Hi all, my father in law has a rental property that was completely rewired and with new split load CU five years ago. The installation is now due an inspection. Will the fact that the CU is plastic constitute a "fail"?
nothing precludes a metal box around the plastic one may not be the electrician's preferred solution, as it makes no new work for him/her but easy to show it now meets the regs.
Buscuit tins have their uses. I do remember some years ago, burglar alarms external bellbox were biscuit tins.
Yes, some would modify a used biscuit tin and stick a bell or sounder in it
Actually, reading the legislation again, not only does it not stipulate a list of items to be inspected, but it doesn't even say that the report has to be an inspection against "the electrical safety standards".
Seriously, it doesn't. Read Section 3 - (1) (a) to (c) in the most pedantic way you can think of, rather than assuming it means what it ought to say.
Does 3 - (1) (a) not say that?
"(a) ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy;"
Then 3 - (3) (a) says a report must be obtained.
3 - (1) (a) says that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the installation meets the standards - but doesn't say how.
3 - (1) (b) says that the landlord must obtain a report on the installation - but doesn't say that the report is against the standards, or that the report is the means of ensuring (a).
Actually, reading the legislation again, not only does it not stipulate a list of items to be inspected, but it doesn't even say that the report has to be an inspection against "the electrical safety standards".
Seriously, it doesn't. Read Section 3 - (1) (a) to (c) in the most pedantic way you can think of, rather than assuming it means what it ought to say.
Does 3 - (1) (a) not say that?
"(a) ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy;"
Then 3 - (3) (a) says a report must be obtained.
3 - (1) (a) says that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the installation meets the standards - but doesn't say how.
3 - (1) (b) says that the landlord must obtain a report on the installation - but doesn't say that the report is against the standards, or that the report is the means of ensuring (a).
Yes, but look at R.2 Interpretation:
"“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;"
So the qualified person must I&T in accordance with the electrical safety standards.
The legislation is often written in the manner of lawyers, nothing is quite solid and clear, until a ruling is obtained in court. Strange that really.
However, I agree that the legislation probably requires an EICR against the current book without any limitations, and this is the only kind of certificate there is defined in the British Standards, which would be somewhat difficult to deny. As anyone may carry out an EICR, using any guide they like, the standard is likely to be very low in many cases, and drive-by is not impossible. It is impossible to check an installation against the "manufacturers instructions" unless they are present at the time of inspection, and do we use the current ones for products or the ones that were in force at installation? In view of the CU ones discussed elsewhere, the main fuse value must be verified and then the CU items checked for the new compliance. How does one do this, bearing in mind that we are not supposed to unseal the main fuse? As it is impossible to provide a satisfactory certificate under these conditions, all installations must fail the Inspection and test immediately. No good EICRs from now on then! Proper responsible inspectors to the fore, please.
Well, thank you very much everyone for taking the trouble to respond and thank you Mike for the biscuit tin link. However, I regret to say I feel none the wiser! What I'm keen to avoid is the guy going in and failing it, then we'll have to pay for him to replace the CU and then to re-test and issue the certificate. I'm no longer a scam member so I can't cost effectively do it so should I just get one of Mike's thirty quid biscuit tins and have done with it?
you may not be a scheme member, but if you are happy to do so , (PI insurance and all that) then Grumpy Electricals limited or whatever name you use, can do an EICR. If serious remedials are needed you may need to chat to building control if work is notifiable, , but just to do the inspection, you need to be competent, and membership of a scheme neither confers nor restricts that status. There are some very capable folk who are scheme members, and equally plenty more who are not.
Well, thank you very much everyone for taking the trouble to respond and thank you Mike for the biscuit tin link. However, I regret to say I feel none the wiser! What I'm keen to avoid is the guy going in and failing it, then we'll have to pay for him to replace the CU and then to re-test and issue the certificate. I'm no longer a scam member so I can't cost effectively do it so should I just get one of Mike's thirty quid biscuit tins and have done with it?
I really would not worry. If you get a C3, will the LA know about it? You don't need to send a copy unless they ask for one.
If the tenant dobs you in and you get a remedial notice, appeal to the Tribunal.
The only way to give an EICR to a landlord, where it is necessary to be completely compliant with BS7671, is to have no limitations. If you say "I didn't inspect x, y or z because..., the installation may not be compliant, and therefore not meet the law as described. If I say "I did not check this circuit, or I couldn't inspect under the floor although I knew there was a junction box or....." you see it just goes on. Limitations should be few and simple with good reasons. I have seen EICRs where basically nothing useful was inspected or tested because of a string of reasons, even including "I could not inspect the CU because the cupboard was full of junk". So a quick visual of what could be seen and a satisfactory installation. Is that the standard which you think should be met, because if so I know a couple of dodgy landlords who would find you jolly useful!
