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
    Whilst all that may be good, we don't know who many of the competent inspectors are, and there are going to be quite a small number available. Landlords have no idea if "joe bloggs electrics" is competent or not and has no way to find out. If the landlord chooses an inspector who is not competent, who is responsible, because I think it is probably the landlord. Of course the schemes may insist that all the member firms are competent, which is clearly far from true.


    The line in the OP " and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;  " also precludes many of the best inspection people who do not carry out remedials! In fact this statement nullifies most of the advantages which could be gained by separating inspection and remedial works completely, which in my view would be an excellent change for the good of inspectors and consumers alike, and no pressures to maximise necessary (or otherwise) works.
Reply
  • 0
    Whilst all that may be good, we don't know who many of the competent inspectors are, and there are going to be quite a small number available. Landlords have no idea if "joe bloggs electrics" is competent or not and has no way to find out. If the landlord chooses an inspector who is not competent, who is responsible, because I think it is probably the landlord. Of course the schemes may insist that all the member firms are competent, which is clearly far from true.


    The line in the OP " and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;  " also precludes many of the best inspection people who do not carry out remedials! In fact this statement nullifies most of the advantages which could be gained by separating inspection and remedial works completely, which in my view would be an excellent change for the good of inspectors and consumers alike, and no pressures to maximise necessary (or otherwise) works.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines