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 97 replies
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 10272 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

New EICR "unsatisfactory" - complete rewire required?!?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
The lighting circuit has no CPC (earth), this is not uncommon in older houses. For that reason all light fittings are Class 2 i.e. plastic with no metal, and there is a clause in the tenancy agreement which forbids tampering with the light fittings (this is a house we own and rent out).


Previous EICRs did not even mention the lighting circuit because of the Class 2 fittings. I have just got a new EICR with an observation "lighting circuits have little or no earth" and classification code C1 ("Danger present, risk of injury, immediate remedial action required"). The overall assessment says "Unsatisfactory" with the comment "Needs updating to current regs". This can only be fixed by a complete rewire of the whole lighting circuit.


This is pointless, there are no earth connections in the plastic fittings.


Any thoughts? Many thanks.
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    There is a problem here. If the tenant does not want any work carried out (QUITE REASONABLY) then the landlord or contractor has no right to do so.


    The Landlord has the option to bring legal proceedings, but is not obliged to do so - see R5 of the 2020 Regulations: Duty of private landlord to comply with a remedial notice. It would seem that, in effect, a tenant may veto remediation of an unsafe installation.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    The law is badly drafted and does not explain how this requirement can be met with sitting tenants.


    That's the nub of the problem. If it has to apply to sitting tenants it needs further legislation to allow a landlord to update wiring against the tenant's wishes.


    It would be easy to amend the law such that a new EICR is only required for new tenants and only if the existing EICR is older than 5 years. Or maybe always have a new EICR for new tenants.


  • 0
    If the lighting circuit had been replaced before the tenants moved in then you wouldn't have this predicament. It seems a fair assumption it has actually required upgrading since before these tenants moved in and possibly ever since you purchased the property, as a a CPC has been required for over fifty years.
  • 0
    Realistically, no one, apart from the tenant, is going to complain so if the landlord can prove that he asked the tenant for permission and the tenant refused then he should be OK.

  • 0
    JPCoetzee:
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    The law is badly drafted and does not explain how this requirement can be met with sitting tenants.


    That's the nub of the problem. If it has to apply to sitting tenants it needs further legislation to allow a landlord to update wiring against the tenant's wishes.


    It would be easy to amend the law such that a new EICR is only required for new tenants and only if the existing EICR is older than 5 years. Or maybe always have a new EICR for new tenants.




    Quite possibly a Landlord does have a right of access for essential maintenance, but that would require the sort of legal proceedings to which Reg 5 refers and about which I know nothing.


  • 0
    Getting a court order would require the Landlord to prove that this change was essential for safety. This would be very difficult, and therefore the attempt would be very expensive (Probably £50k). In my view, the installation is perfectly safe as it is, and as an expert witness would fully argue that it is safe. The opposition would say the usual "What if someone did so and so", but would run across the "competent person" defense from me. They would almost certainly lose, with costs to the Landlord. Of course one can never be certain of an outcome, but the risk of enforcement action would be very high, and very unlikely. A competent person would not install a class 1 fitting on such a circuit, and anyone else who did would be deemed responsible for any bad outcome.
  • 0
    However if anything goes wrong the question will be asked why you let the tenant move in when you knew it did not have a CPC.


    Assuming the previous EICR recommended improvement why didn’t you act on the report will be the question.


    Your reply that you still don’t consider it needs improvement may require dome explanation.
  • 0
    I don't know why you want further explanation Sparkingchip. A previous EICR may have given this as a code C3, which is simply a recommendation. You seem to think that YOUR opinion is the only one allowed but it is not. How is it in any way unsafe (particularly as the circuit is RCD protected)? It would be interesting to hear. A C3 does not require correction to the latest regulations.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Sparkingchip:

    However if anything goes wrong the question will be asked why you let the tenant move in when you knew it did not have a CPC.


    Assuming the previous EICR recommended improvement why didn’t you act on the report will be the question.


    Your reply that you still don’t consider it needs improvement may require dome explanation.


    I DID act on the report. The previous EICR said there was no CPC in the lighting circuit, so I changed all light fittings to Class 2.


  • 0
    JPCoetzee:

    I DID act on the report. The previous EICR said there was no CPC in the lighting circuit, so I changed all light fittings to Class 2.


    If I were the Judge, I might well find that JPC acted reasonably and that further remediation was unnecessary; but I would have to consider carefully the expert reports of Peckham and Stone and prefer one or the other. Judges never sit on the fence - balance of probabilities is only 50. ... 1%.


    However, as with engineers, there is plenty of wriggle room. One day you might win, another day you might lose. ?


    I have to say that because of the additional protection, I favour C3. Yes action has been taken, but the circuit is still non-compliant, so it must be at least C3 until it is rewired.


    I fear that further discussions of this nature will follow. ?


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines