Slightly unusual request

[Dave OCD]

I have a customer with elderly parents who have recently moved into a care home and now their house is being sold. It's an ex Council House.
Somewhere along the long winded selling process the buyers Solicitor has picked up that a new electric shower circuit was installed in 2013 [Nothing to do with me] and there is no certification or Part P notification. The elderly people 'can't remember' who did the job.
I had a quick look and it seems fine and fed via a 1990s MK board, RCD protected with a 40a MCB. [I'd say this board was installed as part of a rewiring programme when the house was still Council owned].
The solicitor wants verification that this circuit only is safe, not interested in the rest of the install ! So I think I'll have to do an EICR just for this one circuit with agreed Limitations, seems a bit like a sledgehammer to crack a nut ! But it's crossed my mind whether I could do a Minor Works with the individual circuit I&T as the job description - it would have the necessary test results but wouldn't be 6 pages long !
I'm sure many of you will disagree but thoughts and opinions are most welcome.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I definitely wouldn't do a MWC Dave. I know it would be so much easier and I'm sure you'd 'get away with it' as nothing will 'probably' go wrong with the shower, but it's just not worth it. You'll be taking responsibility on the off chance anything does go wrong with it, plus the moral aspect etc.

As most of the others have said, EICR for the shower only.

 

[Deleted member 105166]

I’d question where/why the solicitor has raised the request? Probably due to LA search so may well be a notification with no certificate.

^^^ likely to be this. Out of curiosity, I'd ask what prompted the question. Or perhaps it's a red herring and simply a replacement shower was installed in 2013 on an existing circuit...

 

[GeorgeCooke]

The normal process when buying/selling a house is for the buyer to commission any surveys he/she wants, including electrics, at his/her expense. Just remind his/her solicitor of this.

Incidentally as a buyer would you trust a survey provided by the seller?

 

[Dave OCD]

I always intended to do an EICR as it's the accepted way to deal with this but it still seems ludicrous when only one circuit is the subject and so much of it will be irrelevant to the job in hand.

 

[snowhead]

^^^ likely to be this. Out of curiosity, I'd ask what prompted the question. Or perhaps it's a red herring and simply a replacement shower was installed in 2013 on an existing circuit...

It either come up from questions asked by the Sellers Solicitor, to the sellers, as to whether any work has been done in recent years or from observations by someone looking at the property, valuer or surveyor maybe.

The seller has an obligation to provide any certificates for notifiable work, but only for that.
Anything done prior to Part P or any other work like Gas boilers Unvented cylinders or new windows or building work near common drains done before the relevant regs came out don't count.

 

[Midwest]

It either come up from questions asked by the Sellers Solicitor, to the sellers, as to whether any work has been done in recent years or from observations by someone looking at the property, valuer or surveyor maybe.

The seller has an obligation to provide any certificates for notifiable work, but only for that.
Anything done prior to Part P or any other work like Gas boilers Unvented cylinders or new windows or building work near common drains done before the relevant regs came out don't count.

Quite right, and I believe there is a time limit for those provisions. However, if the buyer is not happy as to the state of the property, will either not care, walk away or negotiate a reduction in the price of the property, now that the matter has been bought to their attention.

 

[Toneyz]

Previously electrical certificates didn't have all these tick boxes it was expected that the electrician was competent and was carrying out the inspection part correctly (actually doing it) hence all these tick boxes were added.

 

[Octopus]

I always intended to do an EICR as it's the accepted way to deal with this but it still seems ludicrous when only one circuit is the subject and so much of it will be irrelevant to the job in hand.

Not sure I agree with this

A 1 circuit EICR should still access the incoming supply, earthing, bonding and the said circuit - and while the CU cover is off I would be taking a look at the MCB's etc and checking for loose connections and / or signs of thermal damage. etc

 

[Dave OCD]

Maybe I didn't word that very well and of course I know what has to be tested and logged, and whenever I remove a CU cover for whatever reason all connections are checked for tightness. Been in this trade for 38 years now.