The new Landlords' EICR requirements. The law says that everything must now be to 18th Edition!

[Mark42]

Many will by now have heard of the new requirements for private landlords, enacted under Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 312, known as ‘The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.’

All new tenancies, and all existing tenancies from 1 April 2021, must have an EICR, to be renewed at least every five years.

The requirements are covered in only a couple of pages, and are easy to understand. They are clearly intended to prevent rogue landlords persisting with dangerous electrical installations, and are entirely sensible. Penalties for non-compliance are severe.

For anything like this I always disregard hearsay and read the primary legislation. I have discovered what appears to be a major cock-up in the document, or at least a lack of consideration of the problems that will be caused.

From the regulations:

Section 3 (1) A private landlord who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must:
(a) ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises are occupied under a specified tenancy;

Section 2 … ‘ “electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations [my emphasis], published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018’

Bloody hell, it’s insane! I suspect the legal draftsman had little understanding of electrical regulations or the problems this overly-restrictive definition will cause.

In short, for a landlord to comply, ‘electrical safety standards’ must be met, and to meet those standards, the installation must be to 18th edition specs.

The Government has produced guidance which states that existing installations, compliant with previous regulations, and deemed currently safe, do not (sensibly) need to be upgraded.

BUT ‘Guidance’ is just that. Guidance does not change the law. The law is what is written down and enacted by parliament. And what is written down is that only the 18th will do.

All it will take is an arsey tenant, or an unrelated accident happening and lawyers getting involved, for a huge can of worms to be opened. Just having for example a perfectly-sound plastic CU, or non-metallic cable clips in an escape route, would render the landlord non-compliant.

It might even leave the certifying electrician liable. I would expect prosecuting counsel to enquire why said electrician signed off a non-18th installation as satisfactory, knowing that the EICR was being issued for compliance with SI 2020/312.

This is serious. I don’t understand why no one else has said anything – the web is silent on this.

What it means is that perhaps four million rented properties in England will need to be upgraded to 18th Edition by 01 April 2021. How many electricians are there to do all this? How many landlords can afford it? It was clearly never intended to be so bloody stupid, but a draftsman’s incompetence has made it so.

‘Electrical safety standards’ should have been defined as something much more generic, cf. the definition of a ‘qualified person’ as a ‘person competent to undertake the inspection…’ and so on. No mention there of the exact qualifications, experience, or any scheme membership. Only that he or she should know what they are doing. It’s a classic British legal provision, leaving the courts to decide what was reasonable in a particular case, considering all the circumstances.

This will need an amendment to the law to sort out, but does Government have the time?

** For others who enjoy reading this kind of thing , the original legislation is attached. **

 

[Andy78]

An inspection is carried out using the 18th edition as the safety standard.

The 18th details what an inspection should and shouldn't be about.

The installation is deemed safe for continued use. Safety standards have been met.

You're overthinking it.

 

[Lister1987]

@dseselectric did a video on just this thing;

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_UN84w8brk


Anything built before 18th Edition of course won't meet 19th Edition standards but may deemed fit for continued use. This is not a stick to beat landlords with to get an 18th Edition board installed, but then we knew that already.

 

[littlespark]

You just do the EICR the way you always have.... it’s none of your business really if the property is going to be let out or not.
You give your customer the condition report.... you advise them what is dangerous/ needs improving or is safe.

It is then up to the customer to have any repairs done that HE decides he wants done.

 

[andyb]

I agree with Andy78 & Littlespark.

To take your example re support of cable in escape routes. Are you saying that if you tested a property designed and installed to the 16th and found a noncompliance you would deem it satisfactory, but if you went next door to an identical situation but that it was designed and installed to the 17th amd 3 that would be unsatisfactory?

As Andy says, you test to the current regs then report.

 

[littlespark]

I understand your question. How would the courts see it if there was a situation?

you are qualified to 18th.... you have inspected and tested the way you’re trained to... you have given your findings to the customer....

that’s all you need to prove

 

[Julie.]

I actually agree with Mark, the legislation is contradictory, it in simple terms states it must be compliant with the 18th edition (just like a new installation), but then implies one can take a sensible approach.

As written therefore anyone applying the normal procedure for periodic testing as outlined in the 18th, whilst they would be perfectly fine for non-tenenacy circumstances, they would be completely undefended for periodics in accordance with the new law.

The only solutions are either something happens, in which case the unfortunate person who carried out the periodic inspection would be dragged through court until the court decided what the "correct" interpretation is, at which point it is clarified under 'case-law' *

Or the schemes actually do their job and obtain clarification ahead of time!

I noticed this some time ago, however as I don't deal with this sort of work it has little consequence for me, it did however cause me to raise it with a solicitor friend of mine, who was very clear, he would absolutely argue the case that as it specifically goes for compliance it needs to be compliant!

After all this is to stop landlords 'getting away with outdated and unmaintained properties '

*Just to be clear on what the "correct" interpretation is under law, recently courts have decided that a spider is an insect NOT an arachnid!

So don't rely on courts following common sense!
[automerge]1593331670[/automerge]
Sorry, forgot to say, in the example given of premature wiring collapse, I actually believe that if the wiring is unsupported this would be a C2 in escape routes, as in the event of a fire it does represent a danger, but C3 elsewhere.

This is the whole idea of C1 & C2 it doesn't matter if any practices were acceptable before, now we have realised the issue, if they represent a danger they represent a danger.

Unlike say the wiring colours which may cause confusion, they don't represent any danger.

 

[andyb]

But as a competent electrician you test and inspect the current reg's, at the moment the 18th. That's always been the case, it makes no difference to the inspector whether the property is to be let or not. It's got nothing to do with the schemes, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Julie.]

But as a competent electrician you test and inspect the current reg's, at the moment the 18th. That's always been the case, it makes no difference to the inspector whether the property is to be let or not. It's got nothing to do with the schemes, unless I'm missing something.

If you follow the 'rules' of the 18th, correct the guidelines for periodic tests say you inspect to the current, and recommend or identify dangers where it departs, but an existing installation doesn't have to be compliant with the current version.

However, the legislation as implemented in the case of tenancies in England, does state that it must be compliant (and therefore not in-line with the usual practice)

It is very likely an oversight and lack of understanding by the mps draughting the legislation, nevertheless if that's what the law states, then it becomes up to the courts to decide what the correct interpretation is.

(Just like any other law, this is what keeps lawyers in business)

If someone asks you to do a normal periodic inspection, basically they are requesting an inspection in line with the 18th (or whatever's current) and not necessarily in line with 'The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.'

If someone asks you to do a landlord's inspection, they are asking for an inspection in line with 'The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.'

 

[Vortigern]

The fact is it is a statutory instrument aka "back door law" Any LL is open to judicial review of any "housing authorities" power to exercise the provisions within that instrument. IMHO it does not even qualify as law. Rather like NICEIC likes to regurgitate regs to it's members as if they are the JPEL. No doubt there will be hurried amendments and changes to the instrument.
[automerge]1593333113[/automerge]
I do think the provision for existing tenancies is somewhat of an oversight considering the intentions of this instrument in that such tenancies get a year(ish) before the boom comes down on them. I am sure everyone here who does EICR could think of many reasons to believe that there is a greater urgency for tenants already ensconced to have the same protection having seen the parlous state of a lot of existing LLs installations
I also hold that existing regs re BC and LA that the scheme that requires all the safety certificates being rolled out in areas notorious for rogue LLs is the same as this statutory instrument. I also would suggest that change of tenancy in line with current best practice should also attract the same requirements for testing. Due to the tenant often wrecking the property and damaging electrics. Like the flat I attended where a domestic violence situation, among other things, lead to a baseball bat being taken to all the electrical fittings, utterly smashed to smithereens.

 

[andyb]

If you follow the 'rules' of the 18th, correct the guidelines for periodic tests say you inspect to the current, and recommend or identify dangers where it departs, but an existing installation doesn't have to be compliant with the current version.

However, the legislation as implemented in the case of tenancies in England, does state that it must be compliant (and therefore not in-line with the usual practice)

It is very likely an oversight and lack of understanding by the mps draughting the legislation, nevertheless if that's what the law states, then it becomes up to the courts to decide what the correct interpretation is.

(Just like any other law, this is what keeps lawyers in business)

The point I'm trying to make Julie is that if a homeowner employs me to undertake a PIR it makes no difference to me the reason behind the request. It could be an insurance company request, or the local council for an HMO, or the said new letting law or even just the home owner for peace of mind. In every case the PIR will be the same and the EICR filled out the same.
This is what protects you in law down the line if things go wrong.

 

[Julie.]

If they ask you for a standard pir, then you are OK.

I suspect however they will ask you for a report in accordance with the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector as this is what they must obtain.

In which case you should be inspecting to those standards.

In the past i have carried out inspections to various standards, the easiest mistake to make is to reference the wrong standard!

 

[Vortigern]

mps draughting the legislation

It is not MPs that draught an SI it is the SoS that effectively writes it. That is why it is called "back door law"

 

[Julie.]

It is not MPs that draught an SI it is the SoS that effectively writes it. That is why it is called "back door law"

Yup good point

Still issued in their name, sort of!

 

[andyb]

If they ask you for a standard pir, then you are OK.

I suspect however they will ask you for a report in accordance with the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector as this is what they must obtain.

In which case you should be inspecting to those standards.

In the past i have carried out inspections to various standards, the easiest mistake to make is to reference the wrong standard!

That's my point, I'll only do a standard PIR, the EICR states
'The inspection and testing detailed in this report and accompanying schedules have been carried out in accordance with BS 7671:2018 (IET Wiring Regulations) as amended to 2018.'
Anything else would require a different form and, as you say, with the vagueness of the legislation could lead to problems later.

 

[westward10]

The legislation is aimed at the landlord not the individual carrying out the test and inspection. I agree with @andyb I would carry out the EICR as I would normally do it is then up to the client how they comply with the new legislation.

 

[Julie.]

Yes, I get your point, unfortunately I can see that lawyers and courts might interpret it in quite a different way, 'you were asked to provide a landlord's report in accordance with the legislation as a competent electrician'.

Whilst I agree that what should be done is an inspection in line with periodic inspections as defined in the current edition of the wiring regs (in Scotland, that's what is required under the equivalent legislation) the plain fact is that the English legislation has defined the requirements differently, basically demanding compliance with the current regs.

This opens it up for lawyers to argue for compliance as basically that's what the law states.

I wouldn't want to be the one defending the 'custom and practice', or 'that's what they really meant' against a fancy lawyer, as they may have a better lawyer than I can afford!

 

[Vortigern]

Of course one of the most glaring errors in the S.I. is it does not apply to anyone but private LLs. That means that all of the charitable and social housing organisations are exempt from these requirements. Which I think is pretty pathetic.

 

[Wilko]

I suspect however they will ask you for a report in accordance with the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector as this is what they must obtain.

Hi - as per Andyb, the forms I know of (and use) are the EICR from Appendix 6 of BS7678. Are there other forms or standards that we should now use for domestic rental properties?

Is the intent to require non safety related items to be C2 and therefore force them to be upgraded?

 

[Vortigern]

You might also wish to read the Guidance notes to this S.I. which among other things sets out the requirements of the person doing the tests. I note that there is no requirement to be a member of a CPS! As this is regarded as too much bureaucracy!

 

[Andy78]

Hi - as per Andyb, the forms I know of (and use) are the EICR from Appendix 6 of BS7678. Are there other forms or standards that we should now use for domestic rental properties?

Is the intent to require non safety related items to be C2 and therefore force them to be upgraded?

No it's not

 

[Baddegg]

Of course one of the most glaring errors in the S.I. is it does not apply to anyone but private LLs. That means that all of the charitable and social housing organisations are exempt from these requirements. Which I think is pretty pathetic.

Undermines the whole a bit doesn’t it.....?

 

[UNG]

It could be argued that the legislation was out of date at the time of publication
When I first read it and saw BS7671:2018 as the specified regulation document with no mention of any amendments at a time when BS7671:2018+A1:2020 was already in circulation I thought that the document had been hurriedly put together and had not been properly read though before being committed to law

 

[snowhead]

If you go on any of the many Landlord Forums or Facebook pages you'll see this has been widely discussed and the view of all the Experts and Legal persons is that L-L properties do not have to fully comply with the 18th any differently to any other properties.
Landlords will not suddenly be having all their properties upgraded, only "Items requiring urgent remedial action"

(edit)
And a New Tenancy can apply to an existing Tenant so the need for Inspection could apply before the 2021 date without a change of Tenant.

 

[westward10]

Yes, I get your point, unfortunately I can see that lawyers and courts might interpret it in quite a different way, 'you were asked to provide a landlord's report in accordance with the legislation as a competent electrician'.

Whilst I agree that what should be done is an inspection in line with periodic inspections as defined in the current edition of the wiring regs (in Scotland, that's what is required under the equivalent legislation) the plain fact is that the English legislation has defined the requirements differently, basically demanding compliance with the current regs.

This opens it up for lawyers to argue for compliance as basically that's what the law states.

I wouldn't want to be the one defending the 'custom and practice', or 'that's what they really meant' against a fancy lawyer, as they may have a better lawyer than I can afford!

What the legislation demands is irrelevant to the individual carrying out the test and inspection. This legislation is aimed at the landlord it is therefore up to them what extent of remedial works is required from the submitted EICR.

 

[snowhead]

If the Legislation could in any way be interpreted to compell LandLords to update all thier properties the the 18th before April 2021, then there would have been more Landlords marching on Parliament than there have been BLM and others recently.

 

[Julie.]

Whilst I don't disagree with a sensible approach, the fact is the Legislation is worded poorly, and is open to interpretation that it means compliant.

Landlords I have no doubt believe that by requesting a report on the safety of the electrical system in accordance with the legislation by a professional and then acting upon it would be a valid defence - and it should be.

We only need an incident similar to Grenfell and the courts will be looking at the following "facts":
The Legislation says compliant.
The landlord received a report from a professional stating no work was required (or there was and it was done).
The professional decided that although it was not compliant "it was OK".
The subsequent fire caused a major incident, 10 innocent lives lost and horrific scenes played across the media.

(Obviously not a real incident here - just an example of how it may play out)

I mention the Grenfell thing because the media, and everyone is out gunning for anyone and everyone connected with it, yet I have no doubt that when it was done the people involved all went along the lines of custom and practice, along with carefully worded contracts and reports, believing this would protect them. In fact these are now viewed as "slimy ways for professionals to evade their duties" when actually they did not believe they were doing anything wrong. (And most probably haven't)

 

[Pre]

Straight out of the guidence notes to the S.I.

"12.4 The average cost of mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks is estimated at £31 per year per property, totalling £33m. 78% of landlords already have electrical safety checks, so they will not be affected by this cost until they are due for a new inspection. There will also be an estimated one-off familiarisation cost of £14m to landlord."

I would love to know where they got there figures from for this. £155 for an average EICR (if completed every 5 years) may well be applicable to a 1 or 2 bed flat/ apartment or small house, but in reality we all know that larger properties with older/ modified electrical systems may well require a lot more time to ensure a thorough inspection is completed. Combine this with the fact that many rental properties are in areas where electrician's labour costs are much higher, such as large inner city areas, it would seem that this average price is not really a true reflection of reality. There have already been many cases of so called "drive by" EICR tests being carried out by "competent" electricians, so will this continue to be the case if landlords expect to pay this average price?

 

[Grant1987]

What the legislation demands is irrelevant to the individual carrying out the test and inspection. This legislation is aimed at the landlord it is therefore up to them what extent of remedial works is required from the submitted EICR.

That’s exactly my way of thinking I conduct all my EICR’s to current regulations and any consumer units not meeting fire rated standards i deem as unsatisfactory although I know a lot of sparks class this as C3 I prefer to be more strict and don’t try to find ways around upgrading just upgrade the installation to satisfy current regs simple in my way of thinking. Although I do understand that financially it could be detrimental to the landlords but that’s what the rent payment is for maintenance and upkeep on your property.

 

[suffolkspark]

I conduct all my EICR’s to current regulations and any consumer units not meeting fire rated standards i deem as unsatisfactory although I know a lot of sparks class this as C3 I prefer to be more strict

A plastic consumer unit is a C3 if in sole means of escape, otherwise can have a note made or nothing at all. It does not trigger an unsatisfactory report. You best get yourself a best practice guide

 

[Ian1981]

That’s exactly my way of thinking I conduct all my EICR’s to current regulations and any consumer units not meeting fire rated standards i deem as unsatisfactory although I know a lot of sparks class this as C3 I prefer to be more strict and don’t try to find ways around upgrading just upgrade the installation to satisfy current regs simple in my way of thinking. Although I do understand that financially it could be detrimental to the landlords but that’s what the rent payment is for maintenance and upkeep on your property.

You C2 every plastic CU based on it being plastic alone??
If so then disgraceful.
You must also insist a CU is changed if plastic before you do any alterations or additions to existing installations then, like installing an extra socket for instance?

 

[UNG]

That’s exactly my way of thinking I conduct all my EICR’s to current regulations and any consumer units not meeting fire rated standards i deem as unsatisfactory although I know a lot of sparks class this as C3 I prefer to be more strict and don’t try to find ways around upgrading just upgrade the installation to satisfy current regs simple in my way of thinking. Although I do understand that financially it could be detrimental to the landlords but that’s what the rent payment is for maintenance and upkeep on your property.

I think you really need to review some of your simple way of thinking as you clearly do not have a proper and thorough understanding of the regs, what would be wrong with a plastic CU contained within a fire rated enclosure, the "EG metal" in the regs has been misinterpreted by many including yourself to suggest anything other than a metal consumer unit does not meet the regs when other compliance options exist within the regs.
It is not your responsibility to set the rules or change the level of the bar, but it is your responsibility to apply the regs in an honest a far way to all interested parties.

I don't think have a clue about the financials if the rent is only for maintenance and upkeep can you tell me what covers the mortgage, the return on the landlords capital investment and also the letting and property management costs of the property

 

[Grant1987]

I think you really need to review some of your simple way of thinking as you clearly do not have a proper and thorough understanding of the regs, what would be wrong with a plastic CU contained within a fire rated enclosure, the "EG metal" in the regs has been misinterpreted by many including yourself to suggest anything other than a metal consumer unit does not meet the regs when other compliance options exist within the regs.
It is not your responsibility to set the rules or change the level of the bar, but it is your responsibility to apply the regs in an honest a far way to all interested parties.

I don't think have a clue about the financials if the rent is only for maintenance and upkeep can you tell me what covers the mortgage, the return on the landlords capital investment and also the letting and property management costs of the property

Oops, ruffled a few feathers by looks of it. Yea you’re right with the fire rated enclosure consumer unit. Id think that is perfectly fine being plastic if it’s enclosed within suitable enclosure. I must be one of the electricians that’s misinterpreted the regs then. I thought it had to be an enclosed chamber preventing the spread of potential fire. Same as I don’t like it when I see a metal consumer unit with open grommets being used rather than fire grommets. Or great big holes in either plastic or metal consumer. It is a difficult situation I understand but I thought that the idea is to bring electrical installations up to current standards. I’m not on here to argue just to learn more myself and give an opinion admittedly I can be wrong from time to time ?‍

 

[ChipFanDave]

May also be worth noting that you can get plastic CU that meet the requirments for non combustitble material.

 

[Grant1987]

I think you really need to review some of your simple way of thinking as you clearly do not have a proper and thorough understanding of the regs, what would be wrong with a plastic CU contained within a fire rated enclosure, the "EG metal" in the regs has been misinterpreted by many including yourself to suggest anything other than a metal consumer unit does not meet the regs when other compliance options exist within the regs.
It is not your responsibility to set the rules or change the level of the bar, but it is your responsibility to apply the regs in an honest a far way to all interested parties.

I don't think have a clue about the financials if the rent is only for maintenance and upkeep can you tell me what covers the mortgage, the return on the landlords capital investment and also the letting and property management costs of the property

Sorry I clearly upset you but to answer the 2nd part of your message with regards to maintenance and upkeep on properties with rental income. If it’s your property in question then surely the rent covers your mortgage? With the capital investment do you mean spending money to maintain the property when things go wrong? Think that also applies to your 3rd point of property management surely if it’s your property you have to expect to pay out £££ to keep it habitable and safe for tenants. Same applies to homeowners when things go wrong or need upgrading got to pay the costs.

 

[Grant1987]

A plastic consumer unit is a C3 if in sole means of escape, otherwise can have a note made or nothing at all. It does not trigger an unsatisfactory report. You best get yourself a best practice guide

Hia butt, yes I do think a best practice guide would be best for me because I don’t pretend to know it all I just take the cautious approach and maybe I exaggerated when I said I fail all plastic consumers that was me being harsh and annoyed when I see so many ppl looking for rules and regs to avoid updating/upgrading electrical installs. As for being disgraceful which I think you may have said (maybe not you) I find it disgraceful when I see the amounts charged by electricians for couple hours work.

 

[ChipFanDave]

How much do you charge then ?

 

[Grant1987]

How much do you charge then ?

That’s irrelevant I’ve been made out to be disgraceful for recommending consumer unit change when I don’t charge no where near the amount that is charged by most sparks £350 plus vat. Actually I’ll tell you I will change a standard consumer for £200 labour but before I upgrade if any faults Or unsatisfactory results arise after change that will be bit extra what about you?
[automerge]1593647567[/automerge]

How much do you charge then ?

I suppose it depends on what part of U.K you’re based at. You work in London do you?

 

[ChipFanDave]

It's not irrelevant if you're going to slag off "the amounts charged by electricians for couple hours work". However you can value yourself as low or highly as you like.

I work across a large parts of Midlands, Wales and South West England but rarely the SE or London.

 

[Grant1987]

It's not irrelevant if you're going to slag off "the amounts charged by electricians for couple hours work". However you can value yourself as low or highly as you like.

I work across a large parts of Midlands, Wales and South West England but rarely the SE or London.

Ah right well I get “slagged off” for recommending consumer unit upgrades and it seems like you took it personally when I said it’s disgraceful for amount some sparks charge for couple hours work. Well next time you’re in South Wales (valleys) let me know and we can have a tidy chat over a pint hopefully ? ?