UK AFDD - Has this left a loophole for landlords?

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Recently been working on a system design for a LL. I was told the building would be a three floor 16 room HMO, so the design was done to the current Regs for that use. When the LL saw the cost of AFDD's he 'blew a fuse' and said no way was he fitting them at a cost of over 3K. I explaned that this was now a legal requirement and that they had to be fitted in HMO's from the new regs come into force. Needless to say he wasn't best pleased.

He come back to me a few days later and said it was not going to be an HMO now but a Hostel instead so he wouldn't be required to fit AFDD's - which is correct from what I can see in the regs.

The thing is that I'm the only one being told that - everything else is still being done (as cheeply as possible from what I can see with the not so occisional stretching of rules and requirements) to facilitate an HMO. Speaking to other trades on-site has borne this out with some telling me they had been told to say it's a hostle if anyone asks, but the building conversion is going ahead as per original instructions for an HMO.

So, have the IET left a risky unintentional loophole here? - Tell the sparks it's a hostel and save yourself some money! It's difficult to call this one out as in some cases there isn't much of a difference between the apperance of a hostel and a HMO but the electrical requirements are very different.

Are we potentially going to end up with a case where a spark doing a EICR or an install certifies to the spec for a Hostel, the LL then runs it as an HMO and if something goes wrong the spark is the fall guy as the LL will say the spark did not tell him the requirements were differrent?? If the LL says it's something it's not how can a certifying make that call and certify to the specs he believes the building is actually being used for?
I can see this becoming an issue with unscrupulous LL's once they twig the loophole - and they are the very ones whos properties are likely to have the problems and the ones that were - I suspect, a big part of the reason why HMO's are now required to fit AFDD's.

Interested to hear peoples views especially anyone on here with IET connections.

 

[nicebutdim]

Have you checked the planning application?

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Have you checked the planning application?

Yes - and the answer........ nothing, zip, zilch, nada, no change of use application at all! Still listed as retail

 

[nicebutdim]

Yes - and the answer........ nothing, zip, zilch, nada, no change of use application at all! Still listed as retail

Not surprising. Problem is you know his intentions.

I'd be inclined to adopt a take it or leave it attitude.

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Not surprising. Problem is you know his intentions.

I'd be inclined to adopt a take it or leave it attitude.

Not sure where I'll go with this one, if it goes ahead I'll be making sure HOSTEL in bold is all over the certs!

It's the longer term implications that concern me if this apparent loophole is exploited by lots of HMO LL's.

 

[nicebutdim]

Not sure where I'll go with this one, if it goes ahead I'll be making sure HOSTEL in bold is all over the certs!

It's the longer term implications that concern me if this apparent loophole is exploited by lots of HMO LL's.

Pretty much a certainty that if one landlord has spotted a loophole, it'll soon be in widespread use around BT7 & BT9.

 

[MJPD29]

Pretty much a certainty that if one landlord has spotted a loophole, it'll soon be in widespread use around BT7 & BT9.

I live in close proximity to BT7 and have had several calls over the past few years from friends of friends who happen to be landlords looking favours done. I've got to the stage now where I tell them I don't touch domestic work, the state of some of the installations is beyond belief. Sadly its only a matter of time before something happens and only then will things (maybe) change

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

I live in close proximity to BT7 and have had several calls over the past few years from friends of friends who happen to be landlords looking favours done. I've got to the stage now where I tell them I don't touch domestic work, the state of some of the installations is beyond belief. Sadly its only a matter of time before something happens and only then will things (maybe) change

Sadly, I fear you may well be correct! I wouldn't touch anything in the Holylands myself either and the more dodgy stuff I see being done by LL's the more I'm inclined to stop doing any LL work at all - apart from a a very few exceptions where it's a 'if it needs it, it gets it' approach and only the best of stuff will do, but there are not too many of those type of LL's about.

 

[MJPD29]

I wouldn't touch anything in the Holylands myself either

Wouldn't know what you'd catch

 

[MJPD29]

Sadly, I fear you may well be correct! I wouldn't touch anything in the Holylands myself either and the more dodgy stuff I see being done by LL's the more I'm inclined to stop doing any LL work at all - apart from a a very few exceptions where it's a 'if it needs it, it gets it' approach and only the best of stuff will do, but there are not too many of those type of LL's about.

I'd tend to agree with you, unless you find a (rare) decent one they just want a quick, cheap fix with no regard for safety or regulation. I find it easier to steer clear.

 

[cliffed]

Agree on comments the other thing that seems to be appearing is the actual faulty AFDD’S & actually knowing the fault especially on the combined RCBO/ AFDD.
I personally not fitted any yet & hopefully don’t have to

 

[loz2754]

Surely, it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that the building complies with legislation, not the electrician's.
As long a you have a written statement in your contract as to the purpose and use of the building, you should be covered legally.
Having said that, if any client of mine tried this kind of tactic, be would no longer be my client.

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Agree on comments the other thing that seems to be appearing is the actual faulty AFDD’S & actually knowing the fault especially on the combined RCBO/ AFDD.
I personally not fitted any yet & hopefully don’t have to

Yip, they're going to be a pain. Any I've seen so far have some method of indicating the reason for tripping though, but if it's a AFDD activation it's just as likely to be an appliance fault as an install fault.

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Surely, it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that the building complies with legislation, not the electrician's.
As long a you have a written statement in your contract as to the purpose and use of the building, you should be covered legally.
Having said that, if any client of mine tried this kind of tactic, be would no longer be my client.

The thing is if something happens it comes down to a case of LL's word against the sparks word.

... LL tells spark it's a hostel - (no AFDD required), Spark issues EICR / EIC and off he goes.
.... LL produces 'Satisfactory' cert and gets HMO licence - (with no AFDD's fitted)
.... Something nasty happens and all goes bad. Investigation uncovers a cert for install that hasn't got AFDD's in a building used as an HMO
.... LL, to save his neck, says the spark said it was satisfactory and I took his word for it, he never told me I needed AFDD's and how else was I to know, that's why I got a spark to check out the wiring for me. I'm a responsible LL your Honour, I depended on the Spark to do his job right.
.... Spark says I was told it was a Hostel and did the inspection to the relevant standards in light of what I was told. How would I know a Hostel from an HMO?
.... LL - I said no such thing, just asked for a cert and got it, seems I got a cowboy spark!

It all gets into a nasty one word against the other and at best spark ends up with a very brused reputation by association and at worst.......

Surely this needs sorted out IET??

 

[buzzlightyear]

LL tells spark it's a hostel - (no AFDD required), Spark issues EICR / EIC and off he goes.
.... LL produces 'Satisfactory' cert and gets HMO licence - (with no AFDD's fitted)
.... Something nasty happens and all goes bad. Investigation uncovers a cert for install that hasn't got AFDD's in a building used as an HMO
.... LL, to save his neck, says the spark said it was satisfactory and I took his word for it, he never told me I needed AFDD's and how else was I to know, that's why I got a spark to check out the wiring for me. I'm a responsible LL your Honour, I depended on the Spark to do his job right.
.... Spark says I was told it was a Hostel and did the inspection to the relevant standards in light of what I was told. How would I know a Hostel from an HMO?
.... LL - I said no such thing, just asked for a cert and got it, seems I got a cowboy spark!

It all gets into a nasty one word against the other and at best spark ends up with a very brused reputation by association and at worst.......

before the contract .
saying you have declined to have them installed .
you go by the regs not him .

 

[loz2754]

The thing is if something happens it comes down to a case of LL's word against the sparks word.

... LL tells spark it's a hostel - (no AFDD required), Spark issues EICR / EIC and off he goes.
.... LL produces 'Satisfactory' cert and gets HMO licence - (with no AFDD's fitted)
.... Something nasty happens and all goes bad. Investigation uncovers a cert for install that hasn't got AFDD's in a building used as an HMO
.... LL, to save his neck, says the spark said it was satisfactory and I took his word for it, he never told me I needed AFDD's and how else was I to know, that's why I got a spark to check out the wiring for me. I'm a responsible LL your Honour, I depended on the Spark to do his job right.
.... Spark says I was told it was a Hostel and did the inspection to the relevant standards in light of what I was told. How would I know a Hostel from an HMO?
.... LL - I said no such thing, just asked for a cert and got it, seems I got a cowboy spark!

It all gets into a nasty one word against the other and at best spark ends up with a very brused reputation by association and at worst.......

Surely this needs sorted out IET??

Which is why I suggested you get in writing (and could also add a note on the EIC) confirming the type and usage of the building. Loophole closed.

 

[Lister1987]

HMO or Hostel; both would require local authority licensing, in which case I would speak with them FIRST and get it in writing where you would stand as the installer as you believe that LL has unscrupulous intentions.

If that licensing people say no AFFDs required then you are covered (as licensing conditions would be above 7671 [115.1])

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

Okay, just playing a bit of a devils advocate here but what if....

Spark sets out to do an HMO install for a regular LL, no formal contracts, has done lots of work for LL before, all done to the regs with AFDD's. Halfway through the job LL goes - 'what are those things at xx hundred / xx thousand pounds? I've never needed those before'. Spark explains now a legal requirement in an HMO. LL goes away fuming. LL turns up later and says 'I'm not paying for those take them out, it's a hostel not an HMO, don't need them'.

So, what's the chances of getting that in writing? - about zero.
What now ?
Walk away knowing you'll not get a penny for what you've done.
Put up and shut up.
Fit them anyway but only charge for RCBO's and take the hit.
Report to local authority - to which he'll deny all knowledge of the conversation.
I can't see any good option for a spark in this situation.

It just seems odd to me how an HMO has to have AFDD's and a Hostel doesn't when in the practical sense there is very little difference between them apart from the length of a guest / resident's stay. Surely the risk to life and property is similar in both and it would have been easy cover both in the regs.

As for some local authority inspectors picking up on it in the certs, any that I've seen wouldn't know an AFDD from a ciggy packet, all they look for is a big satisfactory or signature on the cert and they're content that someone else is carrying the can if it all goes south.

Like I said, just playing devils advocate here, thankfully I can walk away from this one with no loss, but sooner or later some poor sod is going to get caught out with this. I'm sure that any of us that do work for LL's know at least one or two who are as dodgey as heck.

 

[Jimbo_McSparkface]

HMO or Hostel; both would require local authority licensing, in which case I would speak with them FIRST and get it in writing where you would stand as the installer as you believe that LL has unscrupulous intentions.

If that licensing people say no AFFDs required then you are covered (as licensing conditions would be above 7671 [115.1])

In this case it's BS7671:2018 421.1.7 would take precedence over local authority requirements as it is a statutory requirement. I stand corrected on that point, still I'd rather work to a recognised standard than what someone in the local authority tells me.

421.1.7
Arc fault detection devices conforming to EN62606 shall be provided for
single phase AC final circuits supplying socket outlets with rated current
not exceeding 32A in:
• Higher risk residential buildings
• Houses of multiple occupancy (HMO)
• Purpose built student accommodation
• Care homes
NOTE 1: Higher Risk Residential Buildings are assumed to be residential
buildings over 18m in height or in excess of six storeys, whichever is met
fi rst. It is anticipated that in many areas, higher risk residential buildings
will be defined in legislation which can be subject to change over time,
as well as in risk management procedures adopted by fi re and rescue
services. Current legislation should be applied.
For all other premises, the use of AFDDs conforming to BS EN62606 is
recommended for single phase AC fi nal circuits supplying socket outlets
not exceeding 32A.
Where used, AFDDs shall be placed at the origin of the circuit to be protected

 

[nicebutdim]

I'd be inclined to include something very clear on the subject in the EIC.