Mandatory EICRs in Rental Properties - 1 year or 5 years

[Mark_Burgess]

certificated safe by an appropriately qualified person.

That would be the same "appropriately qualified persons" that run these drive by EICR's currently!!!

 

[Spazz]

Any costs incurred would go straight onto the rent,
I am a landlord And my property is obviously well kept up together with gas and is to 17th, easy when you know how ey? Knowing my tennant, I would not Test this property again for 10 years, as they are careful, there is enough sockets not to need any extras, RCBO's etc.

I have a fair amount of testing experience probably nearing 1000 houses and I can tell you, other then DIY Disaster houses most remain in the same condition for years, it is just the DIY tennants which cause the issues,
and as has been said WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY TO CHECK THAT IDIOT TENNANTS HAVENT MADE THE INSTALLATION HAZARDOUS?
If they modify it against their tenancy agreement that is their fault , and theirs only.

This is just another buearocracy waiting to be introduced, another hurdle to jump over and another way of criminalising the common man,

The fact is, even in the very unlikely event of someone getting a shock from dodgy electrics it is very rarely fatal, as has been said before, this is a very minor issue,
It does not need legislation, there are plenty of major issues for the government and the public to be dealing with.

You get good landlords and you get bad, this will cost the good landlords money - and the bad won't bother anyway

I do agree why should we pay to check that idiot tenants haven't made the installation a hazard!
But you say that its their fault and only their fault - but think about it this way if a tenant modifies something and a landlord does not have it checked then the next tenant is killed (worse case) who is to blame?

THE LANDLORD because they have a legal responsibility to ensure that the electrical installation is safe at the start and during the whole tenancy!
I agree that this is not right but the problem is that this is the case!


somersetspark - you seem like a decent landlord - and like you say everyone that you checked is fine - again responsible landlords but what about those you don't check?

The problem is that those who are not responsible are the ones who let the whole lot down - same as with sparks and everything else!

 

[oldtimer]

Nicholas I mentioned the cost implications in post 13 dont get me wrong you have tried but the deal is politics and they are going to look after business first and this government is saying there is too much regulations plus small business needs less costs not more the problem is there are 2 types of landlord (excluding my daughter) one is proactive and keeps their cash cow in good condition the second is the one who takes every penny then lurches from one disaster to another when things go wrong.

Me I would stipulate a RCD CU and mains smoke detector fitted before the property can be rented plus as I have said a £120-£150 EICR every 5-6 years and a £60-£75 mini EICR for a change of tenants within the 5-6 year period. Remember gas gets more prominanse because of the deaths in rat infested properties years ago but right now and sadly unless there is more electrocutions then any new proposals will be shelved remember landlords pay council tax and income tax so nobody is going to rock their boat so politicians will shout about gay marriage because it does not cost a lot plus its a non avent but I hate to say not one politician is going to put their head above the paripit because he/she wants to keep there cosy gold plated pension and salaries in these harsh economical times.

I forgot to highlight that I have seen some bad tenants as well so its not all the landlords fault as I have visite properties where they have trashed the flat pulled the smoke head off the ceiling cos its not for me to replace the battery plus it was getting on my wick

 

[Spazz]

like has been said by trev - these are social houses - privately rented houses should be the same standard!

 

[trev]

Then again Nicholas wny are you not concerning yourself with rented shops or pubs? Have you seen the state of what passes for a safe installation in most pubs?
If you did you'd probably never go in another one

 

[Spazz]

I have seen some of these trev - not sure how I would go about that purly on the basis because there is no Part P for Pubs and shops!

I personally think there should be! and I will put this in the statement when Wales reviews Part P.

Personally every property should have EICRs every 5 years but this wont happen till every insurance company requests it!

 

[trev]

And as has been pointed out, when the insurance companys demand it the incidence of drive by I&T will massively increase, the costs will also tumble so much that it will not be worthwhile for anyone to do it properly.
Before you say it, yes I know that the only time it will be found out is if and when someone is seriously hurt, but Part P was intended to drive out the cowboys.
What exactly has that achieved?

 

[Spazz]

Plus as well all these decent landlords have RCDs installed in their properties and have them tested every 5 years.

So even if this did come into law these landlords who are doing this wont be effected anyway.


Is there anything wrong with electrical contractors offering a landlord package? which includes EICR and MEICR on a property and all items supplied by the landlord - PAT Tested?

Such package can be offered for something like (from) £32 per circuit: -
£20 per circuit for EICR
£10 per circuit for MEICR
£2 per circuit for PAT Testing (this will change depending on number of items)

MEICRs only need IR on all circuits (not individuality), RCD Testing and Zs - as well as a visual

We don't need to think about going in to deep (on MEICRs) unless something crops up but then this will be investigated accordingly

 

[Geoffsd]

Insurance companies would be demanding it already IF it would save them money.
So, can we deduce that they consider it not necessary?

What is a MEICR?
Are you going to introduce this first or make compulsory something which does not exist?

 

[trev]

Also "Should decrease insurance premiums"
I agree it should, but it won't