RCD x1 on fuseboard

[Gavin John Hyde]

BG are awful. They trade off the historic name and reputation but the prices they charge and work they justify is often suspect.
A lot of it isn't even carried out by them but subbed out to other firms. Often the lowest bidder or on fixed price work per job.
So corners are cut to maximise profit.
If they tell you to get work done then get other quotes and don't use BG.
Personally I think, it's about time they get exposed on rogue traders again as they haven't learned.
[automerge]1586014309[/automerge]

The issue of EICRs during a house sale is a thorny one. I've recently had cause to go and look at an installation that the seller's EICR claimed was safe and satisfactory.

The EICR was used to mask an un-notified board change (to install RCDs because the original surveyor commented on the lack of RCD protection). The quality of the work was horrendous but because the EICR said satisfactory they proceeded with the purchase. It wasn't until a family member (my AM2 assessor) went to carry out some works that this came to light, he then asked me to go and take a look.

My advice to sellers is that unless you have genuine concerns about the safety of the installation, don't do anything. Let the buyers shoulder the cost, but keep in mind that the buyers spark may be under instruction to 'get us a reason for dropping the price'. They may also be the kind of spark who finds things wrong to generate work.

If the buyers report comes back as unsatisfactory, it might be worth having a spark you trust (recommendation from family, friends, have previously used etc.) spend an hour with the report and the installation to double check the report. I was quickly able to establish the EICR from the seller wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and that's given the buyers some ammunition in trying to recover the cost of having the place rewired which is what it really needs (whether that will succeed or not is another matter but two electricians have visited the property on their behalf and found it to be sadly lacking and not at all as described on the EICR).

It's also worth pointing out that an EICR can have observations on it and still be satisfactory. Observations are classified as C1 (Danger present), C2 (Potential danger - i.e. something has to happen for the issue to become dangerous), C3 (Improvement recommended) and FI (Further investigation). Any C1, C2 and FI observations will result in an unsatisfactory EICR. So if the report has C3's only, this is no reason to drop the price as the EICR should be satisfactory (i.e. safe for continued use).

I have seen a lot more cases locally of EICRs being carried out and then an indemnity policy arranged by the sellers solicitors (around £100 for a semi through to over 2k for a Georgian town house) to progress the sell. The downside to that is you better make sure the EICR is water tight as if its not the insurer will come knocking on your door first if there are issues later on.

 

[radiohead]

The downside to that is you better make sure the EICR is water tight as if its not the insurer will come knocking on your door first if there are issues later on.

Is there any actual evidence of insurance companies pursuing contractors on that basis ?

 

[Mike Johnson]

The EICR is like an MOT it's only valid up to the date of the document.

 

[multimick]

The EICR is like an MOT it's only valid up to the date of the document.

The indemnity insurance has to be agreed to by the buyers solicitors

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Is there any actual evidence of insurance companies pursuing contractors on that basis ?

Not heard of it but when you are talking about listed Georgian townhouses worth between 1 and 5 mlion pounds. You can be certain if something did come to light given the potential costs the insurer would look to persue a case against the indemnity policy and then the electrician in turn hence professional indemnity. When I did a EICR for a substantial townhouse last year which took 4 days to do. I had to get an additional cover provision to my professional indemnity for £5m coverage at request of the customer and his building insurer. Added the extra cost to the invoice. As my PI covers 500k normally. With all these things it's a worse case scenario thinking but at some point somebody will come unstuck with these poor EICRs.

 

[Mike Johnson]

The indemnity insurance has to be agreed to by the buyers solicitors

And what is that supposed to mean? indemnity insurance is just that it indemnifies the insured up to the amount of the insurance for claims against them.

 

[multimick]

And what is that supposed to mean? indemnity insurance is just that it indemnifies the insured up to the amount of the insurance for claims against them.

It means exactly what it says.I had a job recently the customer had no eic for new Circuits and no original spark to ask for one. I told him about ins policy optoon and the other solicitor would not accept one ended up with an eicr

 

[Mike Johnson]

I'm sorry I still don't get what you are trying to say?

 

[multimick]

I'm sorry I still don't get what you are trying to say?

If the seller of a property has had electrical work done and no paperwork to back it up then an indemnity policy mIght not get accepted .if the buyers solicitors for whatever reason won't accept one . Only saying because it happened to someone I know recently

 

[Mike Johnson]

I still don't get it, the Professional indemnity insurance policy is taken out by the electrician not the seller of the property, I don't get the bit about the buyers solicitor not accepting "one" one what?

 

[Midwest]

Think we are at cross purposes.

There's Professional Indemnity Insurance for trades persons etc, to provide them with cover should it be alleged to have provided inadequate advice or service.

And there's Indemnity Insurance a type of protection, purchased during housing transactions. It is a one-off payment for a policy that then lasts forever. It is used to offer protection if there is a potential problem with the property that could result in local council action or legal problems in the future.

Note, the later does not remedy the insured defect.

 

[multimick]

Think we are at cross purposes.

There's Professional Indemnity Insurance for trades persons etc, to provide them with cover should it be alleged to have provided inadequate advice or service.

And there's Indemnity Insurance a type of protection, purchased during housing transactions. It is a one-off payment for a policy that then lasts forever. It is used to offer protection if there is a potential problem with the property that could result in local council action or legal problems in the future.

Note, the later does not remedy the insured defect.

Thanks Midwest that's better

 

[pirate]

As I have said before, an indemnity policy purchased during a house sale to "cover" some defect is increasingly popular, especially amongst lazy lawyers. The policy does not cure the defect, it only provides monetary compensation in the event of a subsequent problem.
Historically they were used to cover problems with the title to the property, whereby some 3rd party might challenge the title. Thereafter the insurance companies offered them to cover situations where alterations had been done without Building Warrant or other consents. In the main, they are pretty useless. However, as above, the purchaser/his solicitor is under no obligation to accept such a policy, so it follows that even if the current purchaser does go ahead, a subsequent purchaser from him may not. Thus, they are a last resort, in cases where the risk is minuscule. A good and proper title needs no fortification.

Many lawyers are using these policies as a simple way to make problems go away. That is poor practice. Also, if a lender is involved, they have to be consulted over an indemnity policy, and often they will fire it back to the lawyer and say they will follow his advice. Neatly, that means that the lawyer himself, as well as the insurer, is liable in a claim if the lender loses out...and that is where the lawyer's Professional Indemnity insurance kicks in.
As the condition of an electrical installation is not (yet) a factor in conveyancing transactions here in Scotland, the (very) few insurers who offer indemnity for house purchase matters have not yet had to concoct another load of convoluted drivel to make it look as if they are covering the "defect"even if in reality they are not. This is a good thing. These policies were originally known as Defective Title Indemnity policies, and that is what they should remain-policies that offer some financial compensation for a defect in title to the property, not for some dodgy wiring. Title defects are usually cured by passage of time, dodgy wiring is not.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Thanks for the clarification chaps, it's no wonder I was at cross purposes, MultiMick replied to my post on the EICR and this indemnity is nothing to do with the electrical installation or the electrician.

I think the crux of any purchasing Indemnity is the words "third party" the seller being the first party and the buyer being the second party, the third party is someone or an organisation outside the selling and buying process.

 

[radiohead]

As my PI covers 500k normally. With all these things it's a worse case scenario thinking but at some point somebody will come unstuck with these poor EICRs.

I said this in a previous life on this forum and I'll say it again as I honestly believe people completely misunderstand the extent of what an EICR is capable of highlighting.
On all but very small installations 100% inspection is not realistic and anyone who claims 100% is lying or deluded. Removing hundreds of points and accessories would be excessively time consuming and impose an unacceptable cost burden on the client. It would also cause unacceptable damage to surface finishes and almost certainly introduce faults that were not previously present. The more disturbance the higher the risk. For that reason it is recommended that a percentage of points are removed for inspection, typically around 25% would be considered adequate, with the sample being increased if defects are identified. If no or insignificant defects are observed then 25% sampling will likely be deemed adequate, which also means 75% of points will not be properly inspected. If a potentially dangerous defect is present in that 75% then it may not be identified.
If following such an EICR a fire or electrocution results from that defect then everyone on this forum will be talking about dodgy EICR's and cowboy electricians, when in fact that scenario could befall ANY competent electrician on this forum.
Think on.

 

[pc1966]

I always though the sample inspection was more about determining the general quality of the original work than anything else. As you say doing 100% opening for inspection is utterly impractical.

But inspecting the outside appearance of near-100% is feasible and very valuable in case of damaged/burned examples, even if some are going to be behind washing machines, etc, and difficult to include (but ironically probably more important given the high load).

Similarly if you had doubts then I guess PFC/PSSC on each socket could be measured at a tolerable cost and risk, and that might show up poor connections (or more likely dodgy sockets), as a ring loop R check can also point to such things.