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.

But the law allows you to sell a derelict house to someone who wants to repair or redevelop it.  Imaging if you had to get a "satisfactory" EICR for a cottage with no roof before you could sell it.

I suppose you could get a satisfactory EICR for a building without a functioning electrical installation (if it's not there or can't be energised then it can't be unsafe) - although it doesn't seem entirely optimal to have to do so.

   - Andy.

Let us not forget that this is just a Bill (in the House of Lords) and if it is a private Member's Bill, it stands little chance of getting any further. 

I agree with Andy - it looks like a first draft, or an idea for debate, or discussion in the corridors, or whatever Members of either House do.

S.2 seems to allow for derelict buildings, be they for demolition or restoration, which I think is what Simon is saying. Not law yet!

You can follow a Bill through the parliamentary process, the timeline is here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3166

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.