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.


  • 0
    davezawadi:

    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.


    I suspect there are very very few competent inspectors.


    I did wonder about that line, does it mean the inspector must also complete the work?


    Some on here may know I prefer to get others to do my EICR's, mainly because I like a clean pair of hands!


  • 0
    I am more concerned that landlords will find that an EICR to 18th amdt 1 costs a great deal of money, which then has to be recovered from the rent. AFDDs and SPDs possibly costing 2 grand, and rental of the property being half that per month doesn't seem unreasonable. The increase in rent then having to be say 10% and pay increases unlikely in the near future will put many on the street. I would not be surprised if rental properties at the lower end of the market were all sold in some areas because being a landlord can already be fairly unattractive. The result will be that false EICRs become common, and this process has got us nowhere unless it is going to be fully policed, and that will need some way of certifying competence in inspectors and reasonable interpretation of the regulations.
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    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.


    They are indeed two very different things, that is the root of the debate.


    I read it to require compliance with the 18th Edition in full, and that is not even a current standard with the advent of Amd 1. The Housing Act previously required 'Safe for continued use' and clearly the government could have used that language again, it would certainly been clearer even if it did maintain the status quo.


    Your example to my mind and I know lots disagree, but red & black should be coded C3, I don’t actually believe it is dangerous to trained persons but it is a deviation from current requirements; instead we get combustible CU as a C3, Cleary these two deviations are worlds apart and I would absolutely argue that the requirement for a non combustible CU is a 'Safety Standard'.


    Yet despite the new law, I suspect 90% of landlords will receive a 'Satisfactory' report with this C3 coded item.

     


  • 0
    The point being that BS7671 says that a C3 is still "satisfactory" whatever that means. Clearly cable colours are really of no safety importance, they are rarely seen by a user. A plastic CU is also perfectly safe (still allowed other than domestic) but can be a problem if a C1 (loose connections) is also present. This is why inspection is nothing like as easy as many electricians think, the context and many other details also need to be considered as part of the coding process, and is why I think the books of "fault codes" are a very bad idea. Understanding the bigger picture and the regulations as regard intent are needed for good inspection quality. There will always be some items which be argued over, after all, we need something to talk about in the pub.
  • 0
    davezawadi:

    The point being that BS7671 says that a C3 is still "satisfactory" whatever that means. Clearly cable colours are really of no safety importance, they are rarely seen by a user. A plastic CU is also perfectly safe (still allowed other than domestic) but can be a problem if a C1 (loose connections) is also present. This is why inspection is nothing like as easy as many electricians think, the context and many other details also need to be considered as part of the coding process, and is why I think the books of "fault codes" are a very bad idea. Understanding the bigger picture and the regulations as regard intent are needed for good inspection quality. There will always be some items which be argued over, after all, we need something to talk about in the pub.


    Did someone say Pub?


    I have always had a hard time with C3, it is so often said to be the new code 4.


    To my mind if it has been put in to a 'Safety' standard how can I dismiss it as unimportant because it was once thought to be safe?


  • 0
    I said the same when I first read the draft. It is a significant improvement on the present situation, as it is focused on individual competence and sets out the minimum requirement of an inspector. Of course there are many feeding from the trough and many of those signed up to be in the trough, who would rather things did not change. If this legislation is applied diligently at the first point of contact, the troughs would dry up, as a secondary effect will be electricians leaving incompetent persons schemes in droves.

    But landlords want their cake and they want to also eat it. Presently some landlord representatives, and others with an interest, bemoan the lack of any standard and consistency. However the private rental sector wants the same risk transfer as present and so require a check box to be ticked that can be devolved to another agency. Presently this transfer is in the many layers of deceit aided and abetted by incompetent persons schemes, and, I would say, many members of these schemes are also complicit. The use of the words "electrical safety" and "competent" in the 2005 CP Scheme have been latched onto by Landlords, some electrician entities, others  and registration schemes, as a means of blurring the trail of culpability and obscurring the oddity that at least 80% of those that people will refer to "as electricians" are, in fact, electrical labourers.  It has become the ultimate tickbox for transfering risk into the ether, but also a cute way driving down the cost of " an electrician ".


    The new proposed law is very clear where responsibility resides as to the suitability of an Inspector for purposes of private rental. This will scare the pants off landlords. They have to make the choice, they have to take the responsibility, so, if they are risk averse and responsible, they simply check that the "Electrician" they chose to do the inspection report meets the minimum requirements of the draft legislation. Trouble is, their choice would now be limited to about 20% of what it was previously and the cost would increase. So in the background, the registration schemes are lobbying hard to keep the status quo and keep the emperor fully clothed by constructing a Private Rental Sector register where a landlord can chose a contractor and keep the existing diluted trail of responsibility. Of course, this register will be compiled by the two big players, but the sting is that you also must be "part p registered", in addition to other things and likely "other costs" .  Yes, the draft law allows an independent inspector/ electrician, not registered with any scheme, to do Rental Inspections, so long as they can demonstrate to the client/landlord, they meet the minimum requirements, but this Private Rental Sector register will have the advantage of big publicity, big badges, low cost for landlord, the "choice" risk being transfered elsewhere and sadly, the illusion all backed up by by "part p-electrical safety-dwellings". It will also have the advantage of being backed by switchgear manufacturers who have done very well through forced upgrades of consumer units since 2005.


    When JP posted the headline of this new legislation a few months ago, I was pleasently surprised the draft required a fairly decent level of minimal qualification and stated you did not need to be a member of a scheme. It was all very welcome. Though worded  as most legal legislation, the gist was plainly clear. However, this draft legislation is going to emerge into an electrical installation world that has been completely perversed since 2005 and is going to flounder on the rocks of Part P for anyone hoping it is going to make any difference to the quality and honesty of EICR in the rental sector.
  • 0
    I suspect, in reality, that the letting agents will very quickly work out which inspectors will nit-pick every installation, and which inspectors will issue a "Pass" certificate for anything that isn't an obvious death trap.

    The nit-picking inspectors will soon find themselves going back to doing industrial work, because nobody will employ them to do a residential letting.
  • 0
    Martynduerden:
    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.




    A letter, which I posted in the previous thread.


  • 0
    If anyone wants a copy of my updated standard specification for carrying out a domestic periodic inspection I happy to email you a copy.


    It is designed for contractors to send to their clients before they do the inspection so that it is clear what they are going are going to do and meets the requirement for the inspector to agree the extent and limitations before starting work.


    In addition landlords can use it to issue to contractors to specify what they want.


    Just emial on info@atutetechnicalservices.co.uk for a copy.
  • 0
    My email address should have read info@astutetechnicalservices.co.uk

Community Rules & Guidelines