Inadequate inspections on the safety of wiring in buildings across England are increasing the risk of fires, E&T has found. A flawed regulatory system has sparked a race to the bottom, with some businesses profiting at the expense of the public’s safety.
Please get in touch with any comments/thoughts you may have
What clearly demonstrates the lack of correct inspections and maintenance is the large numbers of PRS flats and houses with expired smoke alarms in them.
I'm not disputing that there are problems, - actually the cladding example is closer to the case of actually we did step over some bodies getting into the shower, and something needs to be done on a faster timescale than the usual steering of a supertanker speed. But of course that example never really met the rules in place at that time either - lots of new rules are not needed. Understanding and following the fire zone and partition rules already in place at the time would have been a jolly good start. And sadly, it looks like a rapid response on that one is still going to be about a decade.
The other cases you raise are sort of my first point - if folk get a taste for not bothering to either understand or think about one set of rules, they are likely to extend the same attitude to the rest.
And because testing is a faff, and mostly things seem to work perfectly OK without it, the temptation is to skimp. Of course the same is true of earthing, covers on missing ways in consumer units and a load of other stuff, the slope is slippery.
The folk playing EICR results bingo are not helping, and can make it more dangerous - if they were not there at least we would know it had not been inspected, instead of having a tick for something dangerous.
(Would you be more careful of a car known never to have been MOT tested or one with a certificate that you thought was genuine, but in fact was not ? Personally I'd rather not have any test than the fake test and fake cert. then I can make a more informed judgement not be lulled into false security. )
Far better then to have something so simple that ordinary folk can tell it has not been done and then organize it properly - the current system lacks teeth, but even if it had them it also lacks the direction to know when and where to bite.
Mike.
as mapj1 said in reply to JP.
"Far better then to have something so simple that ordinary folk can tell it has not been done and then organize it properly - the current system lacks teeth, but even if it had them it also lacks the direction to know when and where to bite"
If the Working Group recommendations had been followed there would be guidance for landlords, tenants and electricians on the requirements for RCDs in PRS homes, but that has not been issued.
Also the recommendation to set up a specific competent person scheme has not been taken up either.
If these recommendations had been followed the whole thing would probably not even come into being, because the government does not want to take any responsibility for issuing guidance on the requirements for RCDs in PRS homes, also there probably would not been enough electricians with suitable qualifications and experience who are actually prepared to join a scheme to get one off the ground, if they had insisted on a NVQ 3 it would have totally stuffed it.
Had the government actually insisted on upgrades to installations to provide minimal RCD protection and the inspectors were members of a PRS EICR CPS the landlords would have been really upset, because many would be paying around a thousand pounds, £500-600 for the RCD upgrade and £400 for the inspection by the specialist inspector.
Indeed, and it seems that the working group knew more about it than the folk who actually brought it into being in it's current half-cocked state. Now there will be a lot of money and effort expended getting certificates that may be marvelous or total fiction, so not worth much, and there is no easy way to tell.
Mike
If it had been down properly this time it may well have cost many landlords a thousand pounds, but next time the five year reinspection would be a quick in and out to confirm that the installation matches the condition recorded on the previous report with there being records available, so the reinspection could actually be done in a hour or so.
But as it is virtually every property will need a full and detailed inspection and testing within five years from now and upgrades if it's now decided that actually more RCDs should have been installed. Not all the problems have gone away, they are still there in installations that are being used daily.
An RCD upgrade is not £500-600 Andy, This is part of the problem, it is that electricians see the only way to add an RCD as changing the DB, and making a lot of money doing it, it is not. As far as an Inspectors scheme, that is an excellent idea. We will have to wait and see. Then there is the RCBO thing, OK if you are changing the board it may be a good idea, but it does cost and really there are very few benefits. In fact it probably makes an RCD trip on a random circuit 10 x less likely, and testing a board full every 6 months will never happen!
I think too that your suggestion that a £400 inspection is required is not the right point, it is £400 every 5 years so £80 per year. Here is a business idea, offer complete electrical insurance cover to Landlords for properties, BG appear to do it although I am dubious about their ability to deliver. They charge quite a lot of money, so the competition would probably fail at the first hurdle. Buy to let particularly has been very profitable for a long time with low interest rates, this is affordable and solves the problem of agents having "pet" contractors with backhanders. (sorry handling fees!).
David Stone have you ever considered that you might be part of the problem rather than the solution?
Why are you insistent on working to the lowest possible standards?
What is wrong with updating a thirty year old installation with a new consumer unit that has a fire rated enclosure, Type A RCD protection for all final circuits and surge protection and then saying "right, that's it the jobs a goodun, it's suitable the installation is okay for another thirty years and we can tick all the boxes on the EICRs, now and in years to come"?
Obviously ignoring the prospect of future discussions about the provision of AFDD in PRS homes.
I am not part of the problem Andy. As I have said before, it is not up to you, and I rarely find anyone who says, "make everything wonderful and I don't care how much it costs". I can do beautiful installations, but one is rarely thanked for something which will last half a lifetime. Business does not work like that anymore, and these are businesses. BS7671 specifies minimum standards, and compliance is at that level. Anything else is icing on the cake, and one needs to find someone to pay for it. I am surprised you haven't realised that yet.
Private Rented Sector landlords are businesses, on this occasion I am not suggesting that private home owners should be upgrading their electrical installations, I am merely saying that business owners who rent out homes to tenants should maintain and upgrade the properties they rent out.
Other businesses have to maintain and upgrade their business assets, for example the maximum age for a taxi in London is twelve years, all taxis have to comply with current legislation as well as being inspected and tested above the standard's for private cars and other commercial vehicles. If you pay to ride in a London taxi you expect it to reach minimum standards that have been revised within the lifetime of the taxi, why should a privately rented home in London be any different? There generally is not any need to demolish older rented homes, though I see some that should be, but they do need updating.
Many of the PRS homes would be classed as in a state of disrepair using social housing standards, can you name me another business that can make money renting out assets that have not been maintained and updated in the last thirty years or more?
But all this discussion that will lead nowhere could have been settled by the government publishing guidance on the requirements for RCDs in PRS homes as recommended by the working group, which the government have either failed to do or deliberately avoided, personally I think they probably deliberately avoided it.
Going right back to the start of the discussion saying "Cash for logos" and the NICEIC and NAPIT are responsible for this mess is completely unfounded, because they were never put in the position of supervising PRS EICRs in the first place, it is not their job to sort it out.
Any problems are directly as a result of the government legislation and a failure to follow the working group recommendations.
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
