Correct Paperwork for Tenanted Property after UKPN call-out for EICR?

Before the Inspection schedule was mucked about with and a "visual" for suppliers equipment was included in the model form for EICR, any observation you would make, visually, on a perceived deficiency in suppliers equipment, was conveyed strongly in writing to the person ordering the EICR. You would also be best advised to repeat the warning as an informative in the Report. So something you were not sure about or looked a bit odd with the supply equipment, would not necessarily be akin to a FI or code 2, but you would state a C3 to cover your self.  However, of course, if the danger was very real and apparent, such as melting/burning/access to live parts, you would abort the Inspection as, obviously, it was not safe to proceed, until the DNO, or whatever, fixed it. You would not want it to be eventually going bang whilst you were doing some actual test with instruments.


Of course, now, the new model forms present you with a stop/go for something outside of BS7671. So you have to code it within our limited knowledge of what looks normal in respect of supply equipment. So for example, I have recently observed an FI for a very weird looking bulge in the side of a PILC supply cable. The client called the DNO who sent a jointer to assess it. They deemed the cable safe and confirmed that in writing, in an email. For all interested parties, that email confirmed that the FI had been rectified, as the entity that owned and maintained that equipment said it was safe.


OlympusMons has just posted before I finished this and makes a good point on what "Agents Expect". This "satisfactory report" business was driven by letting agents and has been used by the nuckle draggers as a method of circumnavigating  electrical installation work being installed to the current standard. It gives them a commercial advantage.


There is a lower bar for in-service verification.....would you install new work that clearly would be deemed "requires improvement" the following week by someone else doing an EICR?  


  I would say, in the OPs case, this Agent is a little more up to speed on what is actually required and the mistake is blindly insisting on an EIC as  the only accepted form of "written confirmation". At least they are not insisting on a "satisfactory EICR"; that is a welcome improvement. Little steps, at a time, in the right direction.


So where the Report [EICR] returns a C1/C2/FI , the following kicks in:


(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    ****  this simply means that where your remedial work involved new wiring, then being minor works or installation works, you certified those particular works as being installed to BS7671, usually in the form of a Minor Works or Electrical Installation certificate[s].

(ii)further investigative or remedial work is required;


(b)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to each existing tenant of the residential premises within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work; and


(c)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to the local housing authority within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work.


My emphasis is is in bold above, with a comment ***  . As already stated by a previous post, that EICR [Report] stays as it is. It is Original, it is part of the process of the "specified tenancy" and should not be superceded or "magicked away". 


This is early days in the new rental regime. Some [Badgers] Chickens are likely to come home to roost in five years time, when it is due for the next EICR and, if it is obviously beyond doubt that the last bit of paperwork was simply a blunt form of absolution of all sins for commercial gain or someones loss, there is going to be an embarrassing mess to sort out.

Before the Inspection schedule was mucked about with and a "visual" for suppliers equipment was included in the model form for EICR, any observation you would make, visually, on a perceived deficiency in suppliers equipment, was conveyed strongly in writing to the person ordering the EICR. You would also be best advised to repeat the warning as an informative in the Report. So something you were not sure about or looked a bit odd with the supply equipment, would not necessarily be akin to a FI or code 2, but you would state a C3 to cover your self.  However, of course, if the danger was very real and apparent, such as melting/burning/access to live parts, you would abort the Inspection as, obviously, it was not safe to proceed, until the DNO, or whatever, fixed it. You would not want it to be eventually going bang whilst you were doing some actual test with instruments.


Of course, now, the new model forms present you with a stop/go for something outside of BS7671. So you have to code it within our limited knowledge of what looks normal in respect of supply equipment. So for example, I have recently observed an FI for a very weird looking bulge in the side of a PILC supply cable. The client called the DNO who sent a jointer to assess it. They deemed the cable safe and confirmed that in writing, in an email. For all interested parties, that email confirmed that the FI had been rectified, as the entity that owned and maintained that equipment said it was safe.


OlympusMons has just posted before I finished this and makes a good point on what "Agents Expect". This "satisfactory report" business was driven by letting agents and has been used by the nuckle draggers as a method of circumnavigating  electrical installation work being installed to the current standard. It gives them a commercial advantage.


There is a lower bar for in-service verification.....would you install new work that clearly would be deemed "requires improvement" the following week by someone else doing an EICR?  


  I would say, in the OPs case, this Agent is a little more up to speed on what is actually required and the mistake is blindly insisting on an EIC as  the only accepted form of "written confirmation". At least they are not insisting on a "satisfactory EICR"; that is a welcome improvement. Little steps, at a time, in the right direction.


So where the Report [EICR] returns a C1/C2/FI , the following kicks in:


(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    ****  this simply means that where your remedial work involved new wiring, then being minor works or installation works, you certified those particular works as being installed to BS7671, usually in the form of a Minor Works or Electrical Installation certificate[s].

(ii)further investigative or remedial work is required;


(b)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to each existing tenant of the residential premises within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work; and


(c)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to the local housing authority within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work.


My emphasis is is in bold above, with a comment ***  . As already stated by a previous post, that EICR [Report] stays as it is. It is Original, it is part of the process of the "specified tenancy" and should not be superceded or "magicked away". 


This is early days in the new rental regime. Some [Badgers] Chickens are likely to come home to roost in five years time, when it is due for the next EICR and, if it is obviously beyond doubt that the last bit of paperwork was simply a blunt form of absolution of all sins for commercial gain or someones loss, there is going to be an embarrassing mess to sort out.