.

There are criminals in all walks of life.

However, I would imagine that those (I presume the great majority) of gas fitters, or whatever they like to be called, who are working legally, commanding high prices and having no problem finding customers would be less than keen to find themselves having to work illegally, get only low prices and having to hunt for customers prepared to accept a non-registered tradesman.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are criminals in all walks of life.

Many of whom would not be there if we removed them from those walks.

However, I would imagine that those (I presume the great majority) of gas fitters, or whatever they like to be called, who are working legally, commanding high prices and having no problem finding customers would be less than keen to find themselves having to work illegally, get only low prices and having to hunt for customers prepared to accept a non-registered tradesman.

Indeed not, but those people are not the problem.