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 2266 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?
  • 0
    Note that any investigative or remedial work only needs to be carried out where the "report" (i.e. the EICR or whatever the original test/inspector wrote) "indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a)": that duty being to "ensure that the electrical safety standards are met"; and "'electrical safety standards' means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018".


    Since the DNO's equipment isn't covered under BS 7671, nothing needs doing under these regulations (although convincing the letting agent of this fact will be very hard).
  • 0
    i read the legislation as saying that the original report (whether "satisfactory" or not) should be given to various people, some on request. But that the written confirmation of conformity need only by supplied to the tenants and the council. The council will need to know the paper trail after an "unsatisfactory" EICR, as they are the enforcers, and the tenants are what the legislation is designed to protect. So maybe Gideon should do as the legislation says, inform tenants and Council. Can't see Council giving an enforcement notice in this case.

     


  • 0
    "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."


    Absolutely agree, what authority does BS 7671 have to make a judgement on the work of ESCR 2001?

    It appears that the DNO's are having a good laugh knowing that their work is being done without any aurthorisation by a non-statutary body who will take the blame unknowingly for the DNO's negligence.

    Time to take up golf one thinks....

    Legh
  • 0


    My understanding is the company were asked to "check" a cut out. Did we ever get the reason? The engineer "had a look" and confirmed all was well. So what was unsatisfactory.                                                    

    Damaged cut out?                                                                

    Broken/absent seal?

    Loose on board?

    At risk of flooding?

    Exposed live parts?

    Signs of overheating?

    Tampering?

    Fused neutral?

    Hanging of board?


    I and my fellow members I am sure would be interested to know the defect the "electrician" found. What was on the report to indicate the problem? What exactly is on the report, its very important. You cant just make things up. 


    Regards, UKPN.



  • 0
    "A non statutory body who will take the blame for the DNOs negligence"


    What a bizarre statement. The electrician is being asked to do a visual check of the service equipment. Putting aside DNO and suppliers matters are, and I quote "out of scope" of BS7671, this is something electricians have been doing since electricity supply began. If it is noticed defects as in my previous post, most reasonable electricians will give us a ring, or tell their customer. We work together. As regards "codes" they are of course futile, the electrician is not in a position to correct supply defects. I believe there is C1, immediate danger, immediate action to be taken. The electrician will inform his customer, then call the DNO, who will deal with it. The electrician will advise his customer to avoid the area until the DNO attend. He, the electrician has carried out his moral and legal obligations. If it makes him feel better to log a "code" fair enough, hes done what the form asks. A note to that effect will suffice.

    "DNO negligence" Where does that come from?


    Where do they get these people?


    Regards, UKPN
  • 0
    LOL.


    A couple of years ago I found a meter neutral tail that had been rubbed bare by the customers up and over garage door. I spent three quarters of a hour trying to report it through the companies websites and by phone.


    The DNO said report it to the customers supplier and they said report it report it to the DNO.


    I bound the cable up with insulation tape, clipped it back and told the customer to deal with it. But I suspect it is just the same now.


    The system used to be okay for reporting faults, but several years ago it became a lot more difficult with a game of pass the ball being introduced.
  • 0
    Hi UKPN, original poster here. Please do review the earlier postings where I elaborated the electricians concerns. In short:
    • f1 - Possible fused neutral (I presume because the sealed supply unit is moulded to accommodate multiple fuses). There wasn't, in the event, a fuse in it.

    • f1 - Possible leaked oil from cable. Turned out to be an unusual and unexplained outer wrapping of plumbers Denso tape, oozing a bit.

    • "Unsatisfactory" was the result of the above two.

    • Otherwise it was ok, with some C3 as it isn't fully updated (no RCD on lights, plastic CU, that level of stuff).


    Nobody was ever claiming there was an immediate threat to life or of failure, it was a precaution (there had been earlier EICRs quite recently, and no installation/owner/tenant changes since, and the supply was like now when I bought it in '87). So discussion of processes for emergencies isn't really relevant in this case.


    In contrast to previous post I found UKPN easy to contact & quick, even as a non-emergency. I guess we all have differing experiences.


    Also, given your "UKPN" username, would you mind confirming you are here representing the organisation UKPN?

Community Rules & Guidelines