Switch next to sink

[scousespark]

Thanks.

OK, so it's essentially NICEIC. In that case, we have two of the main trade organisations (NAPIT and 'NICIEC') fundamentally disagreeing in relation to how a plastic CU under wood stairs or in an 'escape route' should be coded, and the difference can make a big financial difference to a landlord.

So, as I recently wrote to mrrusty, how on earth could a court decide whether a landlord had made a recoverable loss as a result of "bad advice" ("bad" EICR coding), if that advice related to a CU under wooden stairs or in an 'escape route' - toss a coin, perhaps?

This is a totally unsatisfactory situation!

Kind Regards, John

This is wrong. NAPIT have printed their advice in 'EICR Codebreakers'.

I'm registered with the NICEIC but have a copy (I have no problem referring to a guide when I'm doing my job, but this this does not a replacement for applying experience).

Section 4.4 has the following:

'CU in a domestic household premises is not metal or installed in a non-combustible cabinet, showing NO signs of thermal damage, located under a wooden or combustible public stairwell forming part of an escape route from a dwelling area' Code C3

'CU in a domestic household premises is not metal or installed in a non-combustible cabinet, showing NO signs of thermal damage, located the sole means of escape from a dwelling area' Code C3 (as an example, the CU is in a hallway at floor level, where a fire would block escape).

If the CU is not in one of these locations, a code is not applicable.

In any case, the CU does not need to be replaced.

This is in line with the Best Practice Guide. Both sources state that evidence of thermal damage would warrant a C2 and any serious fault would warrant a C2. Both bodies, do not mandate that

 

[JohnW2]

This is wrong. NAPIT have printed their advice in 'EICR Codebreakers'. ... have a copy .... Section 4.4 has the following:
'CU in a domestic household premises is not metal or installed in a non-combustible cabinet, showing NO signs of thermal damage, located under a wooden or combustible public stairwell forming part of an escape route from a dwelling area' Code C3
'CU in a domestic household premises is not metal or installed in a non-combustible cabinet, showing NO signs of thermal damage, located the sole means of escape from a dwelling area' Code C3 (as an example, the CU is in a hallway at floor level, where a fire would block escape).
If the CU is not in one of these locations, a code is not applicable.

Good to see you. I hope that all is well with you and yours.

Many thanks. It seems that we have all been misled. Like, I imagine, most others here, I cannot get access to 'EICR Codebreakers' without paying money, so I've never been able to check. However, earlier this year (I imagine around the time that the 'PRS legislation' came into force), someone here (I can't currently find it) posted that that document advised that, in the second case you mention above (under stairs or in an escape route) a plastic CU should be given a C2.

Ever since then, numerous discussions here have assumed that was correct but you now seem to be demonstrating that such is not the case.

In some senses, that simplifies the situation, since it now appears that both NICEIC and NAPIT are saying that, no matter where it is located, a plastic CU should not be given more than a C3 'just because it is a plastic CU'.

However, as we've seen, some people are apparently giving C2s, certainly for plastic CUs under stairs etc. and I'm not sure that this 'simplifications' helps affected landlords very much - even if it can be demonstrated that such coding goes against the guidance of two major trade organisations, it's still not clear how a landlord can 'appeal against' an EICR which has such coding (at least, not until he/she has already broken the law and a 'remedial notice' has been issued).

As I keep saying, this situation is clearly unsatisfactory now that EICRs have 'teeth' which can have significant financial implications for landlords - particulkarly since most landlords won't even realise if/when there is anything 'wrong' with an EICR. I see no real solution other than considerably increased regulation of EICRs (at least, when undertaken for landlords) including, wherever possible, explicit instruction as to how certain things should be coded. However, that's just my opinion - I have no axe to grind, since I am neither an electrician nor a landlord.

Kind Regards, John