Switch next to sink

[SimonH2]

No, that's a different bit of the legislation.

 

[denso13]

No, that's a different bit of the legislation.

But that is when the LA's "clock starts ticking", not when the EICR is done surely. The LA won't even know you've had one done.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it not 28 days from the day on which a remedial notice is served? ... (2) A remedial notice must—
... (d)require the private landlord to take that action within 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served;

Well, I suppose one can wait until a remedial notice is issued, but by then one has already technically broken the law, since the primary obligation in the landlord is:

(4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person within—
(a)28 days; or
(b)the period specified in the report if less than 28 days,
starting with the date of the inspection and testing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

but by then one has already technically broken the law

Well not if it is a "silly C2" surely. My point was that everything doesn't fall of a cliff after 28 days, there is more time than that to hopefully put things right.

 

[SimonH2]

But according to the law, there is that cliff. If a C1 or C2 is outstanding 28 days after the inspection, then the landlord has broken the law. In practical terms nothing will happen, and councils won't be enforcing it.
But on the other hand, it could be one of those cut nd dried, easy to prosecute things.

 

[denso13]

I get that but if it is something that is obviously not a breach then have you actually broken the law? Perhaps, technically you have, but it is absurd and surely open to challenge.

 

[JohnW2]

Well not if it is a "silly C2" surely. My point was that everything doesn't fall of a cliff after 28 days, there is more time than that to hopefully put things right.

That's why the way this is happening is, in itself, so silly. No matter hopw silly we regard the C2s as being, if the landlord hasn't remedied them within 28 days of the date of the EICR, then he/she has technically broken the law, resulting in the LA issuing a "remedial notice". Yes, that buys them another 28 days, but they shouldn't have to break the law to get that 'extension' - and, even iof they do, they have still got to find a way around the C"s (within the second 28 days).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I get that but if it is something that is obviously not a breach then have you actually broken the law? Perhaps, technically you have, but it is absurd and surely open to challenge.

Again, that's why it is all so silly, and so 'unacceptable'. The law is written such that if a report says that remedial work needs to be done (with no qualification about 'ridiculous reports'), the the landlord has broken the law if that remedial work isn't done within 28 days.

... and, don't forget, even if such things ever get to Court, the Court has to work on the basis of the law, as written - even if they (the judges) agree that, in a particular cases, it is resulting in stupid verdicts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

Step 1 get test done
Step 2 fix all Dangerous or potentially dangerous faults as defined by the guy who knows he’s getting the work within 28 days
Failure of the above places LL in breach.

only way out is:
Get second opinion within 28 days and rectify any faults identified.
Cancel intention to let, to reset clock
Airbnb the place and keep your Victorian electrics and thermal fuses.

no requirement to supply LA anything unless requested. Must supply tenant with report. Can’t imagine my new tenants will be impressed with the inconvenience of the new switches and rework

 

[JohnW2]

Step 1 get test done .... Step 2 fix all Dangerous or potentially dangerous faults as defined by the guy who knows he’s getting the work within 28 days ... Failure of the above places LL in breach.

Indeed so - although, as someone has pointed out, although already in breach ('broken the law') it seems as if one can then get a second 28 days if/when the LA issue a remedial notice. However, that only delays things, since there's still no way out other than to get the allegedly-required remedial work done.

only way out is: .... Get second opinion within 28 days and rectify any faults identified.

Yes, and had there been time, that would presumably have been the most painless way (albeit at a cost), since, particularly if you had chosen the provider of the second opinion carefully, there probably would have been little, if any, 'remedial work' required.

Once a remedial notice is issued, there is in theory an appeals process available. However, it sounds as if they may have only thought about people appealing because they are having problems getting the remedial work done 'in time', rather than contesting the fact that it needs to be done at all - since all the legislation says is ...

(2) An appeal may be brought on the grounds that all reasonable steps had been taken to comply with the remedial notice, or reasonable progress had been made towards compliance with that notice, when the local housing authority gave notice under regulation 6(2).

Pragmatically, if you did get a second, hopefully 'essentially clean', EICR undertaken (and had any remedial work required by that EICR) done within the initial 28 days of the tenancy, I would hope that waving that EICR (plus evidence that any associated work had been done) at any interested parties (LA, tenant) would make it pretty difficult for them to argue about, even if they were aware of the prior EICR?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

However, it sounds as if they may have only thought about people appealing because they are having problems getting the remedial work done 'in time', rather than contesting the fact that it needs to be done at all - since all the legislation says is ...

Can you not make representations according to point 4 below and citing 2b and/or 2c? I think if you can show that the silly C2s shouldn't be on the EICR in the first place you'd be on pretty solid ground.

(2) A remedial notice must—

(a)specify the premises to which the notice relates;

(b)specify the duty or duties that the local housing authority considers the private landlord has failed to comply with;

(c)specify the remedial action the local housing authority considers should be taken;

(d)require the private landlord to take that action within 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served;

(e)explain that the private landlord is entitled to make written representations against the notice within 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served;

(f)specify the person to whom, and the address (including if appropriate any email address) to which, any representations may be sent; and

(g)explain the effect of regulations 11 and 12, including the maximum financial penalty which a local housing authority may impose.

(3) The local housing authority must serve a remedial notice within 21 days beginning with the day on which the authority decides it has reasonable grounds under paragraph (1).

(4) The local housing authority must consider any representations made under paragraph (2).

(5) Where a private landlord makes written representations the remedial notice is suspended until the local housing authority has complied with paragraphs (4) and (6).

 

[JohnW2]

Can you not make representations according to point 4 below and citing 2b and/or 2c? I think if you can show that the silly C2s shouldn't be on the EICR in the first place you'd be on pretty solid ground.

Yes, one could try that, but presumably only after a remedial notice had been issued (i.e. after the landlord had already 'broken the law').

I would imagine that one problem would be that the LA would not have the ability/expertise to judge whether or not the C2s were silly. Hence, as I suggested in my previous post, if one wanted to pursue that course it would probably be more likely to succeed if one got a second EICR undertaken (hopefully without any silly C2s) and presented that the the LA as part of one's 'representations'?

Kind REgards, John

 

[denso13]

probably be more likely to succeed if one got a second EICR undertaken

I know has come up as a suggestion but I really don't agree with it.

In the other "famous" thread about the gap between pipes on a ceiling on an EICR. I wouldn't dream of getting another one done, I would stick to my guns and tell the LA that if questioned.

 

[JohnW2]

I know has come up as a suggestion but I really don't agree with it. In the other "famous" thread about the gap between pipes on a ceiling on an EICR. I wouldn't dream of getting another one done, I would stick to my guns and tell the LA that if questioned.

I was just being pragmatic. We know that, in relation to notifiable work, many (most?) LAs have little (or no!) in-house expertise in relation to electrical matters, so they probably would not be (or feel) competent to make any judgment abut the silliness (or otherwise) of codings on an EICR, and therefore would probably have to look to 'outsiders' for guidance - so I was merely suggesting that one might be able to pre-empt that by providing a 'second opinion'.

In the case we're talking about, that 'second opinion' might not actually require a further EICR as such - it might, perhaps, consist of a written opinion (from someone seemingly 'qualified and competent') as regards the coding of the EICR.

Kind Regards, John

 

[morse]

... and, don't forget, even if such things ever get to Court, the Court has to work on the basis of the law, as written - even if they (the judges) agree that, in a particular cases, it is resulting in stupid verdicts.

Not strictly true. Judges have rules of interpretation which can be employed to prevent a perverse outcome. It would be disproportionally expensive to test though.

The law generally favours reasonable behaviour. There’s plenty of evidence in this thread that the OP is acting reasonably.

If it were me, I’d probably explain the situation to the tenant/agent and say your hands are tied. I’d then find another electrician to fix the obviously questionable bits and issue a new report.