failed eicr, whats the next step please ?

[ericmark]

Potentially worse than that, given that not everyone is 'honest and scrupulous', even if qualified.

It would be possible for electricians to (possibly even 'repeatedly') give F1s for things that they could easily have 'further investigated' at the time of the EICR, but didn't (like the PIR possibly affecting IR readings in this case), thereby creating the need for subsequent 'further investigation', for which there would presumably be a charge.

I would have thought that the use of F1s should be restricted to those things which could not be 'reasonably investigated' at the time.

Kind Regards, John

There has been a question as to the extent of the inspection, an inspector could when doing one house in a terrace where the loft hatch is not in that house, either code F1 or simply in note state the loft is not included in the inspection. We are allowed to exclude things, so a garage and house even when supplied from same DNO fuse could have separate EICR's

This to me is a little dangerous, however if I wanted to let out part of this house, say the granny flat under it, then it would be reasonable for the granny flat to have a separate EICR to house, after all it has it's own installation certificate and it's own council tax banding, but is supplied from same DNO fuse, and same consumer unit as main house, also same central heating boiler and controls, and same domestic hot water supply and same water meter. I am arguing with council as I say it is not a separate property it is all one.

However as it stands it could hardly be claimed I need an EICR to cover both, which means I can hide the bad bits. And the main house does not have a consumer unit, or a DNO head, or any central heating boiler.

Not that this is an issue as I have no intention of letting out part of the house, and I live in Wales, but can't really see difference in F1 and not included in the inspection.

 

[JohnW2]

... However I said if you have a C1 it needs rectifying before you leave, be it isolate or repair, but it needs making safe, which could mean the property becomes uninhabitable ...

You often say that, and it's obviously sensible and desirable, but what often seems to be overlooked is that no work can be done (let alone paid for) on the installation without the owner's permission/instruction - and I have yet to see a contract for an EICR which includes ".. and any remedial work required immediately, at whatever cost"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... however if I wanted to let out part of this house, say the granny flat under it, then it would be reasonable for the granny flat to have a separate EICR to house, after all it has it's own installation certificate and it's own council tax banding, but is supplied from same DNO fuse ...

Someone commissioning an "EICR" is free to agree about the scope of the inspection with the person who is to undertake the I&T, and that scope can be as limited as one wishes. It certainly doesn't necessarily have to include everything supplied by the same DNO fuse.

However, if the EICR is required by some third party (or, as we have been discussing, required by 'the law'), then that third party (or law) can presumably dictate the minimum scope that would be acceptable for their purpose. The recent 'PRS' legislation doesn't explicitly mention EICRs at all, let alone their scope (although the associated 'Guidance' document does talk about EICRs).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Dark indicates moisture, it is copper equivalent to rust. Getting copper hot gets rid of the oxide.
So if the guy can't do the remedial work, or further investigation then he is not qualified. So a code F1 due to locked door, that's OK, or no loft hatch that's OK, but an F1 code because he does not know what to do and wants his boss to look at it, means he is not qualified to do the inspection and testing???

Agreed.

 

[ericmark]

Someone commissioning an "EICR" is free to agree about the scope of the inspection with the person who is to undertake the I&T, and that scope can be as limited as one wishes. It certainly doesn't necessarily have to include everything supplied by the same DNO fuse.

Kind Regards, John

It is the landlord responsibility to insure the tenants safety, this includes selecting an inspector who has the ability, and of course what the inspector has to inspect, so the landlord is free to say what is included and if he excludes something from the inspection and test and as a result some one is injured it is the landlord who has broken the law.

However it seems the landlord can use this as a loop hole, so he has an EICR even if not a full one, to satisfy those who ask for it. The tenant can complain, but the whole idea was that this would "ensure electrical safety standards are clear and consistent across all private rented tenures, to minimise confusion when landlords and letting agents implement the new duty. It will also prevent a two-tier system where HMOs and other privately rented properties are required to meet different standards."

One interesting point is:-

12.10 Carrying out an inspection of electrical installations is a complex task that requires an extra level of qualification and competence achieved beyond the standard 4-year vocational route commonly followed by qualified inspectors and testers. Therefore, Government will develop, with industry experts, new guidance for landlords stipulating who can carry out the mandatory electrical installation checks.

so it seems inspectors need to have been in the trade for over 4 years. But not seen this guidance.

 

[JohnW2]

It is the landlord responsibility to insure the tenants safety, this includes selecting an inspector who has the ability, and of course what the inspector has to inspect, so the landlord is free to say what is included and if he excludes something from the inspection and test and as a result some one is injured it is the landlord who has broken the law.

I think you may have forgotten the context - i.e. your comment to which I was responding.

You were suggesting that it was not necessary for an EICR covering "everything supplied by the same DNO fuse" if all that was being rented out was the granny flat supplied from that fuse. I agreed, and said that there would be no problem in agreeing that the scope of the EICR should be limited to just the parts relevant to the Granny Flat. No-one (in the rented Granny Flat) could possibly be "injured" as a result of such a limitation of the scope of the EICR!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gary111]

You often say that, and it's obviously sensible and desirable, but what often seems to be overlooked is that no work can be done (let alone paid for) on the installation without the owner's permission/instruction - and I have yet to see a contract for an EICR which includes ".. and any remedial work required immediately, at whatever cost"!

Kind Regards, John

Thanks but in this case I was with him the 3 and a half hours it took to do test 5 separate installations at a cost of over £500 so he could have asked me

 

[Gary111]

out of interest is the council sent a copy of eicrs ?
what happens if it takes longer than 28 days to rectify ?
thanks for all your advice

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks but in this case I was with him the 3 and a half hours it took to do test 5 separate installations at a cost of over £500 so he could have asked me

Sure, and that's what would normally happen in the case of something very dangerous that needed immediate attention (i.e. a "C1" on an EICR).

I was responding to eric's oft-repeated assertion. That an electrician who found a "C1" during an EICR was under some sort of obligation to rectify it (or even 'disable the entire installation') "before he/she leaves". Desirable though that might be, it cannot really be done (and charged for) without instruction/authorisation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

out of interest is the council sent a copy of eicrs ?

Not 'normally' (i.e. pre-July). However, the new legislation related to private rented property does require confirmation of the safety of the installation (which the Guidance document, but not the actual legislation says should be an EICR) has to be sent to the local authority "if requested".

...(c)supply a copy of that report to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing for it from that authority;

Goodness only know how often, if ever, they would make such a request. Time will tell!

what happens if it takes longer than 28 days to rectify ?

That's a question that we have been debating here. In theory, the LA can themselves arrange for remedial work to be undertaken under those circumstances. However, there is also an 'appeal' procedure and one would hope that they would be sensible if, despite 'taking reasonable steps to get the work done', it was not completed within 28 days for reasons essentially beyond the landlord's control. Again, only time will tell!

Kind Regards, John