Clearly the Insurance Company havent got a clue, and have just copied past terms and conditions.

To do the EICR, you must be competent. There are rules as to what constitutes competentcy. C&G 2391 is the usual Certificate to show competentcy in I&T, though previous experience could also show it too.

As for the 'PAT' testing, well, he has a point. It isnt testing of portable appliances as many think. It is the 'In service inspection and testing of electrical equipment'. No mention of portable in the title. It is anything that may require testing for safety after the fixed wiring. The usual that I used to do was toilet hand dryers. Not at all portable, and not connected through a socket outlet. Basically, anything that may give rise to a potential fault, and endanger staff/the public, may need to be inspected, and where necessary, tested.

There are no formal legal requirements for someone to be allowed to carry out an EICR (as periodic inspections are called now). So it would boil down to a contractual matter between you and the insurance company - i.e. what exactly their contract requires of the home owner and the building in order for the policy to cover them. For example whether it insists that the buildings must fully comply with the current regs, or that a current EICR is held, or whatever.

Where there is ambiguity or disputed subjective requirements, then ultimately it would be for a district judge to decide.

The law is different if the premises are being rented out or used for commercial purposes.

C&G 2391 is the current qualification for inspection and testing.

Anthony Dicker said:

What is the MIET accreditation worth in that scenario.?

I would say absolutely nothing - it doesn't mean you have any competence in electrical engineering. I'm an FIET and was originally MIEE but I am not and have never been an electrician or an electrical engineer (same goes for most of my  MIET / FIET colleagues in my day job). I am really good at equipment that runs on voltages below 50V, above that and I stand well back and employ a professional! (Of course probably the majority of F/MIETs are electrical engineers, you just can't say "MIET therefore Electrical Engineer".) 

The best I'd say you could claim is that it means you should know what the limits of your competence are.

I can guarantee that if you had a fire in the fixed electrical installation, you would regret not getting an independent tradesman to provide the EICR.

Your insurers would be all over that report like a rash and if they found that it had been conducted negligently, they would seek to offload the liability. So a tradesman's provider of professional indemnity insurance might take the hit.

Worst case is that you find yourself uninsured. Could you cope with a total loss? Moreover, if this is for your hotel, there might be additional claims from guests.

"Where there is ambiguity or disputed subjective requirements, then ultimately it would be for a district judge to decide."

Courts do not like ambiguity. they will endeavour to give a clear meaning. If ambiguity still exists in a contract then they always award in favour of the weaker party to the contract - the employee against the employer, the customer against the insurance company.

In this case since the IEE no longer exist I would expect that part of the contract to be struck out, some on here might have a clearer understanding of the situation than I have.

If it's a civil case being heard in the county court, district judges can be highly variable in terms of their experience and in how they rule to the letter or the spirit of the law. If a DJ is looking for a way to rule for the house owner against the nasty stingy insurance company, they may well decide that the "IEE" clause is unenforceable. If they think the house owner was a dangerous idiot who let the house burn down because of hubris and overstating their I&T skills, then they may easily rule that since the IET is the successor in interest to the IEE, that clause still applies. And obviously it depends in part on how good each side's lawyers are when arguing the toss.

ebee said:

If ambiguity still exists in a contract then they always award in favour of the weaker party to the contract

A contract can be nullified for ambiguity, which wouldn't help with insurance. At the back of my mind is a principle that, in lay terms, a powerful organization cannot, for want of a better word, bully an individual into accepting unfair terms. The remains of EU law may protect a consumer, but not the owner of an hotel. In any event, the terms appear to be fair.

On finding that the IEE no longer exists, a court would ask whether there was any successor, so I don't think that it is a material problem.

Bottom line is what standard would a reasonable (or responsible) body of engineers apply? The obvious answer is BS 7671.

wallywombat said:

district judges can be highly variable in terms of their experience and in how they rule to the letter or the spirit of the law

May be, but however inexperienced and incompetent they may be, they have been appointed to that office (by the Judicial Appointments Commission) so that counts for nowt. I can give you the legal reference if you really want it.

Hi what does the P in PAT indicate. I last read it up some time back. It was quite clear at that point. Have they moved the goalposts.

I worked all over the world as Project Engineer etc..on the strength of my C&G and HND -Such as  Africa the Caribbean -Saudi and South America.

Only qualifications from Europe and USA were recognized back then.

Once my IET secured me the job- as the recruiting guy was also  a member.(He could hardly say I was not qualified, could he.)

So do you now indicate IET a as useless as an       xxx    --ology..

An     IEE WOULD OPEN ANY DOOR WORLDWIDE--          Is the. IET now just a hobby  club?