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 33 subscribers
  • Views 7434 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

£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
  • 0
    ebee:

    Sorry Zoom I do not agree.

    Where a genuine F1 applies it could be something that is a C1 or a C2 lurking there and as such we`d condem.

    However it could be a C3 or even no code at all.

    Until it is investigated and therefore determined we must make it condemable. We can`t give it a pass (yet) or a fail (yet) we can only record a potential unsatisfactory as a (assumed) unstisfactory. Therefore F1 unstaisfactory


    An F.I. means that we have not completed our job. It is a cop out, get out of jail free card. If we can not gain access to a locked room we report so.  We do not put F.I. and then condemn the installation. We can't report on don't knows. The report can't be completed until we do gain access to the locked room and its electrics.


    The report is not complete until the work is finished. In this case the work of inspection and testing.


    If the customer asks why an installation has "failed" he won't be happy because we say further investigation is required. He has a right  to say: "Well get on with it then".


    Dave Stone would not disconnect a cable where it could not be identified as to its use or destination. Andy is concerned about a live unidentified cable perhaps with loose live ends, hidden under the floor, or in the loft sitting there ready to bite somebody such as a plumber.



    Z.


  • 0
    The FI problem is a bit of a figment of a report. I think that a report should fully explain the inspectors investigation. In the unidentified cable finding above, the report should say what was done to identify the circuit, where its extent could be established, and why the inspector stopped inspecting. In a domestic this problem comes down to the method used to inspect. Take a kitchen / utility room installation fed with 4 circuits, the inspector should make no assumptions. The method is to isolate all circuits, power up a single one and test every point for power (which is pretty quick, use a plug indicator, appliance power lights, etc). A quick sketch of where power is found is useful. The second circuit is then checked in the same way, more sockets and perhaps a fixed appliance, and so on until all the supplies are identified. This takes very little time in most installations and enables the LABELLING to be checked (which I think is important, and often incorrect). When this is done throughout the property it is likely that all points will be found with power, any obvious faults identified, and any unused circuits found. One will also have made a complete record of the installation, which looks good attached to the EICR, and is useful in the future. This takes perhaps 30 minutes, and has done most of the inspections needed, cracked accessories, installation defects, faulty switches etc. A circuit with a breaker and goes nowhere is probably to the shed, garage, greenhouse, aerial amplifier in roof or similar, although odd unused "ends" could be present. Next measure the circuits, R2, IR, rings etc, and you know there is nothing plugged in because you have already seen all the associated points. Now live tests, EFLI, RCDs etc, and you are nearly done, having reconnected everything and therefore checked all the CU screws. Time to trace anything odd, the garden list, any circuit which is hidden in a sea of insulation in the loft, and here is the question. How many would attempt a full inspection of the insulated loft?


    Now what is left? Is there something unidentified, which you have made reasonable attempts to find? If so note what you did, where you looked etc. and then a FI. Anything else is very poor, the next guy has to do it all again! I would not disconnect anything which did not have an identified end, this is not part of an inspection, it is remedials with corresponding risks. The report is a report, not a safety ensuring exercise for unknown risks. It could be a supply to a neighbour with a ventilator off a different phase as backup, and this could have severe consequences (yes I have seen that).


    The EICR is an important report. It needs to be done in a fully competent way. That means using all the skills to hand to fully understand an installation, and to document the result. The rush to the bottom is not a desired outcome.


    I would like many more poor EICRs please, the ones I have show disasterously low standards, but a few good ones would also be nice!
  • 0
    Sorry Zoom I do not agree.

    Where a genuine F1 applies it could be something that is a C1 or a C2 lurking there and as such we`d condem.

    However it could be a C3 or even no code at all.

    Until it is investigated and therefore determined we must make it condemable. We can`t give it a pass (yet) or a fail (yet) we can only record a potential unsatisfactory as a (assumed) unstisfactory. Therefore F1 unstaisfactory
  • 0
    ebee:

    Chaps,

    I would hope you`d ask why they`d want an EICR before commencing.

    Evidence of poor previous work or just contentment of knowing it is satisfactory. That would decide whether you might make free minor corrections without referring back to them


    Absolutely. If I take out a fuse from a switched fused connection unit supplying a gas boiler system that should be a 3 Amp size, but find a 13 Amp fuse instead, I change it there and then. It is easier to put the correct size fuse back than do more paperwork. Then I do not have to worry about that again. I have also done that with fuse wire as well in older installations. Who wouldn't? Tight time constraints cause cut corners.


    "Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation MAY reveal a C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within section K, given the code F1 and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E." P. 475 B.S. 7671.


    If we are to assume guilty until proven innocent, then FI should be done away with and a C2 used in its place. FI causes confusion and is an unnecessary duplication.


    Z.


  • 0
    Chaps,

    I would hope you`d ask why they`d want an EICR before commencing.

    Evidence of poor previous work or just contentment of knowing it is satisfactory. That would decide whether you might make free minor corrections without referring back to them
  • 0
    I regularly disconnect shower circuits, at the bathroom end the cable is often pulled up into the loft and terminated in a Wago box, at the consumer unit end I remove the circuits live and neutral from the MCB and neutral bar then terminate them into the earth bar. Job done, it’s not difficult.


    However it is not at all unusual to find a 2.5 mm twin and earth which is still connected in the consumer unit and powered up that doesn’t supply anything that is visible, often it looks like it is the former immersion heater supply that was disconnected in the airing cupboard and probably pushed under floor by a plumber when the water cylinder was removed as the combi boiler was installed. How much time should you allocate to investigating this circuit, should you take the floor up to look for it?


    Some years ago I was stood looking at an immersion heater cable that had been cut and left dangling in a airing cupboard by a plumber when he took the cylinder out. I was muttering about the way it had been left and the lady customer said she was sure it would be safe as the plumber would not leave it in a dangerous condition, in a reckless moment I said let see what happens if I turn it on and flicked the switch.


    I know I shouldn’t have done it, but it was a quite impressive display of how plumbers and others leave electrical installations in a dangerous condition, the customer will never forget the experience.


    Life is much easier when you accept that you are often dealing with stupid people and their handiwork and one of the reasons for doing EICRs is to determine what stupid people have done.


    Assume nothing when inspecting and testing to preparing an EICR and never assume that an unknown circuit is safe, either disconnect it or report it with a FI code making the installation unsatisfactory.


    I have a landlords EICR to do tomorrow morning, I have stated I expect to be in the two bed house for three or four hours then I will prepare and email the report later, as far as I am concerned I have indicated what the customers expectations should be as regards the time allowed.
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:
    It's all a matter of contract.

    Absolutely.

    Rectifying minor faults as you go along is just good practice.

    But only if that's been agreed with the customer. If they've asked you for an EICR because they suspect a previous electrician hadn't done a good job, they might not thank you for quietly sweeping problems under the carpet or 'destroying' the evidence.


     


    And they certainly would not appreciate the flickering lights and intermittent appliance operation, or the house fire caused by the loose terminals which you left behind.


    Z.


  • 0
    It's all a matter of contract.

    Absolutely.

    Rectifying minor faults as you go along is just good practice.

    But only if that's been agreed with the customer. If they've asked you for an EICR because they suspect a previous electrician hadn't done a good job, they might not thank you for quietly sweeping problems under the carpet or 'destroying' the evidence.


      - Andy.
  • 0
    I'm going to use the C-word again. It's all a matter of contract. FI should be pretty unusual. So if you have a circuit which is not labelled, I don't think that you could be expected to establish what it supplies; but of course that should not occur!


    This is where JP's standard spec. is useful - the customer knows what is and is not included.


    Rectifying minor faults as you go along is just good practice. You wouldn't fail an installation because the tails are loose at the main switch - the very act of checking for tightness means that they get tightened.


    I think also good to let the customer know that you have fixed a few little things, but no extra charge. That gets you back in 5 years. ?
  • 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.


     


Community Rules & Guidelines