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.

 

[Octopus]

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.

My thoughts:

A mandatory EICR would render a large number of them worthless as its a bit like PAT testing - the prices have been driven down so far its difficult for a "professional" to do a job properly.

An EICR shouldn't be issued after electrical work - it should be a MWC or and EIC.

 

[marconi]

My thoughts:

A mandatory EICR would render a large number of them worthless as its a bit like PAT testing - the prices have been driven down so far its difficult for a "professional" to do a job properly.

An EICR shouldn't be issued after electrical work - it should be a MWC or and EIC.

Thank you for your corrections.

All I can say in my case is I have employed a professional - by my estimation anyway - and he charges £130 plus VAT. For a one bed flat he spends between 2-3 hours. 5 final circuits - cooker, lights, immersion, ring, shower. He brings some impressive looking test equipment not available in my day. I can tell he opens up fittings such as sockets and switches for example because I now always paint after he has been to cover any disturbance he might have caused to the decor. And the EICR has detail and comments on which I take as evidence he has been thorough as is reasonably possible.

I watched a TV programme on rogue landlords and in it the reporter said there are many tenants who are frightened to make a fuss for fear of being turfed out. One woman noticed she was receiving electric shocks off the wall when she was under the electric shower (no alternative bath to use). The landlord was slow to react. Not satisfactory at all.

 

[Octopus]

Just do a search on here and see how little people do EICR's for.

Madness

My minimum charge is £135.00 for a small flat - £225 for a "family" house - more for bigger and/or outbuildings and garden electrics.

 

[telectrix]

Just do a search on here and see how little people do EICR's for.

Madness

My minimum charge is £135.00 for a small flat - £225 for a "family" house - more for bigger and/or outbuildings and garden electrics.

bang on the money there. i'm slightly cheaper, but being 68 with a few quid pension, i can afford to be. :boxing_smiley:

 

[Farmelectrics]

pity all landlords are not like your good self

 

[marconi]

pity all landlords are not like your good self

One of the key things for me is avoiding 'he who pays the piper calls the tune': see he who pays the piper calls the tune. Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I think something akin to my scheme, if demanded by every electrician doing an EICR, would generate the auditable paperwork to hold landlords to account and allow electricians to discharge their professional duty without fear. I'd like electricians to send the worst EICRs to the council's building inspector so that dangerous or potentially dangerous wiring which is discovered cannot be ignored by the landlord. The H&S law can then be applied. Look at uproar recently when the travel agent failed to ensure proper gas safety in Greece.

There are boroughs in London now demanding landlords to be certified and to meet a standard and do certain things to avoid tenants 'suffering' and being put in harms way. Insurance companies offering policies to landlords should require an in-date EICR (and gas safety). Interestingly, fire safety is explicit - smoke alarms, CO detectors, safe means of escape, fire doors...It should be the same for the potential sources of fire ignition and personal harm - a prevalent one being electricity and its effects.

I have had a couple of glasses of wine - you get the sense of what I mean.

 

[Octopus]

One of the key things for me is avoiding 'he who pays the piper calls the tune': see he who pays the piper calls the tune. Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I think something akin to my scheme, if demanded by every electrician doing an EICR, would generate the auditable paperwork to hold landlords to account and allow electricians to discharge their professional duty without fear. I'd like electricians to send the worst EICRs to the council's building inspector so that dangerous or potentially dangerous wiring which is discovered cannot be ignored by the landlord. The H&S law can then be applied. Look at uproar recently when the travel agent failed to ensure proper gas safety in Greece.

There are boroughs in London now demanding landlords to be certified and to meet a standard and do certain things to avoid tenants 'suffering' and being put in harms way. Insurance companies offering policies to landlords should require an in-date EICR (and gas safety). Interestingly, fire safety is explicit - smoke alarms, CO detectors, safe means of escape, fire doors...It should be the same for the potential sources of fire ignition and personal harm - a prevalent one being electricity and its effects.

I have had a couple of glasses of wine - you get the sense of what I mean.

Nice idea but I'm not sure they would be interested.

Trading standards may be a better approach if the reports are so crxp

 

[marconi]

Nice idea but I'm not sure they would be interested.

Trading standards may be a better approach if the reports are so crxp

An astute remark on what I wrote. I had assumed professional conduct.

I meant by 'worst EICRs be sent to the Council...' those that reported the wiring/installation as seriously deficient - no deficiency in the way it was done by the electrician.

So, yes, those EICRs that are 'flimsy' and lazily done to the trading standards office.

 

[Merv]

Are you suggesting that a perfectly safe and sound property can't be let to a new tenant until a fresh EICR has been generated?

How ridiculous!
This sounds like a cracking good little earner for the electrical trade, but a completely unnecessary and over the top pain in the neck for everyone else concerned.

Best of luck with that one, but it doesn't take much thought to see through the true motive behind the idea.

 

[marconi]

Are you suggesting that a perfectly safe and sound property can't be let to a new tenant until a fresh EICR has been generated?

How ridiculous!
This sounds like a cracking good little earner for the electrical trade, but a completely unnecessary and over the top pain in the neck for everyone else concerned.

Best of luck with that one, but it doesn't take much thought to see through the true motive behind the idea.

By MArconi - I said 'In-date EICR' not new one each time a tenant takes up occupancy.

 

[davesparks]

Are you suggesting that a perfectly safe and sound property can't be let to a new tenant until a fresh EICR has been generated?

How ridiculous!
This sounds like a cracking good little earner for the electrical trade, but a completely unnecessary and over the top pain in the neck for everyone else concerned.

Best of luck with that one, but it doesn't take much thought to see through the true motive behind the idea.

How do you know the property is safe and sound?
An inspection by a competant person should be carried out before each tenant moves in.
I do such things for a local letting agent and some of the things I've found where previous tenants have fitted their own light fittings etc have rendered the installation somewhat less than 'safe and sound'

 

[davesparks]

By MArconi - I said 'In-date EICR' not new one each time a tenant takes up occupancy.

But that's the same thing, an EICR 'lasts' for say 5 or 10 years OR until the change of occupant

 

[marconi]

But that's the same thing, an EICR 'lasts' for say 5 or 10 years OR until the change of occupant

Please see Information for Landlords & Responsibilities | Electrical Safety First

 

[davesparks]

Please see Information for Landlords & Responsibilities | Electrical Safety First

See it for what? It just another in a line of 'guides' presenting opinions as facts from another self serving spin-off of the NICEIC

 

[Octopus]

Please see Information for Landlords & Responsibilities | Electrical Safety First

Hum.... every 5 years - what a load of tosh.

When I do an EICR, I give the recommended retest date based on the condition of the installation and NOT based on a 5 year term stated on a website.

 

[marconi]

See it for what? It just another in a line of 'guides' presenting opinions as facts from another self serving spin-off of the NICEIC

Mmm. I think I will disengage.

 

[marconi]

Hum.... every 5 years - what a load of tosh.

When I do an EICR, I give the recommended retest date based on the condition of the installation and NOT based on a 5 year term stated on a website.

If not an HMO, the reference actually says 'at least every five years'. I think we are agreeing.

 

[Octopus]

If not an HMO, the reference actually says 'at least every five years'. I think we are agreeing.

Er no... I may recommend 2 years, or I may recommend 10 years.

are you a sparky?

 

[marconi]

Er no... I may recommend 2 years, or I may recommend 10 years.

are you a sparky?

No, if by sparky you mean a qualified electrician. I am a chartered electrical engineer and chartered engineer.

 

[Merv]

How do you know the property is safe and sound?
An inspection by a competant person should be carried out before each tenant moves in.
I do such things for a local letting agent and some of the things I've found where previous tenants have fitted their own light fittings etc have rendered the installation somewhat less than 'safe and sound'

Well dave, you've answered your own question there.
The property would be safe and sound because it's been checked. It doesn't have to have a certificate saying as much. Which is the case with the vast number of owner occupied properties.

 

[Merv]

I apologise to marconi.
I misunderstood his second sentence about EICRs and newtenants.

Not surprisingly, my provocative claim that this idea issimply a money spinner for electricians has been sidestepped.

Which speaks for itself.

 

[Dave OCD]

I apologise to marconi.
I misunderstood his second sentence about EICRs and newtenants.

Not surprisingly, my provocative claim that this idea issimply a money spinner for electricians has been sidestepped.

Which speaks for itself.

So you think the EICR is an easy money spinner that electricians constantly push to do ? You couldn't be more wrong - personally I find inspection and testing tiresome,a lot of responsibility is attached and it's very frustrating when genuinely made observations and recommendations are treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' - because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

 

[Merv]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

 

[Octopus]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

Utter. Utter tripe

 

[Hellmooth]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like paying out for anything?

Just the usual then, talk about money spinners!

 

[Merv]

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

 

[Octopus]

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

Hum. EICR's are not just for landlords. I am doing one on Friday on a 1950's house to determine the condition of the installation and see if it's good enough to fit the new fuseboard the client wants.

Me thinks you've had a bad experience with an EICR. Have you read the best practice guide about condition reports which covers coding etc?

 

[Andy78]

Merv, You have asserted your opinion that electricians on this forum and electricians in general would like to see mandatory EICR to able to fleece landlords. Have you any evidence of this other than your own assumptions ? Are you aware this thread was started by a landlord and not an electrician ?

You criticise others for making assumptions about you as a landlord but that is exactly what you have done about the electricians on this site.

You ask what other conclusion could you come to other than electricians wanting a money spinner if the industry was to push for mandatory EICR. Has the possibility of a conscientious trade focussed on tenant safety never entered your mind ?
I think it would be fair to say that every electrician who deals with rented accommodation will have at some point come across a dangerous condition which is the result of a badly maintained electrical system. Could mandatory EICR prevent this ?

If you want clarification about the reasons and motives for mandatory EICR for rented property, you could contact the Scottish parliament as they will be bringing in mandatory 5 yearly EICR starting this December. You could aim your accusations of the industry being a set of money grabbers in their direction, although calling Scots penny pinchers may see you fall foul of asserting negative racial stereotypes.

 

[DPG]

Me thinks Merv is trolling on this forum to get a reaction. Don't rise to it. I can't see the point of arguing with him until he puts forward a reasoned argument with evidence. Daz

 

[UNG]

Well dave, you've answered your own question there.
The property would be safe and sound because it's been checked. It doesn't have to have a certificate saying as much. Which is the case with the vast number of owner occupied properties.

If you don't have any paperwork or documentation to back up any checks then where is your audit trail when something goes wrong

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

I assume you are a landlord by your comments and your maxim is "maximum rent in minimum expenditure going out"

I have met a number of landlords over the years and the one category they don't all fall into is that of "decent landlords" some will go that extra mile for their tenants while others will penny pinch as much as they can and do as little as possible to maintain the property.
I doubt anyone on here is trying to criminalise landlords for not having an in date EICR but if you haven't got one how do you evaluate that your property remains in a perfectly safe state. Should an incident occur which results in the serious injury or death of a tenant due to your negligence in not getting the appropriate safety inspections carried out then you have little or no defence when stood in court if you cannot provide evidence that you have adequately discharged your duty of care to the tenant

It can be seen from the legislation that is now being brought in to bring dodgy landlords into line that the decent landlords as well are being forced into licencing schemes costing hundreds of pounds because of the past antics of these dodgy landlords

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

Well I have not seen much reasoned and constructive argument from yourself other than claiming / whinging about a supposed nice little earner that electricians have and more so if the weight of law is behind it, how about these landlords who put their feet up while using other peoples money to top up their pension pot while criticising other people's ethics

From the tone of your posts it is easy to work out what type of landlord you are I just hope your tenants are happy and don't come to any harm due to your lack of expense

I trust the is post is sufficiently reasoned and constructive for you

 

[Octopus]

For Merv:

Read #4

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First

If you've had a report and the findings differ from this "guide", I suggest you take it up with the spark you used and failing that, report them to trading standards.

Happy reading.

 

[Merv]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?


This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.



No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

 

[Merv]

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

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

 

[Octopus]

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

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

use the edit button and go back and make the changes.

 

[Merv]

''whats a EIPR?''

Well that's a typo error Murdoch.
No doubt you already knew that.

 

[Andy78]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?


This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.



No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

Well seeing as it's something you've said all along then it must be right. I can tell I'm not going to alter your very set views as you don't seem to be open to alternative ideas.

The requirements you have stated are for landlords. It would unreasonable to include the tenant's property in the landlord's requirements don't you think ?
The landlord would be well within their rights either to not allow tenant's electrical goods or insist that they are tested. I have come across this stipulation by landlords many times before.

Can I ask if you also feel the same about mandatory gas checks, that they are a waste of money and a complete racket and nothing to do with safety ?

 

[Merv]

Thanks Murdoch.

 

[Merv]

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.

 

[UNG]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?

This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.

No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

Not sure what point you are trying to make the legislation was introduced because landlords were failing to excercise a duty of care to tenants not because someone thought electricians needed to make more money

No matter what appliance is connected to an installation if the installation does not meet the required standard then you are putting others at risk who through no fault of their own could be seriously injured or killed when using a perfectly safe appliance.

Why should a tenant have to have all their appliances checked just to please you, when you fail to understand that an electrical installation can deteriorate and failing RCD's can go unnoticed with possible fatal results

The only people to blame for all this legislation are the dodgy landlords who for years have evaded their responsibility by not providing safe habitable accommodation for their tenants for many years and are now being forced to provide accommodation of a reasonable and safe standard, the people I feel sorry for are the genuine decent landlords who now are down £300 - £400 every 3 - 5 years for a licence through no fault of their own

 

[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.