Hello,
I recieved an EICR for my Private Rented property from the landord. However, the post code of the address is wrong. Is the EICR still valid? It was done over a year ago, so Is it allowed to be corrected via just changing the post code or do the whole electrics need to be retested/inspected?
AJJewsbury:
Colin Haggett:
Under NAPIT he doesn’t have the scope to carry out EICRs.
As far as I can tell there's no requirement that he should be. Employing an electrician who belongs to one of the schemes (for inspections) is highly recommended, but not compulsory. (There's a historical issue in that the registered competent persons schemes were originally setup for building regs (part-P) purposes … and periodic inspection never was a controlled building activity (unlike electrical installation).)
The The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 talk about needing a “qualified person” but the definitions only actually stipulate that they need be "competent" - so as long as they're capable of doing the job correctly, there's no requirement to belong to a scheme or even hold any particular paper qualification.
- Andy.
Perhaps not, but if you looked at his website you would believe he was covered by NAPIT for inspections.
Chris Pearson:
mapj1:
well perhaps this chap is using up some old forms, Stroma was taken on by NAPIT on 7 Aug 2019 - this inspection was quite a bit after that, nearly a year, in July 2020 in fact so at the time he was very much registered with NAPIT, and still is.
That's not quite correct. NAPIT maintained the Stroma scheme until 2 Aug 21 when members were transferred over and the Stroma scheme ceased to exist.
My apologies, I had not realised it had taken 2 years to complete the transfers of members . That seems quite slow.
mapj1:
Chris Pearson:
mapj1:
well perhaps this chap is using up some old forms, Stroma was taken on by NAPIT on 7 Aug 2019 - this inspection was quite a bit after that, nearly a year, in July 2020 in fact so at the time he was very much registered with NAPIT, and still is.
That's not quite correct. NAPIT maintained the Stroma scheme until 2 Aug 21 when members were transferred over and the Stroma scheme ceased to exist.
My apologies, I had not realised it had taken 2 years to complete the transfers of members . That seems quite slow.
Mike, no need to apologise! I think that we were lucky that the scheme survived so long. Next year's subscription will be significantly higher and that stage I shall probably bail out.
Colin Haggett:
AJJewsbury:
Colin Haggett:
Under NAPIT he doesn’t have the scope to carry out EICRs.
As far as I can tell there's no requirement that he should be. Employing an electrician who belongs to one of the schemes (for inspections) is highly recommended, but not compulsory. (There's a historical issue in that the registered competent persons schemes were originally setup for building regs (part-P) purposes … and periodic inspection never was a controlled building activity (unlike electrical installation).)
The The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 talk about needing a “qualified person” but the definitions only actually stipulate that they need be "competent" - so as long as they're capable of doing the job correctly, there's no requirement to belong to a scheme or even hold any particular paper qualification.
- Andy.
Perhaps not, but if you looked at his website you would believe he was covered by NAPIT for inspections.
As far as I am aware, if you are listed for I&T, you appear on their list. So what you get for your money is, in effect, advertising. You still need professional indemnity insurance in case you make a balls-up.
There in lies a problem.
The issue that the poster is having appears to be that there is an overloaded circuit.
From what has been said and the other information in the posts it seems that an electric hob has been connected to an already fully loaded 16-amp socket circuit, I suspect that as this was causing tripping issues with the circuit MCB that one or two of the C-links in the hob terminal block have been removed so that only two elements out of the four work, however I presume this does not restrict load enough to prevent the MCB tripping.
Now the problem with this is I have been argued down on this forum that this does not contravene any of the Wiring Regulations and it was wrong for me to attach any code at all to an observation on an EICR I did where the same had been done.
The original question was does having an incorrect post code invalidate an EICR, if that was the only issue I would simply reissue the EICR with the correction having been made.
The posters problem with the MCB tripping apparently is not a concern that should be coded on an EICR according to knowledge members of this forum and doesn’t make the installation unsatisfactory, indeed if the electrician had asked a question about this on his 18th Edition Wiring Regulations course he could have been told he should fail the exam for not realising it’s acceptable.
So I would not consider the incorrect postcode an issue and I’m told the tripping MCB isn’t an issue that contravenes the Wiring Regulations.
But, and it’s a big BUT, reading through the EICR and looking at the pictures of the consumer unit and the paperwork from BG there’s obviously issues with the EICR and the installation.
The landlord needs to get a grip on the situation and get it all sorted out.
Personally I would move ASAP, whilst it good to have a social conscience and think about future tenants, sometimes it’s best to pick your battles and think twice about getting involved in a process that could rumble on for years.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
