I agree that you are absolutely correct in this. It just says:
View attachment 84779
The gov.uk guide to the legislation does say the inspection report will usually be an EICR. I know that isn't legally binding, but it does seem fair enough that if the electrical safety standards are defined as BS7671 then one might assume that the testing and inspection details of BS7671 would apply.
Absolutely - in reality it will be a (sometimes only allegedly) BS 7671 compliant EICR, just like compliance with Part P invariably means compliance with BS 7671, even though
that's not required by law either.
But it's good to be accurate. For example legally there's nothing to stop, say, the Residential Landlords Association from working with one of the schemes to establish a code of practice for safety reporting which is not based on an EICR, and might be better geared to the reality of residential lettings, yet still have due regard to BS 7671. It might usefully have more prescriptive guidance or even rules for coding, so that everybody knows where they stand. It might usefully re-introduce a coding like the old C4 so that every non-compliance isn't forced into some kind of "requires improvement" category. It might want to go beyond BS 7671 in some areas, and decree that no matter what their condition 3036 fuseboards are not permitted, that emergency lighting for escape routes is mandatory, as are interlinked mains powered fire and smoke detectors.
View attachment 84783
Unfortunately the reality for landlords isn't aligning with what the law actually says regarding remedial work as letting agencies are turning down "Unsatisfactory" reports even when provided with evidence of rectifications.
That was the background behind my earlier suggestion. It certainly shouldn't be legally necessary to do another report, but it might be the easiest solution for the landlord if a 2nd sparks is doing remedials.
There's no way that a landlord or agent can have the skills to interpret the combination of an earlier EICR + a later EIC/MEIWC for remedial work.
And is a different electrician who did the remedial work going to want to put his name to a new all-encompassing condition report based partly on the first guy's EICR?
However, (and this is another reason why knowing what it actually says is useful) whatever your views on whether BS 7671 EICRs are mandated or not, the law does not require a second report to be issued after remedial work has been done. The way it is written it is clear that the original report together with written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out is all that's needed. It even says that that combination is what is to be supplied to the tenant and the local authority.
So really it needs both landlords and their agents to be more clued up on what the law actually says, and not just go by commonly repeated misconceptions, and for the former to smack the latter round the head with a rolled up copy if they try to stop the landlord from following a path described in it.
