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.

"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.

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.