Landlord Compliance - Query over documents

[Fiona Pearson]

Hello,
I hope one of you can help. I am a landlord of a buy to let property. The estate agents are instructed to manage however I'm not quite sure they know what they're talking about in relation to EiRC's.
I've got a condition report (attached) which says unsatisfactory. The estate agents contractor has since carried out works at my expense (which I approved) in order to provide a satisfactory report however all they have given me is a works certificate (attached). They're now saying that the premises are compliant but I have no condition report to prove it. Only an email from the estate agent saying that these two reports should be read in conjunction as they now prove the property is compliant. Can anyone confirm they're correct? I'm concerned that should the house ever blow up (exaggeration I know!) that the insurers won't pay out as I don't have a valid condition report saying that the house is satisfactory. Really look forward to hearing from you with advise.
Many thanks
Kind regards
Fiona

 

[westward10]

I agree with the estate agent, the works carried out by the remedial contractor have resolved the issues from the EICR and they can be used in conjunction with each other. However looking at the Test Results page from the Installation Certificate the column for "overcurrent protective" device should state 61009 and not 60898 and there are no rcd readings for circuit 2. The "cpc size" for circuit 2 should be 2.5 and not 4.0.

 

[Fiona Pearson]

I agree with the estate agent, the works carried out by the remedial contractor have resolved the issues from the EICR and they can be used in conjunction with each other. However looking at the Test Results page from the Installation Certificate the column for "overcurrent protective" device should state 61009 and not 60898 and there are no rcd readings for circuit 2.

Thank you so much for the response Westward10. Very helpful. Thank you.

 

[Octopus]

I would ask them to confirm the serial number of the test equipment too.....

 

[Octopus]

I agree with the estate agent, the works carried out by the remedial contractor have resolved the issues from the EICR and they can be used in conjunction with each other. However looking at the Test Results page from the Installation Certificate the column for "overcurrent protective" device should state 61009 and not 60898 and there are no rcd readings for circuit 2. The "cpc size" for circuit 2 should be 2.5 and not 4.0.

How do you work that out?

 

[westward10]

How do you work that out?

Was a bit of an assumption because all the rcd readings are different, if it were dual rcd a would have expected two sets of readings the same.

 

[Octopus]

Was a bit of an assumption because all the rcd readings are different, if it were dual rcd a would have expected two sets of readings the same.

My thinking - a poor EIC anyway...... "rushed" probably

 

[westward10]

I compared the ring final Zs readings between the two because the EIC seem wrong, the EICR totally different I know different meters and all that but never the less.

 

[Fiona Pearson]

Hello,
Thank you so much for this. I'll go back to the estate agent then and inform. Thank you so much both.
Fiona

 

[Risteard]

Can anyone confirm they're correct?

They are absolutely correct. The Certificate proves that the remedial work complies with BS 7671:2008 (2015) (and therefore that it is safe). You should not receive an altered Electrical Installation Condition Report - a new EICR would require a new periodic inspection and test of the property which would be pointless.

 

[Octopus]

A photo of the new fuseboard would be useful......

 

[Fiona Pearson]

Thank you very much. Fiona

 

[Risteard]

However looking at the Test Results page from the Installation Certificate the column for "overcurrent protective" device should state 61009 and not 60898 and there are no rcd readings for circuit 2. The "cpc size" for circuit 2 should be 2.5 and not 4.0.

Haven't looked at all of that but at a brief glance of the EICR they have used the term "live" incorrectly to mean line/phase conductor.

They also have coded "incorrectly" protected lighting circuit with a 16A circuit breaker which they claim should be 6A. The cable is listed as 2.5/1.5 T&E so I am curious how they have come to that conclusion.

 

[Octopus]

They are absolutely correct. The Certificate proves that the remedial work complies with BS 7671:2008 (2015) (and therefore that it is safe). You should not receive an altered Electrical Installation Condition Report - a new EICR would require a new periodic inspection and test of the property which would be pointless.

If that was the case shouldn't the new EIC refer back to the EICR ?

 

[Risteard]

If that was the case shouldn't the new EIC refer back to the EICR ?

It would be better if it did but so long as it has addressed the defects that is the important thing.

 

[Andy78]

I'm curious as to why the consumer unit was replaced.

 

[Risteard]

I'm curious as to why the consumer unit was replaced.

Perhaps they were asked to?

 

[Andy78]

Perhaps they were asked to?

I'm just going on the info that the work on the EIC was done as a result of the EICR. But no issues on the EICR seem to suggest a consumer unit change is needed.

 

[Fiona Pearson]

Hi,
The only instruction they had was to undertake works to bring the EIRC up to a satisfactory condition.
Thanks
Fiona

 

[Octopus]

Smacks of a "your plastic CU is illegal" .....

Dare I ask how much you paid for the work? and make sure you get your LABC Part P certificate too.