It does look very much like a first draft - no definitions of what they mean by an EICR for example.

Nor does it specify a satisfactory EICR - so an unsatisfactory one would tick the box - but how many ordinary people would think to ask the question or actually read the details on the report.

   - Andy.

Well hopefully it gets someone to look at it who knows what it implies before it gets too far. It is all too easy to create legislation that is an unintended magnet for the loophole finders and quick buck  spinners, especially with anything remotely technical .

Amusingly I might struggle to sell my house in such a regime,  as I have perectly safe wiring to VDE100 in a bathroom, rather than BS7671. At the time very much allowed under part P as it stood then, and a constant source of amusement to any visitors who are aware of UK wiring practice - though being my house that may be a greater fraction of visitors than normal folk.

Mike.

mapj1 said:

It is all too easy to create legislation that is an unintended magnet for the loophole finders

My favourite is the fact that the landlord regs don't actually require an EICR to BS 7671, merely that a report be done by a suitably qualified person. So a landlord could satisfy the 5-yearly report requirement by getting a competent electrician to write a report stating to what extent the electrical installation complies with the principles of Feng Shui.

The legislation, although having the word "safety" in the title, at no point places any requirement on the landlord for the electrical installation to actually be safe, merely that it complies with BS 7671:2018 (which may or may not be safe).

wallywombat said:

It is all too easy to create legislation that is an unintended magnet for the loophole finders

I think the people on this forum understand my intent here.

Quality EICR

Competant People doing the EICR

Competent people checking the the EICR

Competant people looking after the database of EICR

Competent people making the laws with advice from this forum and other BS7671 competent people.

The laws will need to be fit for purpose and be understood by the layperson.  The law may require a Code of Conduct or a GN so the layperson can understand what it means to them as an Electrician, a home owner, a landlord, a duty holder.  Possibly stating scanarios eg derelic house for sale,  PRS (Private Rental Sector), New build house, Owner/occupier home.

At the end of the day the installation condition should be accurate.  The recomendations for next test should be fair and include a reason for shorter time interval eg VIR which may still be safe(Vulcanise Idian Rubber).  This can all then be checked or verified at a later date/stage should the information be required by a CPS (Competent Person Scheme).  It could also be used to educate people and should the HSE or the law require it as evidence for a legal reason. 

Sergio Fernandez said:

The laws will need to be fit for purpose and be understood by the layperson.

"Fit for purpose" - agreed. "Understood by the layperson" - not sure about that! Even judges don't understand the law sometimes - that is why we have appellate courts.

I think we agree that your aims are laudable. The risk, is that the 'cure' does not have the desired effect,  (look at Part P, or landlords for examples that were well intentioned but are not really working) and if you impose something that there is no real incentive for it will get wiggled round. You need to be able to ensure that the cost is justified, and does not exceed the benefits - of what actually happens, not what was supposed to.

Mike.

What was the fiscal value of the Grenfell tower?  What was the human value of the Grenfell tower?  What cost is associated with the poor soles that perished or the people that survived the tragedy?

Sergio Fernandez said:

Competent people making the laws with advice from this forum and other BS7671 competent people.

Given that the laws are created by MPs who have no qualification at all to do the job, you have little chance of that happening.

Laws created by the law people (parliment and King Charles) and the CoP or GN by people in this forum or the people that help write BS7671 ergo the rule written by experts from the industry

Quite so, and you can bet that they had all the paperwork they were supposed to have by law, and yet had magically failed to actually apply any of the professional judgement needed to make it meaningful.

And if you change the rules, without changing the "tick a box "management mentality that it encourages, that will sadly be still the problem.

But, as you ask,  Grenfell numbers.

74 people died. Immediate loss to economy of 1 or 2 million per life assuming mid life adult  in work with good prospect. Call it 150 Million tops.

Cost of rehousing survivors, at least £500million (from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea budget 2022)

Cost of legal fees more like 500 million. (estimated)

 A lot has been spent on the public and police inquiry, combined ~ £230million maybe more to come (Hansard and some newspapers)

Circa 900 relatives and survivors have received £150million in compensation through civil court proceedings, (according to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

Arconic, the company responsible for manufacturing the cladding, has spent £35million on lawyers and so far settled just £47million worth of claims.

So probably all up, the best end of about 1,5 billion. 

Compares to the recent refurbishment of Barts Hospital in London (about 1 Billion) or the installation of a couple of MRI scanners and associated  buildings (800 Million each). Or the greater London Authority budget for about 2 years.

Expensive,. yes, but not incalculable. Would more regulated  EICRs have added to the cost of living there?,certainly, But would they have stopped the fire ? - probably not.

Mike.

I have little faith that making EICRs mandatory and collecting them centrally would make life safer for anybody.

I have little faith that making EICRs mandatory and collecting them centrally would make life safer for anybody.