Landlord electrical safety certificate

This Square D is in the hall cupboard of a third floor flat that has a fire door on it, so it's in a non-combustible cupboard, but it's a big cupboard used for storage that is full of flammable materials!


Metering services have in some parts of the country been putting self adhesive signs next to the meters telling home owners and tenants that they should not use cupboards such as those under stairs for storage because the electric meter and intake is in there, but no one pays any attention.


If the woodwork on the underside of the stairs is exposed you could get it plaster boarded and skimmed as well as fire lining the door and partition, but you might have a job trying to stop the tenants using the cupboard for storage. That leaves the possibility of C2, C3 or no code at all.


Andy B.

There are plenty of those above Colin, and some of them not in the spirit of BS7671, which defines the inspection routine. Does the NICEIC really expect one to use their codebook codes? If so I assume they also accept responsibility where this leads to a poor, or worse incorrect outcome of the EICR. But then I cannot see them other than the BS7671 definition of the Inspector, ie competent and therefore responsible. I bet there is a disclaimer there somewhere.


I do not understand this fascination with plastic CUs being unsatisfactory and needing replacement (at great expense with AFDDs and surge suppressors). The real problem is very well understood and it is not the plastic or fire containment. It is simply poor connections on potentially high current cables. Correct this problem, particularly in the manner I suggest, and the problem is gone forever. The cutout, CU, or anything else do not catch fire without cause, and of the 20 million or so installations with plastic CUs, a tiny number have caught fire, probably for known reasons. This fireproof cupboard lark does not do much useful unless a suitable fire alarm system is fitted, it only delays the onset of a serious fire. It seems to be assumed that a non-combustible CU will stop any spread of fire, that is only true if the complete contents are properly sealed (to exclude oxygen) and also completely non-combustible, neither of which is true. Cable insulation, paint, MCBs etc will burn given a good air supply and sufficient temperature, and several hundred grams will make quite a good fire once started properly.

The problem with the new landlord regs is that they are very badly drafted (since they're not primary legislation, they haven't been scrutinised by a parliamentary committee - just drafted by civil servants and signed off by a minister).


They place four main obligations on a landlord.


1) at all times while rented out, the electrics must comply with BS7671:2018. This means no plastic CUs, no EV chargers using the new protection measures in amendment 1, no inaccessible junctions that are not MF, etc. There is no wiggle room here as far as I can see just because parts of the installation are pre-2018. Conversely there is no obligation (under these regs at least) for the installation to actually be safe, just that they comply.


2) There needs to be a test and inspection at specified intervals by a qualified person. It says nothing about the scope of this, nor that it needs to be T&Ied against BS7671:2018, nor that it needs to be T&Ied for safety. The T&C could be literally anything agreed between the landlord and the inspector. However given the strict requirement of (1), the landlord would be well advised to request an inspection that looks for an deviations from BS7671:2018.


3) The results of that T&I have to be produced as a report and given to various people under various circumstances.


4) If the report happens to identify anything which deviates from BS7671:2018, the landlord has typically 28 days to get it fixed. Note however that this doesn't oblige the T&I to look for such deviations.


So, should inpectors fail plastic CUs, and should landlords get them replaced with metal ones? The answer to the first is down to what was agreed with the inspector; the answer to the second is that to be completely safe from prosecution the landlord should replace it. Now it may happen that once this has settled down and been through various courts and precedents established, that it will become clear that plastic CUs etc remain ok. But until that time the landlord is taking a risk. Guidance from various government departments and safety oganisations which contradict the regs (e.g. by saying that existing plastic CUs are ok) might help a landlord win their case at tribunal or in court, but there's no guarantee.

Wally


You are wrong I have seen the guidance from MHCLG on the legislation.


The test for compliance with the 18th is set out in 651.1 which is "in order to determine, so far as reasonably practicable, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service".


So you can have C3s. You can have a plastic CU provided there is no thermal damage and you will of course as part of your inspection check terminations for tightness.


If you had to fully comply with the 18th then  installations would need a rewire if they were wired in red and black rather than brown and blue.


So in short to comply with the 18th Edition you have to comply with the requirements of Chapter 65. Yes I would agree the legislation is not a model of excellence when it comes to drafting.

Here is the guidance I was talking about  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector-guidance-for-landlords-tenants-and-local-authorities/guide-for-landlords-electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector

JP , thanks for putting the guidance up.


I have had a look again at the rental legislation to try and determine where there may be confusion over the safety standard to be met and to what it applies. I accept that it may be misinterpreted by some that 5 [a] [i] wording means the whole Installation must be to BS7671, with no C3's. Full compliance with BS7671 applies to "the remedial work being carried out" only, that is, the electrical installation works conducted as a remedy. The further investigation is simply that, the FI reported. Compliance with BS7671 is also a process, of which periodic reporting is one. So your compliance with ""electrical safety standard" is following the process set out in BS7671.


Extract below:

(5) Where paragraph (4) applies, a private landlord must—


(a)obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out and that—


(i)the electrical safety standards are met; or


(ii)further investigative or remedial work is required;

I agree with JP.


Let's look a little more closely at Chapter 65.

651.2 "Periodic inspection shall be carried out ... to provide for: ... (vi) the identification of installation defects and non-compliances with the requirements of the relevant parts of BS 7671, that may give rise to danger." (My emphasis)

653.2 "The Report shall include the following: ... - any non-compliance with the requirements of BS 7671 which may give rise to danger ..." (My emphasis again)

653.1 specifies that the EICR shall be based upon the model in Appendix 6.


Page 475 Notes for the person producing the Report:


"... An installation which was designed to an earlier edition ... is not necessarily unsafe for continued use or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration [etc] which may give rise to danger, should be recorded." (My emphasis once again)


So as I read this, there is no obligation to report non-compliances which do not give rise to danger. However, to do so would be good practice. Indeed over the page under GUIDANCE FOR THE INSPECTOR we are told that the absence of RCDs for additional protection is at least a C3. IMHO, old colours do not give rise to danger and self evidently, neither does an out of date quarterly test notice.