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 37 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2255 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

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

Gideon
Good afternoon, my first post here. I'm a retired SW Engineer originally qualified electrically, but asking this as the owner of a flat I let out, with an ongoing tenancy.

I recently had the flat inspected IAW the new rules for let homes. It has been regularly inspected before and brought up to date as necessary. On the new inspection the - familiar - electrician was happy with all "my" electrics, but marked the EICR Unsatisfactory because the supply head warranted checking, for which he advised me to call UKPN. Fair enough. They came round a day or two later, had a good look, and concluded it was ok. I asked if they issued any paper for that - "no, just logged on our system". But their call handler was happy enough to send me an email detailing the findings & conclusion. Electrician's happy, I'm happy, it's all safe. But the letting agents are whinging that there must be an EIC. Electrician seems quite au fait with new tenancy regs and quotes "Part 2, section 3, paragraph 5, points a-c; a written report by a qualified person" which the email satisfies. And I think I glean that the "Installation" in EIC is my/his bit, whereas UKPN deal with the "supply", so of course they can't do an EIC (and it was only a check - no work done). Yet the agents keep demanding an EIC.

Seems like a sort of bureaucratic mismatch between two organisations? Or are the lettings agent simply getting it wrong in demanding an EIC specifically, not a "written report by a qualified person"?

What do others think should happen next? Or should have happened?
Parents
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    I didn't mean suggest that a whole new report be produced as if for a later inspection - quite the contrary - I'd expect the new report to have the same 'inspected and tested' date as the original - only the 'report authorised for issue' date would be later. A bit like 'corrigendum' if you like.

    ...

    I didn't think for a moment you'd recommend a new report Andy :)

    I still do pen and paper certs, don't do EICRs, didn't know there was a "report authorised for issue" box. I guess its like the "reviewed by QS" box in EICs, which could (if QS is different from the installer) have a later date than the relevant date, which is the date of inspection and testing, as long as the relevant date is prominent in the document (for the 5-yearly re-tests).

    I think the problem arises again where the person doing the EICRs is allowed to do the remedials (although in this case they aren't), this should not be standard practice going forward, perhaps defined in law.  Normally the managing agent gets their electrician to do a report with a quote for remedials, when the quote is accepted, usually a "satisfactory" EICR is produced (hopefully along with relevant installation certs). It gets complicated when the owner decides to get others to do the remedials for whatever reason. That is when extra paperwork ensues such as MWEICs, EICs with additional pages, reports etc, all of which needs to be reviewed/signed, as you say, by a "qualified person".

    I agree with Alcomax in that the paper-trail is the most important thing, not just a "satisfactory" EICR, it shows how you got there.

     

Reply
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    I didn't mean suggest that a whole new report be produced as if for a later inspection - quite the contrary - I'd expect the new report to have the same 'inspected and tested' date as the original - only the 'report authorised for issue' date would be later. A bit like 'corrigendum' if you like.

    ...

    I didn't think for a moment you'd recommend a new report Andy :)

    I still do pen and paper certs, don't do EICRs, didn't know there was a "report authorised for issue" box. I guess its like the "reviewed by QS" box in EICs, which could (if QS is different from the installer) have a later date than the relevant date, which is the date of inspection and testing, as long as the relevant date is prominent in the document (for the 5-yearly re-tests).

    I think the problem arises again where the person doing the EICRs is allowed to do the remedials (although in this case they aren't), this should not be standard practice going forward, perhaps defined in law.  Normally the managing agent gets their electrician to do a report with a quote for remedials, when the quote is accepted, usually a "satisfactory" EICR is produced (hopefully along with relevant installation certs). It gets complicated when the owner decides to get others to do the remedials for whatever reason. That is when extra paperwork ensues such as MWEICs, EICs with additional pages, reports etc, all of which needs to be reviewed/signed, as you say, by a "qualified person".

    I agree with Alcomax in that the paper-trail is the most important thing, not just a "satisfactory" EICR, it shows how you got there.

     

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines