Videos of EICRs on Youtube

Being an electrician in the early 30s age range I do tend to think the whole situation can be very misleading. I started at the end of the 16th, so installed lighting etc with no RCDs but all sockets with. That has developed into what we have now, RCDs for everything. The issue being the whole way through college or on various regs course or the 2391. You are constantly told to cover your own bottom and to follow industry guidance. I do tend to agree that the risk level of a socket without RCD is very low however if you've spent your entire working life being told otherwise. Then i can understand why the majority of electricians would code it a C2. 

I do agree that a lot of guidance may well have vested interests behind it but actually if anything un-towards did happen then you have done your due diligence by following best practise etc.

I dont know if electric installations are different in principle to motor vehicles, but the improvements in modern cars do not make an older ones automatically unsatisfactory to continue to drive

That seems to be exceptional for private motor vehicles - others - buses for instance - generally need periodic upgrades to stay on the roads (or more likely get replaced).

I guess we've ended up with a similar situation for EICRs - private home owner/occupiers are under no legal obligation to even commission an EICR let alone carry out its recommendations - while homes rented out by way of business are more like buses and legally need to meet recent standards.

I suspect we've ended up in this situation more driven by politics and what'll be popular with voters than any single underlying principle of safety. Possibly mitigated by the differing life-cycles of buildings and vehicles - most cars are totally replaced within a decade or so - while most homes last for generations.

   - Andy.

An interesting insight, thanks, Nick.

Landlords are now obliged to have the electrical installation in properties they let inspected ~ other people may choose, but are not obliged, to have their installations tested periodically.  Statistics convince me that domestic electricity is relatively safe compared with motor vehicles and I don't believe a political case will ever be made for independent electrical inspectors and mandatory periodic inspections.  Owner occupiers, if they have reason to fear, will choose to obtain an EICR ~ the rest will not.  Whilst an Englishman's home is his castle and the stats remain steady I suspect that change in the legislation is unlikely.

Moreover, it is to be expected that electricians, carrying out EICRs, will err on the side of caution even when they are not angling for remedial work.

Remarkably few people are killed by electricity in the home despite the ease with which a table lamp may be left with no bulb in place.   Risk is to be found everywhere even though too many find that distressing.

I have a new case today, which is interesting. A two-bedroom flat was declared “dangerous” although no report was produced. The electrician demanded £6000 pounds to rewire it, and the landlord agreed to “comply with the law”. The job has been done, but I have not yet got any paperwork. I wonder how many think this sounds reasonable?

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

I have a new case today, which is interesting. A two-bedroom flat was declared “dangerous” although no report was produced. The electrician demanded £6000 pounds to rewire it, and the landlord agreed to “comply with the law”. The job has been done, but I have not yet got any paperwork. I wonder how many think this sounds reasonable?

More info. required before comments can be made.

Z.

I agree it' hard to say for sure without more detail. I've seen some privately rented places in my time where and EICR would be a complete waste of money (as a 30s visual would be quite enough to realize it was a no-hope situation). I don't know if £6k might be reasonable - it seems a lot to me but there could be awkwardnesses of the particular situation that might possibly justify it. I presume “demanded” was more in the way of an offer price than ‘with menaces’ .

On the face of it though, it does sound a bit unlikely…

   - Andy.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
I have a new case today, which is interesting. A two-bedroom flat was declared “dangerous” although no report was produced. The electrician demanded £6000 pounds to rewire it, and the landlord agreed to “comply with the law”. The job has been done, but I have not yet got any paperwork. I wonder how many think this sounds reasonable?

If it was as bad as the second video, I think that we are agreed that a formal report is not required.

How does that landlord make a profit? I'd want at least two quotes, and possibly a second opinion.

On the subject of condemning out of hand, older compliant installations, I look at it like this - 

CAT 1.UNSAFE - A blatantly obvious fault, even to the village idiot, that a bare copper core showing through a cable or flex is very unsafe.

CAT 2. SAFE - A older installation which complied when first constructed but does not now comply. Regs are not retrospective so if the install is defect-free then a Satisfactory must be given. 

CAT 3. SAFER - A brand new installation which complies in all respects (for today only!)

NOTE: The ‘CATS’ are mine and not the BS7671 classifications.

A older installation which complied when first constructed but does not now comply. Regs are not retrospective so if the install is defect-free then a Satisfactory must be given. 

Logically that doesn't make sense to me. Say we had a 1888 installation which somehow had been perfectly preserved - so no sheathing on cables, no earthing, no ADS at all never mind no RCDs, unshuttered sockets, probably bare conductors under floor boards (knob and tube system) - would you really say that was satisfactory for service today?

I think the phrase ‘Regs are not retrospective’ is being mis-understood - inspection and tests should always be done to the current standard.

   - Andy.