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 1781 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.


  • 0
    The lawyers'll be dining out on this dog's breakfast for eternity.

    I'm 2391 ticketed from back in 2002 but refuse to join a scam. I did full-time I&T for a LA for 12 moths - does this mean I am incompetent? (most likely yes!)
  • 0
    Yes, afraid so. 


    The definition of competence is £400.


    Napit/Nic/Eca et-al are all putting out colourful flyers that state the law doesn't really mean what is written. We should ignore it and follow their guidance is the message. 


    Odd times.
  • 0
    The government rejected the proposal for an inspector to be a member of a scheme.


    The EAS document that the 2 remaining competent person schemes have signed up to specify a person doing periodics has to have  qualifications as a minimum a Level 3 in The Requirements for Electrical Installations (18th Edition) and a Level 3 qualification in inspecting and testing e.g 2391 or 2395.


    I see the Electrical Safety First organisation is not pointing this out in their on line advice to landlords advising landlords to use a member of one of the schemes. I cannot understand why they are not pointing out that INDIVIDUALS have to be qualified and do not have to be a member of a scheme! I cannot think why they have not given accurate advice on this subject, can you?
  • 0
    John Peckham:

    The government rejected the proposal for an inspector to be a member of a scheme.


    The EAS document that the 2 remaining competent person schemes have signed up to specify a person doing periodics has to have  qualifications as a minimum a Level 3 in The Requirements for Electrical Installations (18th Edition) and a Level 3 qualification in inspecting and testing e.g 2391 or 2395.


    I see the Electrical Safety First organisation is not pointing this out in their on line advice to landlords advising landlords to use a member of one of the schemes. I cannot understand why they are not pointing out that INDIVIDUALS have to be qualified and do not have to be a member of a scheme! I cannot think why they have not given accurate advice on this subject, can you?


    Thats a tough question John,


    Why would an organisation whose organisation name is ‘Electrical Safety First’ be focused on anything other than Safety? 


    I wonder if of all the paid memberships they have, the total number of actually ‘qualified’ and ‘Competent’ persons has yet reached double digit percentages?


    It seems unlikely that a Landlord will easily comply with this Laws requirement for ‘Qualified’ and ‘Competent’ persons if some industry bodies push for the use of specific companies whose members are not always actually qualified.


    Can you think of any way of improving the situation? 


     


  • 0
    I have managed to get my MP to ask a written question about this, which may raise awareness a little. I am writing to him again to discuss further. Clearly the schemes are not keen to point out how poorly qualified their members are, and safety is probably not their primary concern.


    As far as exact compliance with the latest issue of BS7671 goes, does this mean that each amendment will need reinspection of all properties to the latest regulations(assuming there are changes)? This law is so badly drafted that one wonders who actually did the work, clearly an incompetent lawyer of some kind! That is very reassuring.
  • 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)

  • 0
    My MP was most helpful, but it seems very clear that the draft will not be changed.


    We have judges to interpret badly drafted legislation, but who will the parties be and in which court or tribunal will they be heard?
  • 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.
  • 0
    I agree it does seem rather muddled - it's not clear whether the intention is for an installation to comply with the 18th or just achieve a 'satisfactory' on an periodic inspection carried out according to the 18th - two very different things to my mind. It seems to say one but then demand proof of that via the other.


    I guess it'll take a rouge tennant who trying to get way without paying a years rent on account of finding a bit of unsleeved red & black or a missing SPD for someone in a wig to officially spell out what's reasonable or not. EU bureaucrats would have done a better job.


      - Andy.
  • 0
    Chris Pearson:

    My MP was most helpful, but it seems very clear that the draft will not be changed.


    We have judges to interpret badly drafted legislation, but who will the parties be and in which court or tribunal will they be heard?


    Out of interest what did you get from the MP?


    It's not draft - it's Made.


Community Rules & Guidelines