Landlord - Electrical Safety Certificate

[Octopus]

I'm guessing he's been paid................ but to charge £100 and not provide the unsatisfactory EICR, then charge £450 for a board change ........... did this include upgrades to earthing and bonding?

Do you have the EIC? Has he promised a Part P certificate?

So in summary, you are £550 down, and have nothing to present to the letting agents........

 

[Midwest]

Its all been stated, perhaps allow OP to contact the electrician

 

[b-spark]

Being a electrician and in the letting game, I can say if its registered with building regs. You are 100% legal, legally its gas and portable appliances which have regular inspections. Your condition report is only good until change of occupant. Ie you move out. It does sound like you have been misled on the first inspection, this could have been sold as a "visual inspection only" either way you would receive paperwork on that. By the sounds of it you will get to the bottom of it.

 

[davesparks]

Being a electrician and in the letting game, I can say if its registered with building regs. You are 100% legal, legally its gas and portable appliances which have regular inspections.

Please can you clarify exactly what you mean by being registered with building regs? Building regs are documents, nothing more.
Also please specify which laws require regular inspections of gas and portable appliances?

 

[b-spark]

Please can you clarify exactly what you mean by being registered with building regs? Building regs are documents, nothing more.
Also please specify which laws require regular inspections of gas and portable appliances?

I did respond Dave with a reply, "wouldn't post" This is HSE territory regardless of letting portfolio. I would go on to explain further. "Regs" my error, building control being the collective word. If its registered then legally the landlord has mitigated the risk. As we all know a fuseboard would require a full certificate of tested circuits. My old company was involved with these matters. which the HSE used such information to put a case forward involving a major contractor.

 

[Risteard]

As we all know a fuseboard would require a full certificate of tested circuits.

That's actually a matter of debate. An EIC issued for the replacement of a DB is simply certifying the DB installation as compliant with BS7671 as this is the scope of work. However, there is a need to ascertain that the safety of this is not impaired by the existing installation and will not impair the safety of the existing installation. So it's necessary to ensure that the protective devices (assuming of a different type) will operate in the required time and that the connections you have made in the DB are satisfactory. So some would argue that this can be met by verifying cpc continuity to the first point on the circuit as opposed to the last. It's actually a bit of a grey area as you are not in any way certifying the existing installation (although you should make any necessary comments on it in the appropriate section of the EIC).

 

[Octopus]

This is HSE territory regardless of letting portfolio. I would go on to explain further. "Regs" my error, building control being the collective word.

Precisely ............. so nothing to do with sparking!

 

[Octopus]

An EICR is like an MOT for your vehicle ................. only tells a story the day its done.

 

[b-spark]

What's that got to do with my post?? The guy wanted reassurance that he's safe. The whole point is that someone has taken ownership of the work. Again mitigating the risk of responsibility. Your right its an mot, but if that installation kills somebody. Then the contractor is found not to have a paper trail of procedure. Then who's fault is it? Not the landlord. The electrician. A house blew up a few months ago in manchester with a gas fault. HSE went for the gas fitter. Sole trader or not.

 

[Risteard]

The whole point is that someone has taken ownership of the work.

What work do you believe they have taken ownership of?

 

[davesparks]

Your right its an mot, but if that installation kills somebody. Then the contractor is found not to have a paper trail of procedure. Then who's fault is it? Not the landlord. The electrician. .

The electrician and the landlord could both be found guilty.

 

[b-spark]

The electrician and the landlord could both be found guilty.

Your right,
Only if they are in cahoots or limitations have been set by the landlord. If the landlord has employed a registered contractor received original paperwork, its the electrician who's to blame. Ask your inspector when he comes. Im not into this one up game, I'm providing my experience, my agents wont even allow me to let unless I have the latter

 

[davesparks]

Your right,
Only if they are in cahoots or limitations have been set by the landlord. If the landlord has employed a registered contractor received original paperwork, its the electrician who's to blame. Ask your inspector when he comes. Im not into this one up game, I'm providing my experience, my agents wont even allow me to let unless I have the latter

Inspector of what? The only inspector I ever see is the one who does our explosives storage licence.

 

[b-spark]

Inspector of what? The only inspector I ever see is the one who does our explosives storage licence.[/QUOTE
Well then you have no knowledge to even comment on this thread.
This is sounding very my dicks bigger than yours. And moving off the subject.

 

[davesparks]

It was a simple enough question, who is this inspector you are referring to?

 

[b-spark]

Your governing body inspector for approved contractor status or domestic installation. Relative to the thread. Niceic ECA Napit

 

[Noaksie]

Landlord certificate.... Crap what is required is an EICR this is a full inspection of the installation. "You need a new consumer unit" Heard that one too lots of times
You may well do but the Inspection recommendation codes on the EICR will tell the full story.
If a new cu is fitted then a EIC must be provided.
Make sure you use a fully qualified electrician. Not all the best tradesmen are NAPIT/NICEIC
Some of the worst quality work I have witnessed has been certified by their members.

 

[Octopus]

Your governing body inspector for approved contractor status or domestic installation. Relative to the thread. Niceic ECA Napit

Ha ha, that's almost funny.

The schemes do nothing once they have your money ....... Unless you use their logo and are not a member.

The closest the schemes get to inspecting anything, is the site YOU choose for your annual assessment ......

 

[b-spark]

So I take it nobody is a member?? I'm a industrial electrician and we carry the scheme, half the inductions I do request it, wouldn't get the work otherwise. All FM companies ask for our scheme before we get on the books. Anyway this is way beyond the subject matter.

 

[JK-Electrical]

I'm not sure how the law works down south, but up here in Scotland, an EIC can be used in lieu of an EICR to prove that the installation complies with the guidance relating to private lets. I quote from Electrical Safety Laws For Private Rental Properties In Scotland, as published by the Scottish Government:

You may have a copy of an Electrical Installation Certificate rather than an EICR if:

- Your property is a new build
- The property has been fully rewired.

If you have an Electrical Installation Certificate, you can provide this to demonstrate that your property complies with the new guidance, provided that the date of the next inspection indicated on the certificate has not elapsed.

However, there is no mention of an EIC issued after a consumer changeover being acceptable! Do the same conditions apply in England and Wales?

 

[Risteard]

However, there is no mention of an EIC issued after a consumer [unit] changeover being acceptable! Do the same conditions apply in England and Wales?

Because it isn't acceptable - it would only certify the replacement of the distribution board and not the rest of the electrical installation.

 

[b-spark]

Because it isn't acceptable - it would only certify the replacement of the distribution board and not the rest of the electrical installation.

Then a fuseboard would be a minor works. Not a EIC which it cant be. Your changing the makeup of the installation by fitting a new board. So should be tested fully. Otherwise you would have departures as long as your arm, either way the contractor would still be at fault.

 

[Risteard]

However, there is no mention of an EIC issued after a consumer [unit] changeover being acceptable! Do the same conditions apply in England and Wales?

Because it isn't acceptable - it would only certify the replacement of the distribution board and not the rest of the electrical installation.

Then a fuseboard would be a minor works. Not a EIC which it cant be. Your changing the makeup of the installation by fitting a new board. So should be tested fully. Otherwise you would have departures as long as your arm, either way the contractor would still be at fault.

How would you? Your certificate in no way relates to the existing wiring.

 

[Midwest]

I don't think both of you guys haven't made your points clear?

 

[Billsays]

Then a fuseboard would be a minor works. Not a EIC which it cant be. Your changing the makeup of the installation by fitting a new board. So should be tested fully. Otherwise you would have departures as long as your arm, either way the contractor would still be at fault.

I agree with b, if you change the ccu you should do a full test on the installation. If the installation fails in any way there would be a record in the "Schedule of items tested" and "comments on existing installation" using additional pages if necessary. The EIC should be sufficient.

And i know a lot of the sole traders on here frown upon the NIC etc but at least we get one inspection more than you guys a year!

 

[Risteard]

I agree with b, if you change the ccu you should do a full test on the installation. If the installation fails in any way there would be a record in the "Schedule of items tested" and "comments on existing installation" using additional pages if necessary. The EIC should be sufficient

You verify that the wiring won't adversely affect the safety of your DB installation, and that your DB installation won't adversely affect the safety of the existing wiring. You do not, however, take ownership of the existing wiring and the Electrical Installation Certificate in no way certifies the existing wiring.

And i know a lot of the sole traders on here frown upon the NIC etc but at least we get one inspection more than you guys a year!

Not sure what sole trader has to do with it. I have an annual assessment by the NICEIC and an annual inspection & audit by RECI so I'm certainly not afraid of having my work scrutinised.

 

[Des 56]

I agree
Where has this idea that changing a consumer unit involves testing the whole installation?
Where has this idea that having tested for safe connection of the circuits to the new consumer unit,it can somehow be a replacement for a Eicr ?

The Eic is for the work involved with the consumer unit only,the Eic will reference that particular job,in my opinion it has nothing whatsoever to do with condition reporting and the testing and inspection that a Eicr requires

 

[Billsays]

You verify that the wiring won't adversely affect the safety of your DB installation, and that your DB installation won't adversely affect the safety of the existing wiring. You do not, however, take ownership of the existing wiring and the Electrical Installation Certificate in no way certifies the existing wiring.


Not sure what sole trader has to do with it. I have an annual assessment by the NICEIC and an annual inspection & audit by RECI so I'm certainly not afraid of having my work scrutinised.

On point one, if you do a test then surely you have "taken ownership" (hate that expression btw) of the installation, last person working on it and testing it etc.

On your 2nd I think your on the same page as me. Our assessor comes around once a year but it's probably once a year more than the sparks on here who snipe at the schemes.

 

[Des 56]

it's probably once a year more than the sparks on here who snipe at the schemes.

I snipe at the schemes and they thoroughly deserve a sniping
In the last 10 or so years they have been nothing less than a complete and utter embarrassment to what was the respected trade of electrician

I say that as someone who has worked under their umbrella for most of my working life

 

[Billsays]

it's probably once a year more than the sparks on here who snipe at the schemes.

I snipe at the schemes and they thoroughly deserve a sniping
In the last 10 or so years they have been nothing less than a complete and utter embarrassment to what was the respected trade of electrician

I say that as someone who has worked under their umbrella for most of my working life

Your probably right Des, they are a racket!

But on your other post about "Where has this idea that changing a consumer unit involves testing the whole installation?"............
Once you have disconnected the final circuits from the supply, you have to ensure they are safe before re-energising them. You can only do that if you know ADS will work, the insulation is up to scratch and there are no mechanical defects likely to give rise to danger. So you're stuck with having to do a full test and all that entails, or you would be working outside the scope of BS7671.

Also remember you will have altered the breaking current of the protective devices if you've swapped out from a fuse board to MCBs, so they'll be carrying more fault current for a shorter time. Whether the existing circuits are up to this can only be determined by testing them.

 

[Risteard]

they'll be carrying more fault current for a shorter time.

How will the prospective fault current on these circuits have changed?

 

[Billsays]

Yes sorry i worded that wrong and can't edit it, the PFC doesn't change (but the new device can carry a lot more fault current)

 

[Billsays]

duplicate