So, anything in the remit of Amd 1 or Amd 2 can be ignored then and the EICR is only concerned with comparing it to the original 18th Edition then until the landord law states something other than it does today. Anything added by amd 1 and or 2 must be omitted from the EICR because it is not relevant

No, there's no "must" about it. An electrician should comment on stuff failing amd 1/2 unless they've agreed in advance with the landlord to do the T&I to amd 0 (so to speak). Personally I think electricians should now be doing the inspections against amd 2 (or maybe amd 1 during the overlap period) but flag in the report which bits aren't relevant to the landlord's obligations under the landlord Regs.

Hi Wallywombat. No I am talking to the minimum legal requirement when inspecting for a landlord under their act not from the BS7671 regs which are not mandatory.

The mandate (law) says 18th Edition. Me and thee and everybody else might feel obliged to follow amd 2 (or even amd 1in the overlap) but the only actual law does not require amd 1 or 2 just the 18th . I know it would be against the gut instinct of everyone here (including me) to use the latest update but I am talking about the actual legal requirement.

The law doesn't say 18th Ed for I&T. There is absolutely no legal constraints on how the T&I is done or to what standard - merely that it must be done by a competent person. It doesn't have to be be done to amd 0 or anything else. The only other legal obligation on the landlord is that if the report happens to flag that something is not compliant with 18th amd 0, then they should sort it in 28 days. You are perfectly within your rights under the Landlord Regs to get a T&I to 16th Ed. This is independent of the landlord's other obligation under those regs for the installation to comply with amd 0 at all times - which is why it is advisable (but  not required) for the landlord to make sure the T&I flags all non-compliances with amd0.

But, putting the Landlord Regs to one side for a moment, it would be unethical for an electrician  not to T&I to the most recent version of the regs - the landlord has a more general duty of care, and concealing from him/her that things have moved on in the last 4 years and that the installation no longer represents the leading edge of safety is a no-no IMHO. For a HMO, flagging a lack of AFDDs as a C3 is better than remaining silent.

Of course when we carry out a Periodic Inspection and Test we compare the installation to the current edition of the IET Wiring Regulations which is BS 7671:2018 Amendment 2:2022. Not some earlier Edition. The PRS legislation only requires compliance with Regulation 651.1 ie. "Satisfactory"., see the guidance from the DLUCAC. So no C1s, C2s or FIs. 

You may wish to watch the free IET Webinar on this subject on 14th June so you might want to register for this now.

JP

Well technically the legislation doesn't state anything about being "satisfactory"; the DLUCAC guidance is just that, not actually the law - in the same way that GN3 isn't technically part of BS 7671. But the the GNs are at least maintained in collaboration  with BS 7671, while the PRS was just incompetent drafting that had to be salvaged by the DLUCAC saying "what we really meant was...". (There is zero requirement in the landlord regs for the electrical installation to be safe.)

Ok. Perhaps the point I was trying to make (very badly perhaps) was. 

I have rewired lots of properties to the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th. 

A lot of those have not been touched since.

Some have been added/amended  to goodly and some badly.

Those that have not been altered since I did them

Are they now dangerous?

Obviously our consideration of safe has changed over this time but how worried should I be about those I did in previous years?

I have not seen reports of dead bodies littering our streets.

If we are prepared to allow any housing stock in landlord properties to be acceptable for rental if complying with any version of the 18th even if not the latest amd or two then do we still think it might be appropriate to allow to the 17th - 14th? Probably not in normal circumstances because we have become more safety aware.

Put landlords aside.

Is there room to let a minister/parliament to give authority/guidance to allow a relaxation to enable a more rapid response to a dire situation. Rather than have local councils insist on a very recent standard as they would in normal times. What about allowing very slight relaxation in this one case? Ukraine housing. Will put more people off jumping thru additional hoops, make it more rapid and potentially more plentiful with only dropping standards very slightly. How far back are we prepared to go to envisage something once allowed no longer is allowed. Might reduce some reporting of C1, C2 & FI by the over zealous and the downright greedy or incompetant .

Just a thought to help that awful situation a little bit

Well the practical situation is really as it's always been - the legislation is stupidly written, but the government guidance kind of restores the status quo - saying you really only have to fix C1/C2's (and sort out FI's). Which most LA's will go along with, unless they take a dislike to a particular landlord and choose to make their life hard by following the strict letter of the law (which will probably then be overturned on a appeal to the tribunal, who won't dislike them and will allow the government guidance to be persuasive).

So the issue really reverts to the age-old problem of the difference between a C2 and C3, which is largely subjective. Is a lighting circuit without an RCD a C2 or a C3?