Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1776 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.

Martyn

So I posted this on a lively Facebook group and got every view under the sun.



‘Anyone been asked to do an EICR in accordance with the new law for rented properties yet? 



(I know it’s not until 1st June 2020 or 1stApril 2021)



All private rented properties in England must fully meet the 18th edition. No Codes. No deviations. 



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/contents/made



The general consensus was if it affects me then C3’s remain acceptable. 



If it does not affect me no deviations are allowed.



My view, as someone who does virtually no domestic is two fold, 



1; The Law is badly written. 



2; The Law requires installations to actually meet the 18th (unamended) 



The Housing Act 2004 calls for installations to be ‘safe for continued use’, this new Act no longer uses that language instead it says



The Act



3.—(1) A private landlord(1) who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—



(a)



ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy;



(b)



ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals by a qualified person;



Definitions in the Act



“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018.



Now, The 18th, and indeed most versions have wording similar to this In part 6



Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.



Clearly, This is intended to prevent mandatory upgrading and retain the fact that regulations are not retrospective and never have been. 



However, This law does not call for ‘Satisfactory’ or ‘Safe for continued use’ it calls for ‘ensure that the electrical safety standards are met’ 



A code, by any definition indicates a non compliance, and, surely a non compliance by definition indicates a standard has not been met. 



And then there is ‘Qualified’



“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; 



This would seem to preclude non certificated members of QS schemes and actually require that the individual indeed qualified? 



It is a mess really.


Parents
  • 0
    We know (well those of us who actually emailed and wrote to him do), because the nice man responsible for steering it through the legal process told us so, that it was not a mistake but a very deliberate decision not to say 'member of a scheme' despite some organisations lobbying them to do so, and it was done partly for that very reason. On its own, a  NICIEC logo (or any other....) on the van does not mean any particular competence to inspect, and not either miss important stuff, or to  fail things that 'are not the way I do it' but are not actually dangerous, and it was also felt that some of the most competent inspectors are independent operators (in that regard at least, the technical advisors, even if not the MPs and ministers, do seem more in touch with reality than I originally feared).


    We also know from the same source that they originally wanted to have legislation that said 'the current regulations' rather than fixed to the 18th, but that the rules of the game for that sort of legislation prevent it being 'ambulatory' that is to say the requirement of the law changes when the regs do.

    Otherwise it may happen that something that was previously not, suddenly  becomes a crime due to action by a none govt body, and you cannot have the law changed without ministerial agreement.  (It is a general rule but  in this case, I suppose an unscrupulous manufacturer could bribe JPLE 64 to in effect  make their products legally compulsory in the 18th edn amd 3 or whatever).

    So instead, when the regs change, a few months later a statutory instrument will be raised to adjust the law, assuming of course that the civil service and the ministry agree the regs change is indeed sensible and worthwhile.


    As you imply, I'm sure it is a nothing more than a terrible omission that this is not being mentioned very clearly in the paperwork to scheme members to give to landlords.

    (yeah, right... beware the flying pigs)

Reply
  • 0
    We know (well those of us who actually emailed and wrote to him do), because the nice man responsible for steering it through the legal process told us so, that it was not a mistake but a very deliberate decision not to say 'member of a scheme' despite some organisations lobbying them to do so, and it was done partly for that very reason. On its own, a  NICIEC logo (or any other....) on the van does not mean any particular competence to inspect, and not either miss important stuff, or to  fail things that 'are not the way I do it' but are not actually dangerous, and it was also felt that some of the most competent inspectors are independent operators (in that regard at least, the technical advisors, even if not the MPs and ministers, do seem more in touch with reality than I originally feared).


    We also know from the same source that they originally wanted to have legislation that said 'the current regulations' rather than fixed to the 18th, but that the rules of the game for that sort of legislation prevent it being 'ambulatory' that is to say the requirement of the law changes when the regs do.

    Otherwise it may happen that something that was previously not, suddenly  becomes a crime due to action by a none govt body, and you cannot have the law changed without ministerial agreement.  (It is a general rule but  in this case, I suppose an unscrupulous manufacturer could bribe JPLE 64 to in effect  make their products legally compulsory in the 18th edn amd 3 or whatever).

    So instead, when the regs change, a few months later a statutory instrument will be raised to adjust the law, assuming of course that the civil service and the ministry agree the regs change is indeed sensible and worthwhile.


    As you imply, I'm sure it is a nothing more than a terrible omission that this is not being mentioned very clearly in the paperwork to scheme members to give to landlords.

    (yeah, right... beware the flying pigs)

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines