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.

 

[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.

 

[Octopus]

Like I said
The law is already in place to protect tenants.
Ripping off good landlords simply to boost the income of electrical 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.

Do you really think that?

So you pay, say about £200 notes for an EICR every 5 years - that's £40 per year on your costs, or £3.34 per month. If your rental income can't cover that you need to either increase your rent, or sell up and invest else where.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There is a world of difference between Gas and Electrics.
Usually there is one or perhaps 2 gas appliance which need checking, Boiler and Cooker.
The test required are for gas leases, correct combustion and correct flue operation.
There is no need to go checking in lofts, cellars or outbuildings
No need to disconnect anything, or check that there are no sensitive equipment connected before conducting any tests.
No need to check old editions to consider whether something not allowed today, is acceptable, because it was allowed back in Nineteen Canteen.

 

[Darkwood]

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

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

Are you manually typing the posts or copy and pasting sections ... sometimes copy and paste can become disrupted if it is sourced elsewhere.

 

[Dave OCD]

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.

To me that's actually rather insulting Merv , in fact your MOT comparison says quite a lot about you I think, the vast majority of qualified electricians are honest, hard working and conscientious. I don't know where you go [or don't go] for MOTs but if you were willing to accept or actively encouraged an electrical report from someone who hadn't even visited the property in question you would deserve to be prosecuted !

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yep, never had to pay that much.

 

[UNG]

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?

I really think you are a troll

How many times do you have to be told that the legislation you are so against is a result of unscrupulous landlords who believe renting hovels is an acceptable method of generating income and not electricians who you seem to despise, a side effect is that this legislation requires the landlord to have the electrical installations checked in the property they wish to let unfortunately electricians don't do this for free and therefore make money from the transaction which seems to cause more friction with yourself

 

[Hellmooth]

There is a world of difference between Gas and Electrics.
Usually there is one or perhaps 2 gas appliance which need checking, Boiler and Cooker.
The test required are for gas leases, correct combustion and correct flue operation.
There is no need to go checking in lofts, cellars or outbuildings
No need to disconnect anything, or check that there are no sensitive equipment connected before conducting any tests.
No need to check old editions to consider whether something not allowed today, is acceptable, because it was allowed back in Nineteen Canteen.

I'm missing your point here?

A friend of mine does lots of gas certs, he's in and out within 30-60 mins max and charges £47 for the pleasure, so as Murdoch pointed out about £40 a year, no difference to making sure the electrical system is safe!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The point being, that there are a set number of tests which are required for a Gas Cert, and usually a fixed price to carry them out.
Whereas with an Electrical Report, there are no set tests, it is entirely up to the Inspector which tests if any are required.
Another problem, is that there is no Statutory requirement for an Inspector to be qualified, nor is there a code of practice for them to follow.
Add to that all the qualified Inspectors who have to come onto forums for guidance relating to which code should be applied for certain situations.
The current situation does not install confidence that any report will be worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Hellmooth]

The point being, that there are a set number of tests which are required for a Gas Cert, and usually a fixed price to carry them out.
Whereas with an Electrical Report, there are no set tests, it is entirely up to the Inspector which tests if any are required.
Another problem, is that there is no Statutory requirement for an Inspector to be qualified, nor is there a code of practice for them to follow.
Add to that all the qualified Inspectors who have to come onto forums for guidance relating to which code should be applied for certain situations.
The current situation does not install confidence that any report will be worth the paper it is written on.

So as there is people out there not doing eicr's up to scratch, they should be done away with?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The people producing dodgey reports, or EICRs in general?