EICRs and LANDLORDS

[marconi]

Rather than add to 'Thoughts on recommendation' I thought it better to begin a new one.

I am a landlord in London. I think it should be mandatory for an in-date EICR whenever a new tenant takes up a lease and of course after electrical works. I present to my tenants both the EICR and Gas Safety certificate in an information pack. I also tell my insurance company and letting agent and send them a copy of both. For me it is a question of discharging my duty of care responsibilities. I know several good landlords who follow suit.

I always use the same electrician - not a friend, friend of a friend, etcetera - completely independent of me and I have checked his qualifications. This way he knows my properties and remarkably he seems to be able to remember even the make of CU - or does he look up the last inspection? I send him an email to arrange the EICR which he acknowledges so I have a record of the formal request for an EICR. I pay him up front in cash - (a cheque could be cancelled) - and he gives me his bill with the EICR, VAT inc, and marked 'paid in full' and referring to the EICR form serial number dated. I leave him alone to do the EICR and he either leaves the EICR in the flat or posts it to me. I then read it, discuss with him if necessary and arrange any remedials, etcetera.

 

[Merv]

^^^Like failing to tighten a connection properly and then finding themselves in court to answer a charge of failing to ensure the safety of tenants.
How do you feel about that?
Because that's the road you are going down.

 

[Merv]

It's hard work typing on this forum.
After a few lines it all goes to pot.

 

[Merv]

''Why should a tenant have to have all their appliances checked just to please you''

Why, aren't you interested in safety?
It certainly doesn't seem like it from that.

 

[Andy78]

Andy 78,
''you don't seem to be open to alternative ideas''

How do you make that out when none have been proposed?

I'm not against EICRs.
It's the criminalising of landlords for not having them that I oppose.

How would electricians feel about someone checking their work, and fining them for any mistakes?
Because that is the ultimate end to this type of legislation.

The alternative view would be that the initiative is borne out of an idea of safety and not money making, but like I said, you don't seem very receptive to that idea. I can't say I blame you though. There are many money making rackets involved in the electrical industry. As a landlord you actually get off quite lightly compared to electricians.... lol.
I would be quite open to having my work checked, and I do, on an annual basis as part of my scheme membership.

I am sure you are a conscientious landlord and make sure your properties are safe for rental, but there are absolutely bundles out there that could not care less, do the absolute minimum required, and some even less than that. Any legislation in Scotland and any future legislation in other areas is surely aimed at bringing these types of landlords up to standard and not on creating an excuse to fine landlords ?

 

[UNG]

Andy 78,
''you don't seem to be open to alternative ideas''

How do you make that out when none have been proposed?

I'm not against EICRs.
It's the criminalising of landlords for not having them that I oppose.

How would electricians feel about someone checking their work, and fining them for any mistakes?
Because that is the ultimate end to this type of legislation.

So you want to increase your costs even more with another level of inspection beyond what is already there

I think most electricians would agree that any mistakes in our work that result in serious injury or a fatality could ultimately land us in a court of law explaining our actions potentially resulting in a large fine and / or a stay at one of Her Majesty's hotels we don't see an EICR as an unecessary expense

Your drum banging on here is futile IMO as the law has changed to force all landlords to toe the line you had your chance to raise the standard now you are being forced to by your own lack of action and you are trying to blame others for your failure to act on the warnings

 

[Merv]

Like I said
The law is already in place to protect tenants.
Ripping off good landlords simply to boost the income ofelectrical contractors is not the way to go.
I suppose if the legislation can be pushed through in theprivate rental sector, then the self servers can turn their attention toforcing all private residential properties in to having a current EICP as well.


It'll be like it used to be with MOTs.

£25 for an MOT if you bring your car.

£50 if you don't.

 

[Merv]

UNG - no.

I'm saying that any mistake you make would land you in courtregardless if anyone got hurt or not.
That's what you propose to do with your legislation againstlandlords.

How would you feel about that. Hoist by your own petard perhaps?

 

[Andy78]

Merv, you obviously have a bee in your bonnet about this, but like UNG says, your whining is pointed in the wrong direction.
Petition the law makers, do something positive, make a difference.

 

[Hellmooth]

Do you disagree with having to get a gas cert every year?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My Local Council will not accept an EICR for a property they intend leasing, if it is issued by someone not registered with a Competent Persons Scheme. The fact that inspection and testing does not fall under Part P not withstanding.
However they will accept a Visual Report from someone registered with the NICEIC.
The Council Website page which deals with them leasing properties and their requirements, states they will only accept reports from persons registered with the NICEIC, though on the phone, they agree that anyone registered with one of the government approved Competent Persons Schemes will be acceptable.

Apart from safety, my main concern, is that some unscrupulous electricians would use the EICRs to drum up business.
As it stands, other than Trading Standards there is little anyone can do about dodgey reports.
I recall one report which stated that an upper floor flT wired to the 16th edition, was unsatisfactory due to there being no RCDs in the Consumer Unit, no labels on the CU, and that further investigation (by another) was required to identify an unknown circuit.
The quote which accompanied the report was for about £350 to replace the CU, with another £250 to rectify the defects.

 

[Octopus]

Like I said
The law is already in place to protect tenants.
Ripping off good landlords simply to boost the income of electrical contractors is not the way to go.
I suppose if the legislation can be pushed through in theprivate rental sector, then the self servers can turn their attention toforcing all private residential properties in to having a current EICP as well.


It'll be like it used to be with MOTs.

£25 for an MOT if you bring your car.

£50 if you don't.

Do you really think that?

So you pay, say about £200 notes for an EICR every 5 years - that's £40 per year on your costs, or £3.34 per month. If your rental income can't cover that you need to either increase your rent, or sell up and invest else where.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There is a world of difference between Gas and Electrics.
Usually there is one or perhaps 2 gas appliance which need checking, Boiler and Cooker.
The test required are for gas leases, correct combustion and correct flue operation.
There is no need to go checking in lofts, cellars or outbuildings
No need to disconnect anything, or check that there are no sensitive equipment connected before conducting any tests.
No need to check old editions to consider whether something not allowed today, is acceptable, because it was allowed back in Nineteen Canteen.

 

[Darkwood]

Why do my posts come out with some of the words joined up?

They're not like that when I hit the reply button.

Are you manually typing the posts or copy and pasting sections ... sometimes copy and paste can become disrupted if it is sourced elsewhere.

 

[Dave OCD]

Like I said
The law is already in place to protect tenants.
Ripping off good landlords simply to boost the income ofelectrical contractors is not the way to go.
I suppose if the legislation can be pushed through in theprivate rental sector, then the self servers can turn their attention toforcing all private residential properties in to having a current EICP as well.


It'll be like it used to be with MOTs.

£25 for an MOT if you bring your car.

£50 if you don't.

To me that's actually rather insulting Merv , in fact your MOT comparison says quite a lot about you I think, the vast majority of qualified electricians are honest, hard working and conscientious. I don't know where you go [or don't go] for MOTs but if you were willing to accept or actively encouraged an electrical report from someone who hadn't even visited the property in question you would deserve to be prosecuted !

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yep, never had to pay that much.

 

[UNG]

UNG - no.

I'm saying that any mistake you make would land you in courtregardless if anyone got hurt or not.
That's what you propose to do with your legislation againstlandlords.

How would you feel about that. Hoist by your own petard perhaps?

I really think you are a troll

How many times do you have to be told that the legislation you are so against is a result of unscrupulous landlords who believe renting hovels is an acceptable method of generating income and not electricians who you seem to despise, a side effect is that this legislation requires the landlord to have the electrical installations checked in the property they wish to let unfortunately electricians don't do this for free and therefore make money from the transaction which seems to cause more friction with yourself

 

[Hellmooth]

There is a world of difference between Gas and Electrics.
Usually there is one or perhaps 2 gas appliance which need checking, Boiler and Cooker.
The test required are for gas leases, correct combustion and correct flue operation.
There is no need to go checking in lofts, cellars or outbuildings
No need to disconnect anything, or check that there are no sensitive equipment connected before conducting any tests.
No need to check old editions to consider whether something not allowed today, is acceptable, because it was allowed back in Nineteen Canteen.

I'm missing your point here?

A friend of mine does lots of gas certs, he's in and out within 30-60 mins max and charges £47 for the pleasure, so as Murdoch pointed out about £40 a year, no difference to making sure the electrical system is safe!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The point being, that there are a set number of tests which are required for a Gas Cert, and usually a fixed price to carry them out.
Whereas with an Electrical Report, there are no set tests, it is entirely up to the Inspector which tests if any are required.
Another problem, is that there is no Statutory requirement for an Inspector to be qualified, nor is there a code of practice for them to follow.
Add to that all the qualified Inspectors who have to come onto forums for guidance relating to which code should be applied for certain situations.
The current situation does not install confidence that any report will be worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Hellmooth]

The point being, that there are a set number of tests which are required for a Gas Cert, and usually a fixed price to carry them out.
Whereas with an Electrical Report, there are no set tests, it is entirely up to the Inspector which tests if any are required.
Another problem, is that there is no Statutory requirement for an Inspector to be qualified, nor is there a code of practice for them to follow.
Add to that all the qualified Inspectors who have to come onto forums for guidance relating to which code should be applied for certain situations.
The current situation does not install confidence that any report will be worth the paper it is written on.

So as there is people out there not doing eicr's up to scratch, they should be done away with?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The people producing dodgey reports, or EICRs in general?

 

[Hellmooth]

The eicr's, clearly doing away with the dodgy ones would be an ideal situation, although hardly possible.....

 

[Deleted member 26818]

EICRs are useful if they they are used as their intended purpose, which is to indicate that an installation is safe for continued use.
However I believe that many are produced simply as something to provide to Insurance companies ano Local Authorities.

I believe that while the 2391 was useful for practising Inspectors to prove their competence, we have been left with the situation where many people hold the qualification, yet have absolutely no experience in I&T whatsoever.

I also have concerns, that a supposedly respected body such as the NICEIC can produce such a thing as a Visual Report, let alone the fact that Local Authorities are willing to accept such (simply because it has NICEIC printed on it).

At present there is no requirement for Landlords to have EICRs conducted on their properties.
Landlords are responsible for the electrical safety of their properties, they cannot hide behind dodgey EICRs.

 

[shanky887614]

of course councils will only accept eicr's etc from a scam member.

can you imagine the amount of paperwork involved in checking someone is competent.

the reason they want someone in a scheme is any tom dick or harry can do an eicr.


a decent electrician will tell you when the installation starts to degrade and to keep an eye on it.

the installation can start to degrade and still be safe

 

[Deleted member 26818]

of course councils will only accept eicr's etc from a scam member.

can you imagine the amount of paperwork involved in checking someone is competent.

the reason they want someone in a scheme is any tom dick or harry can do an eicr.


a decent electrician will tell you when the installation starts to degrade and to keep an eye on it.

the installation can start to degrade and still be safe

Problem is, that Part P does not cover I&T, so being a scam member means nothing.
Yes the scams are now jumping upon the bandwagon and allowing their members to register for conducting I&T.
However if I was presented with a Visual Report rather than an EICR, I would refuse it.
The fact that LABCs are willing to accept what to my mind are worthless pieces of paper rather than a Report detailing inspections and tests conducted is rather worrying.

 

[shanky887614]

Problem is, that Part P does not cover I&T, so being a scam member means nothing.
Yes the scams are now jumping upon the bandwagon and allowing their members to register for conducting I&T.
However if I was presented with a Visual Report rather than an EICR, I would refuse it.
The fact that LABCs are willing to accept what to my mind are worthless pieces of paper rather than a Report detailing inspections and tests conducted is rather worrying.

not really because it means they have someone to fine and imprison when the muck hits the fan, its all about passing blame.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would rather people were safe than there being someone to blame.

 

[shanky887614]

I would rather people were safe than there being someone to blame.

so would i but thats how this country runs now.

turning into the stupied american system "where there is blame there is a claim"

 

[Paul.M]

@ Merv



Your wrong, simple as that. Electrical safety for "People, Livestock & Property" is paramount to any Electrician worth their worth in gold.

Please bullet point and explain why an EICR is a money spinner for "TRUE" Electricians and their customers that let out properties to their customers?

Really looking forward to your reply. (but please dont talk nonsense like the last 5 pages of this thread. Just get to the point).

 

[UNG]

of course councils will only accept eicr's etc from a scam member.

can you imagine the amount of paperwork involved in checking someone is competent.

the reason they want someone in a scheme is any tom dick or harry can do an eicr.


a decent electrician will tell you when the installation starts to degrade and to keep an eye on it.

the installation can start to degrade and still be safe

But it does not stop any Tom, Dick or Harry working for the scheme member doing an EICR that's why an individual electrician licencing system would IMO be a good move and may be it would restore a bit of industry credibility

I would rather people were safe than there being someone to blame.

So would I but these days there always has to be a scapegoat to satisfy the blame culture that we have

@ Merv

View attachment 30116

Your wrong, simple as that. Electrical safety for "People, Livestock & Property" is paramount to any Electrician worth their worth in gold.

Please bullet point and explain why an EICR is a money spinner for "TRUE" Electricians and their customers that let out properties to their customers?

Really looking forward to your reply. (but please dont talk nonsense like the last 5 pages of this thread. Just get to the point).

Well said, I think he's broken his drum though he hasn't posted for a good few hours

 

[Andy78]

Well said, I think he's broken his drum though he hasn't posted for a good few hours

Probably on the gas fitter's forum telling them what a bunch of robbing con artists they are and that they have no interest in customer safety.

 

[Hellmooth]

While counting all his money saved on eicr's

 

[Octopus]

He comes on here and rubs us the wrong way. I get my knuckles wrapped as a bad boy and he sds off. Great.

 

[UNG]

He comes on here and rubs us the wrong way. I get my knuckles wrapped as a bad boy and he sds off. Great.

Don't see why you got your knuckles wrapped it all looked civil to me although I did come close to not being

 

[Merv]

In reply to darkwood.
I do write my stuff elsewhere and paste it into the replybox, because if I write it directly into the reply box half the letters I typedon't appear for some reason, and it takes ages having to type over them again.

 

[Marvo]

He comes on here and rubs us the wrong way. I get my knuckles wrapped as a bad boy and he sds off. Great.

You didn't get your knuckles rapped I just deleted your post. If you're unsure why just send me a pm and I'll explain.

 

[DPG]

In reply to darkwood.
I do write my stuff elsewhere and paste it into the replybox, because if I write it directly into the reply box half the letters I typedon't appear for some reason, and it takes ages having to type over them again.

Mine does the same. Try clicking the A/A icon button on the left of the icon bar - this should cure it. Daz

 

[Darkwood]

In reply to darkwood.
I do write my stuff elsewhere and paste it into the replybox, because if I write it directly into the reply box half the letters I typedon't appear for some reason, and it takes ages having to type over them again.

This is why you script comes out with missing spaces etc, its coded with a similar software but not identical so when you copy and paste little bits are lost in translation leading to small errors appearing.

As for your other issues if you can express what hardware (laptop, phone etc), what OS and what browser you are using it may be worth admin looking into, as far as I'm aware you are the only one to report this issue about words not appearing and having to type again, your initial copy and paste may alter the font, colour etc settings possibly making the words white if you paste from a page where the background is dark this affect may have locked in as default, Ill have a word with admin' as its not my field and I could have just been talking gobbledygook.

 

[GMES]

He comes on here and rubs us the wrong way. I get my knuckles wrapped as a bad boy and he sds off. Great.

it has been spotted mate hence Pauls post and if it continues I will be giving him an holiday, trolling won't be tolerated full stop.

 

[Merv]

I seem to have caused some offence to a few on here judging by their personal comments towards me. I shan't waste my time answering them.

That is not the way to debate issues.


It also appears that my point about mandatory EICRs has been spectacularly missed by more than one, and they think I have something against safety and EICRs.
This is not my view at all.

I see EICRs as insurance against certain litigation where landlords are concerned.

Sensible landlords already ensure they have one for every property they let.
They're cheap enough anyway if you know where to get them from.

What I'm against is forcing landlords to jump through hoops and criminalizing those who get caught out by the red tape and petty rules that invariably go with any legislation that requires action to avoid prosecution.

Part P was a Godsend to the electrical trade in general with the extra work it has created, and for trivial gains in safety. If any at all in most cases.
That's why this government has watered down some of the legislation concerning Part P. and are soft on enforcement.
Notifying work done and logging it all down at the council offices for God's sake - how ridiculous can you get in wasting time and money?
Yet it still exits

I see compulsory EICRs in the same vein as writing Part P.into law.
And the shouts for enforcement of it, as simple greed from the vested interest who would profit from the legislation as they have done from the introduction of Part P. as it stands.

By the way, you're not dealing with John Prescott in government now.

 

[Merv]

@ Merv

View attachment 30116

Your wrong, simple as that. Electrical safety for "People, Livestock & Property" is paramount to any Electrician worth their worth in gold.

Please bullet point and explain why an EICR is a money spinner for "TRUE" Electricians and their customers that let out properties to their customers?

Really looking forward to your reply. (but please dont talk nonsense like the last 5 pages of this thread. Just get to the point).

Paul,
Sorry for the delay in answering.

A money-spinner is a source of profit.
So unless EICRs are handed out free, or charged at cost only by those you term as ''TRUE'' Electricians,'' then I think the term money-spinner is appropriate for EICRs.
What more can there be to explain?