thoughts on non notifiable work

[oldbutnotdead]

Someone (think it was @EFLImpudence ) posted a useful link to updated guidance from the government - basically any defects coded C3 on an EICR on a rental property would not constitute a fail. For sure there'll be plenty of chancers who, when booked to conduct a landlord EICR will walk in and before doing any paperwork will give it the sucking through teeth 'this'll need replacing straight away' - kind of fair comment if 'it' is a 6 way Wylex with rewirable fuses and not an RCD in sight but not really acceptable on a this century plastic box with dual RCD or RCBOs everywhere. Only saving grace is the chancers can't legitimately recycle any perfectly servicable plastic boxes they pull out.
EDIT If you as a landlord encounter one of these then escort them from the premises and grass them up to whoever granted them self-certification rights

 

[JohnW2]

.... basically any defects coded C3 on an EICR on a rental property would not constitute a fail.

That would certainly be sensible.

Your mention of "an EICR" begs a question about which I have not seen any 'chapter and verse', or even discussion - do we know what sort of inspection (with what scope etc.) is deemed necessary/adequate to satisfy the new legislation for rental property? The legislation says a lot about "the inspection" and "the report", and requires the person doing the inspection to be "competent" to do it, but does not define any of those terms.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Looking at the guidance at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector it's clear that they have in mind an EICR as detailed in BS7671 - though it's not stated. In practical terms, any other form of inspection & report is going to have to cover generally the same stuff - otherwise the inspector could not state that the installation complies with the BS.
Or put another way, the scope of inspection & testing isn't specified, nor is the format of the report. But anyone doing anything other than a "standard EICR per BS7671" leaves themselves open to challenge. Applying the "how would it sound in court ?" test, imagine that someone has been injured or killed, you signed off the installation as "safe", you're stood in the dock accused of professional negligence, and now the prosecution is asking "So Mr W2, you inspected the electrical installation but didn't use the standard methods and forms specified in BS7671, as a result you missed {description of fault} and now {person} is dead. Would you care to explain to the court why you know better than the experts at the IET and JPL64 to decide what should be inspected and how ?"
Doesn't seem an attractive position to be in does it

EDIT: And I see they don't go in for short URLs either

 

[SimonH2]

EDIT If you as a landlord encounter one of these then escort them from the premises and grass them up to whoever granted them self-certification rights

Trouble with that is many landlords are hand-off and leave this sort of thing to the agent. The agent won't know, or care, or even be on-site - so the chancer gets to go in, produce a "nice earner on the fixes" report, and the landlord gets the bill plus agent markup.
This post is an interesting insight into the way some agents work

I know that (at least some, others may be better) agents don't know this stuff - I recently got an email from my agent (let only, not managing) telling em about the new regs. I pointed out multiple errors - from some of their wording (you must use a registered electrician) I think they were quoting guidance from one of the scams. I won't quote it all, just my summary : "I know this may seem pedantic, but when you are making statements of fact as a "skilled person" (i.e., an agent who might reasonably be expected to be able to keep up with regulatory changes), then it really would be a good idea to be factually accurate. To make five material errors in one paragraph is "good going"."
Those errors were :

• applies to all tenancies from 1st July 2020 - nope, only new ones, existing ones from next year
• to re-let the property we need to - nope, only if I don't already have one, which I did and I know they had a copy
• needs to be done by a registered electrician - nope anyone competent can do it
• needs to be done every 5 years - well, sort of, but could be shorter
• earth bonding - yeah, we all know about that don't we

I was polite about how I explained this to them
Oh yes, and their two preferred contractors had agreed a rate of £125+VAT with them. And they recommended I give permission for them to fix immediately fixable things during the visit

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's obviously how many people (particularly those looking for electrical work!) are interpreting it - but I have been trying to point out that it's not necessarily as simple/clear as that.

In particular, some (again, including those wanting to generate work for themselves) are interpreting it as meaning that there is a requirement for rental accommodation to comply with all the specific requirements of the current edition of BS7671 (i.e. as if it were a 'new build').

They will but, as you say, there are many things in BS7671 which allow existing installations to continue.

However, as I recently wrote "the contents of BS7671" includes a statement that things not explicitly compliant with the current edition (but compliant with earlier ones) are not necessarily unsafe - so "electric safety standards" are not necessarily violated by things not explicitly compliant with BS7671:2018, are they?

That depends how a person defines compliant.
If something is allowed by BS7671, for example BS3036 fuses, then presumably it is compliant.

However, as I've said, I can see those with 'vested interests' trying to take advantage of this new legislation, at the cost of landlords.

Yes they will and the Government is making it easy for them to do so. As I have said, the Government 'has it in' for private landlords.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Your mention of "an EICR" begs a question about which I have not seen any 'chapter and verse', or even discussion - do we know what sort of inspection (with what scope etc.) is deemed necessary/adequate to satisfy the new legislation for rental property?

In the absence of specific instructions, what else is there apart from a full EICR?

The legislation says a lot about "the inspection" and "the report", and requires the person doing the inspection to be "competent" to do it, but does not define any of those terms.

"“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;"

Apparently a qualified person does not have to have any qualifications.

 

[JohnW2]

Looking at the guidance at here it's clear that they have in mind an EICR as detailed in BS7671 - though it's not stated. ... Or put another way, the scope of inspection & testing isn't specified, nor is the format of the report. ...

In the absence of specific instructions, what else is there apart from a full EICR?

What is a "full EICR"? Does that involve the removal of all accessories, inspection within every lighting rose etc., lifting of all floorboards that might be hiding a 'concealed joint', examining everything electrical in roof spaces etc. etc ... or what?

As I understood it, it is for the person commissioning an EICR to specify the scope. Is that not the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Apparently a qualified person does not have to have any qualifications.

Quite so. Maybe I should start doing these 'inspections'

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

That depends how a person defines compliant. ... If something is allowed by BS7671, for example BS3036 fuses, then presumably it is compliant.

Indeed - and since they are looking to BS7671 to define what are the "electrical safety standards", they must presumably accept BS7671 when it says that things compliant with earlier editions are not, per se, a safety issue just because they do not comply with 'requirements' of the current edition?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes they will and the Government is making it easy for them to do so. As I have said, the Government 'has it in' for private landlords.

Yes, you've said that, but I'm not sure I understand why a government, particularly a Tory one, would want to do that - and nor do I really understand why it impacts more on 'private landlords' (which I take to mean 'small' ones) than on 'corporate' landlords.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, you've said that, but I'm not sure I understand why a government, particularly a Tory one, would want to do that -

Well, for a start, they (Osborne) disallowed mortgage interest as a legitimate business expense.
Only applying to private British landlords; not corporate nor foreign ones.

and nor do I really understand why it impacts more on 'private landlords' (which I take to mean 'small' ones) than on 'corporate' landlords.

Because these new rules only apply to the private rented sector.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What is a "full EICR"?

One covering everything.

Does that involve the removal of all accessories, inspection within every lighting rose etc., lifting of all floorboards that might be hiding a 'concealed joint', examining everything electrical in roof spaces etc. etc ... or what?

How else can compliance with BS7671 (whatever that means) be confirmed.

As I understood it, it is for the person commissioning an EICR to specify the scope. Is that not the case?

So, can the landlord exclude whatever he wants?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed - and since they are looking to BS7671 to define what are the "electrical safety standards", they must presumably accept BS7671 when it says that things compliant with earlier editions are not, per se, a safety issue just because they do not comply with 'requirements' of the current edition?

I would say yes, but you know what the unscrupulous or unable to think will say.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is also the fact that these new rules are not necessary.

 

[JohnW2]

One covering everything. ... How else can compliance with BS7671 (whatever that means) be confirmed.

In a literal sense, your poiunt is obviously valid. However, in reality, how often have you heard of an EICR ("a full EICR") having involved all the things I mentioned?

So, can the landlord exclude whatever he wants?

Well, as so often, the failures of rules/regulations (in this case legislation) to fully define what it's talking about, I presume that the landlord could "exclude whatever he wants" if he could successfully argue that what was left was adequate to "ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises are occupied under a specified tenancy" ?

Kind Regards, John