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.

 

[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?

 

[Fox]

Can someone please give this lad a temporary break. I'm getting bored with this drivel taking up my feed - judging by previous posts he's been on the same war path for 3 years

 

[Merv]

Can someone please give this lad a temporary break. I'm getting bored with this drivel taking up my feed - judging by previous posts he's been on the same war path for 3 years

Come on Fox, surely you can do better than that.
Perhaps if you examined the issues instead of the people discussing them you might not get so bored.

 

[Octopus]

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?

On what basis exactly?

Come on matey just list the reasons so we can have a reasonable debate....

 

[Merv]

Murdoch.

Surely you can grasp something as simple as that.
Are you trying to send me up?

Here it is again anyway - ''A money-spinner is a source of profit.''

 

[Paul.M]

Can someone please give this lad a temporary break.

eerrmm,,, tempted but we will continue with the conversation (for now).

Paul,
Sorry for the delay in answering.

No worries Merv, I've been too busy doing EICR's for student landlords at a reasonable price to busy log on and reply whilst you have 110 to do lol.

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?

EICR's are not "money-spinners". They are a safety check regulated by the IET & BSI, not part P. Look into the history of part P, it was designed to give kitchen fitters the ability to add or extend a circuit (in a nutshell).


Ok lets look at it this way.... Last year (from the top of my head) there were 14 electrical deaths in the UK reported by the HSE. A few of them were in rented domestic properties and due to bad installs and not checked by a qualified electrician. Question for you...... How many millions of properties within the UK are rented? If they are managed correctly by the owner there should not be any problems. The price of this service is nothing compared to someones life.




ps... sort your software out. After quoting your post I can see the problems you have got. What are you using? A Spectrum ZX81 or a Amstrad CPC464????

 

[Andy78]

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.

You've entered this thread and called electricians rip off merchants, accused forum members and electricians in general of being instrumental in lobbying to change legislation for their own profit .. something that has no basis in fact... and accused out trade in general of having no interest in customer's safety and only in money. If you can't see those remarks as personal and inflammatory then you need to check yourself.

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.

Wrong, they are an assessment of the safety of an installation and it's continued use.

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.

Could you tell us how cheap you get them for and how long each one takes to be performed ? I ask as the cheapest ones can sometimes be works of pure fiction and have no bearing on the safety of an installation.

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.

This proves you know nothing about our trade. What gains in extra work followed the creation of part P and what proof do you have to support this ? All part P did was water down the skillset in our trade and increase costs for electricians which then had to be passed on to customers.

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

The inconvenience and time wasting is generally only experienced by electricians.

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.

You'll find that the schemes would be instrumental in calling for changes in legislation and not electricians in general. As you have already been told, you are barking up the wrong tree here.


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

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?

By that logic any true landlord should offer accommodation for free or at cost because they should be only concerned about people having places to stay. Any profit made from being a landlord must make them rip off merchants out to profiteer off the back of tenants. What a money spinner eh ?

......

 

[shanky887614]

Murdoch.

Surely you can grasp something as simple as that.
Are you trying to send me up?

Here it is again anyway - ''A money-spinner is a source of profit.''

have you even looked at an eicr form? it doesnt take 5mins to fill them in you know

 

[Merv]

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

Thanks DPG. That's done the trick.

 

[Dave OCD]

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.

Cheap is always best eh Merv ? Does the dodgy mechanic who does MOTs remote from your car also do remote EICRs for you - buy one get one free ?:laugh3:

 

[Octopus]

Murdoch.

Surely you can grasp something as simple as that.
Are you trying to send me up?

Here it is again anyway - ''A money-spinner is a source of profit.''

Based on what?

I do about 1 x EICR per month..