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 46 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 6041 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

£30k fine for landlords who do not provide a valid EICR for their rental properties

Legh Richardson
Is this actually true or is it some estate agent cashing in on lost income?

The reason why I ask, what appears to be a daft question, is that a friend has just received notification from the estate agent who sold the property 15 years ago that their property, which is now being rented, must be inspected and tested for compliance to 18th ed. Not that I was unaware of this requirement!

I just thought the £30k punishment for disobedience was a little steep. Or maybe  'bribery and corruption' or  'threatening behaviour' was the new Inspection and testing idiom.?

Legh
Parents
  • 0
    keylevel:
    Zoomup:

    How can you say it's unsafe if the inspection and test has not been fully  completed? Surely in this case an F.I. is the lazy way out.



    You can't, but neither can you say it's safe - there are three possible states - "safe", "unsafe" and "unknown". Only "safe" allows the condition to be declared as "satisfactory".

     


    So should we continue to inspect and test until we have found the end of the unknown cable or disconnected it?  A two minute disconnection is preferable to a fail surely.  Does a single F.I. equal a fail? I have even corrected a wrong connection at a consumer unit where two ring finals are crossed over at two 32 Amp M.C.B.s in error. It is no trouble to do that as the ends are already disconnected for testing anyway.


    Edit. Add: I feel that we would be obliged to disconnect the unknown cable as not doing so would be negligent. To liven it up again could lead us into great trouble.


    Z.


     


Reply
  • 0
    keylevel:
    Zoomup:

    How can you say it's unsafe if the inspection and test has not been fully  completed? Surely in this case an F.I. is the lazy way out.



    You can't, but neither can you say it's safe - there are three possible states - "safe", "unsafe" and "unknown". Only "safe" allows the condition to be declared as "satisfactory".

     


    So should we continue to inspect and test until we have found the end of the unknown cable or disconnected it?  A two minute disconnection is preferable to a fail surely.  Does a single F.I. equal a fail? I have even corrected a wrong connection at a consumer unit where two ring finals are crossed over at two 32 Amp M.C.B.s in error. It is no trouble to do that as the ends are already disconnected for testing anyway.


    Edit. Add: I feel that we would be obliged to disconnect the unknown cable as not doing so would be negligent. To liven it up again could lead us into great trouble.


    Z.


     


Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines