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 33 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2640 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

Landlord electrical inspections from July!

whjohnson
Dear IET & HMG,

Please could you get your acts togother and co-ordinate your efforts in order that they correspond a little more with the Real World please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_UN84w8brk

  • 0
    I managed the first 18mins which told me the story..

    As far as I can see, the BS 7671 regulations is a design document that suggests periodic upgrading might take place but is not imperative because the guidance is not retrospective to earlier editions.

    I suspect that landlord inspections will be or is indeed implied in the building control regulations already. As we know this is a statutory document and not purely a gentleman's agreement as with BS7671.

    Now we might ask, why was it necessary to introduce this 'legislation' to control the quality of electrical installations in tenented properties?

    Legh
  • 0
    All I see is a lot of conflicting waffle which will provide licence for rip off merchants and lawyers.
  • 0
    You would think I had nothing better to do but since business is slack, I watched it all the way through. Interesting to get a perspective from someone who will likely be heavily involved in domestic inspection and testing brought about by this new legislation. I rarely do domestic work and in fact avoid it like the plague but I can see that there is likely to be a messy future for both landlords and their sparks. For those involved, good luck!
  • 0
    Given that the "Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020" refer specifically to BS7671:2018, this means that Amendment 1 doesn't comply. So in particular, no residence can be now rented out which has an EV charger installed which uses one of the newly-allowed PME-disaster-avoiding techniques. Ho hum.


    Just as an aside, am I correct in thinking that these new regs are the only thing in English law apart from ESQCR which refers to BS7671?
  • 0
    I watched the video in part and saw quite a few errors being put forward as fact.


    The usual misconception of "the regs. are not retrospective and if it was compliant then it must be safe now". I have a couple of issues with that statement, one it probably was not compliant at the time and 2. How far do you go back in the history of the wiring regulations?. See Note 2 to Regulation 651.2 and read it very carefully.


    I also saw R1 +R2 testing, what does that prove and has the presenter read GN3.

     

    An installation, including PRS, does not have to fully comply with the 18th Edition, but it does have to meet the test set out in Regulation 651.1 ie ""in order to determine, so far as reasonably practicable, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service". I have seen a letter from MHCLG confirming that in respect of the PRS scheme.


    The inspection and test outcomes should record all non-compliances  with the current edition of BS 7671 "which may give rise to danger" and damage, defects or dangerous conditions". Note there is no requirement to record C3 non-compliances. Appendix 6 (Informative so not a Regulation) introduces this concept.


    Now the tricky bit, the inspector his/her engineering judgment needs to Code the non-compliances and defects. There are various publications that give guidance to help the inspector but it is his/her assessment that he/she could be asked to justify at some later date.


    You do not have to be a member of a competent person scheme to do PRS EICRs, although the 2 competent person electrical schemes would like you and the public to think otherwise, but you do need to be qualified and competent holding an 18th Edition Qualification and a Periodic Inspection and Testing Qualification and insurance.


    So here is a little test for you, how would you Code these items that were compliant at the time of installation?


    1.Using a public utility water pipe as a means of earthing? Compliant in 13th Edition.

    2. No RCD protection for a 230V socket that could supply portable equipment outside? Compliant 14th Edition.

    3. A bedroom with a show cubical with a 230V socket 2.5m from the shower? Compliant with the 15th edition.

    4. A surface run wiring system on a ceiling without metalic support? Compliant with the 16th Edition.

    5. An electric vehicle charging point connected to a PME earthing system without one of the special provisions for neutral. Compliant with 17th Edition.

     







  • 0
    John Peckham:

    You do not have to be a member of a competent person scheme to do PRS EICRs, although the 2 competent person electrical schemes would like you and the public to think otherwise, but you do need to be qualified and competent holding an 18th Edition Qualification and a Periodic Inspection and Testing Qualification and insurance.


    The only thing the renting regulations state is:



    “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;





    It doesn't further define what constitutes "competent". So I would guess that holding an 18th Edition Qualification and a Periodic Inspection and Testing Qualification are useful things to demonstate to a judge that you are competent, but I don't see that they are required.


  • 0
    John Peckham:

    So here is a little test for you, how would you Code these items that were compliant at the time of installation?


    1.Using a public utility water pipe as a means of earthing? Compliant in 13th Edition.

    2. No RCD protection for a 230V socket that could supply portable equipment outside? Compliant 14th Edition.

    3. A bedroom with a show cubical with a 230V socket 2.5m from the shower? Compliant with the 15th edition.

    4. A surface run wiring system on a ceiling without metalic support? Compliant with the 16th Edition.

    5. An electric vehicle charging point connected to a PME earthing system without one of the special provisions for neutral. Compliant with 17th Edition.


    Nice one John!


    1. Not a danger as it stands. C3 on the basis that a rod could be put in to improve the situation. (Why is this any different from Daughter's private water supply whose bonding improves the EFLI considerably?)


    2. C3 'cos if you chop through the cord of your mower/hedge trimmer/angle grinder/etc. you could get a belt. A 15th Edn SRCD would sort that one. Mind you, I do sometimes plug a vacuum cleaner into the hall socket when I want to clean my car. Before Mike says anything about wet slippery bodies, I don't hoover my car in the rain and textiles are not "optional".


    3. Nothing, because it isn't intrinsically dangerous and it is difficult to see how an improvement could be made. Taking out the socket (or shower) is not IMHO an improvement. In any event my Mrs P and I have stayed in French hotels and survived.


    4. C3 or nothing. Not difficult to improve. And no, I'm not going to "improve" cables in mini-trunking on the ceiling of my own workshop. If it catches fire, I'm out of there! Might be different if the cables could obstruct an exit which was some distance from a habitable room, but still difficult to make it more than C3.


    5. C3 again. It was very tempting to install an EVCP two years ago for this exact reason.


    Did I pass? ?


  • 0
    WallyW


    You may wish to read the guidance from MHCLG on qualifications.


    Chris


    I assume that you are being provocative to stimulate debate? Whilst I am pleased to hear that you and Mrs P have previously returned from a holiday in France safely that cannot be the basis for substituting this experience for the requirements of BS 7671!
  • 0
    John Peckham:

    You may wish to read the guidance from MHCLG on qualifications.

    The guidance isn't law, whereas the Statutory Instrument is. The SI doesn't say that you need those qualifications. If you were in court, showing that you had the qualifications suggested in the guidance would likely absolve you of not being competent, If you didn't have those exact qualifications you could still (in theory) demonstrate your competence to the court in some other way.
  • 0
    Wally


     Can I assume you do not have a complete set of those qualifications?

Community Rules & Guidelines