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 2267 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

    I'm still not understanding the reasoning behind such a violent objection to revised documents. Perhaps it's because I hail from a sector where things are forever revised and updated - with full version control and histories of course - to such an extent that there's actually a slight distrust of anything with "an even digit on the end of the version number" - but then it's usually dealing with system somewhat more complex than a domestic electrical system. There there's a definite attitude that it's far better to have all the required information, complete consistent and up to date, all together in one place - simply because it makes all the downstream procedures simpler, quicker and far less error prone than if everyone subsequently has to search through a number of documents that partially contradict each other. Mind you if we had a report that was 'incomplete' especially to the point that it was unable to answer the very question it set out to answer it wouldn't be issued, or if it had to be it would be labelled 'Interim' or some such and a final version issued in due course.


    The OPs case is interesting is that no remedials were actually required - so (with hindsight) his installation, on the day it was inspected - was in fact perfectly satisfactory. In a way it seems odd to insist on a report that claimed the opposite.


    I take the point about not glossing over certification for remedials actually undertaken - but in this case there were none.


    Including the DNO's equipment on a BS 7671 EICR is I think a can or worms and perhaps wants looking at again. If the DNO had to fix anything they'd presumably not be in a position to issue a BS 7671 certificate (EIC or MWC) for the work (as they don't work to BS 7671 of course). Yet the legislation seems to require that "further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person" - presumably still meaning a qualified person in BS 7671 terms - which makes things a bit sticky for remedials to DNO/supplier equipment I think. The only way I can see to square that is for the DNO/supplier part of the EICR checklist be treated as 'for comment/information only' and not attract codes or contribute to the overall EICR satisfactory/unsatisfactory status. Common sense notwithstanding.


       - Andy.


Reply
  • 0

    I'm still not understanding the reasoning behind such a violent objection to revised documents. Perhaps it's because I hail from a sector where things are forever revised and updated - with full version control and histories of course - to such an extent that there's actually a slight distrust of anything with "an even digit on the end of the version number" - but then it's usually dealing with system somewhat more complex than a domestic electrical system. There there's a definite attitude that it's far better to have all the required information, complete consistent and up to date, all together in one place - simply because it makes all the downstream procedures simpler, quicker and far less error prone than if everyone subsequently has to search through a number of documents that partially contradict each other. Mind you if we had a report that was 'incomplete' especially to the point that it was unable to answer the very question it set out to answer it wouldn't be issued, or if it had to be it would be labelled 'Interim' or some such and a final version issued in due course.


    The OPs case is interesting is that no remedials were actually required - so (with hindsight) his installation, on the day it was inspected - was in fact perfectly satisfactory. In a way it seems odd to insist on a report that claimed the opposite.


    I take the point about not glossing over certification for remedials actually undertaken - but in this case there were none.


    Including the DNO's equipment on a BS 7671 EICR is I think a can or worms and perhaps wants looking at again. If the DNO had to fix anything they'd presumably not be in a position to issue a BS 7671 certificate (EIC or MWC) for the work (as they don't work to BS 7671 of course). Yet the legislation seems to require that "further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person" - presumably still meaning a qualified person in BS 7671 terms - which makes things a bit sticky for remedials to DNO/supplier equipment I think. The only way I can see to square that is for the DNO/supplier part of the EICR checklist be treated as 'for comment/information only' and not attract codes or contribute to the overall EICR satisfactory/unsatisfactory status. Common sense notwithstanding.


       - Andy.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines