Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 88 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 2974 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Landlord electrical safety certificate

Grumpy
Hi all, my father in law has a rental property that was completely rewired and with new split load CU five years ago. The installation is now due an inspection. Will the fact that the CU is plastic constitute a "fail"?

  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    This is up to the inspector. Whatever ESF or anyone else says maybe some justification, but it is still the inspector who decides. In many ways these "guides" are not a good idea, they are no replacement for inspection experience.


    Couldn’t agree more David but these guides are often considered as chiselled in stone. They even feature in the 2391 Inspection and Testing exam.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Found it.

    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/1037/26475


    Regards


    BOD
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Extract from the above topic:

     
    OlympusMons

    Forum topic level 1Forum replies level 4Social sharer level 0

    118 Posts

    Well if you are confused Andy, what chance do the rest of us have?


    Heres my take on it;

    115.1 (2018) says "For installations over which a licensing or other authority exercises a statutory control, the requirements of that authority shall be ascertained and complied with in the design and execution of the installation"

    The 2020 rented regs confer statutory duties on local housing authorities to enforce the regulations, they therefore have statutory control. And these reference BS7671:2018 unammended.

    BS7671:2008 also has 115.1 with exactly the same wording. So all roads lead to BS7671:2018 unammended. Simples


    Regards


    BOD
  • 0
    Really Lyle, that is going quite a way in the wrong direction. Such is modern education, everyone passes anyway!


    There was a post BOD, but the 18th in part 6 allows for older versions, and it is again up to the Inspector. It doesn't say one may ignore deviations from the latest regs, but take them into account. This is all part of the "Engineering Judgement" which an adequate Inspector should have in Spades, and my judgment says that tight terminals are not dangerous, only loose ones. A metal enclosure will slow the propagation of a fire and not provide much fuel (only paint) but it is not guaranteed to stop a fire.
  • 0
    Grumpy:
    Sparkingchip:

    Where is it located?


    You've guessed it, under the stairs, gulp!

     




    It is open to discussion.


    Andy Betteridge 


  • 0
    perspicacious:

    Wasn't there a post about http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/regulation/3/made  requiring full compliance with the 18th with no deviations?


    Well despite my best endeavours, Parliament doesn't quite understand the situation.

    R3: "(4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person ..."


    The breach seems to be clear - the installation does not comply with the 18th Edn.


    The problem lies in the next bit. No EICR requires anybody to do anything; but let's assume that they meant "recommends". That still leaves C3s to be addressed; and if the local authority decides to take action, off we all go to the First-tier Tribunal.


    What happens there? As it happens, I had an opportunity to speak to a judge of the Property Chamber of the FtT last week. In a case like this, the Tribunal would consist of a judge and a surveyor. The local authority would be legally represented, the landlord does not have to be. The Appellant (landlord) would have obtained a (favourable) expert report of his own. First of all, the lawyers might argue about the meaning of the word, "requires"; then they could spend the rest of the day debating the difference between a C1 or C2 on the one hand, and a C3 on the other and whether the latter imposes a requirement upon anybody to do anything.


    Now we have a decision from the Tribunal, but it doesn't end there. It could be appealed to the Upper Tribunal where finally (almost finally ? ) the law would be settled.


    I was told that the Property Chamber can be "quite adversarial".


    So there we have it: a bean feast for the lawyers and expert engineers.


  • 0
    "New Rental Law...requiring full compliance with the 18th with no deviations?"


    Only applicable to the new works or alteration. An EICR will use the 18th as a reference as usual practice. I do not think anything has changed much. Of course there will be many ready and willing to take the approach that the new rental law is a perpetual revenue stream and every five years kerching .


    Simply, the LA, if they are interested, are not really issuing a licence, as in HMOs. They appear to have more statutory control on rental, but that appears to be only if and when there is some kind of paperwork issue flagged up, usually by the Tenant saying...where is my EICR for my new Tenancy? or I have an EICR, says my abode is unsafe/ potentially dangerous and the Landlord will not do anything about it ?  Not that these Tenants are likely to know about this new requirement anyhow. Private Housing dept have always had some control on rental and [very very rarely] do get involved in unsafe  private rental if and when the landlord does not take remedial action to satisfy the LA.


    edited to make sense

  • 0
    Well 651.1 sets the Scene.

    The 651.2 expects us to look for danger and report, eg primary protection, fire and heat from a defect, ratings of cables CPDs etc, monitoring devices, deterioration, and defects which may give rise to danger. Then the notes.


    Generic list for inspection Appedix 6

    Previous editions fine unless they are unsafe.


    My comment is there has never been any indication from anywhere that a plastic CU is inherently dangerous, it only may become a fire risk if the terminals are not tight leading to excessive heating. Thus my remark above that the terminals should be inspected for heating and tightness and corrected if loose. (I didn't put it in quite as many words).

    BS7671 does not say plastic CUs are dangerous, most are not. It does not say they should be replaced. It does not say that existing CUs are non-compliant.

    The defense rests!!!

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    If it was compliant under the regs at time of installation and there are no obvious safety issues now, like big holes or a broken case etc, then it’s a C3, the current regs don’t apply retrospectively.
  • 0
    b6d24f0eb0586d808a3e8ccb12ca7e22-original-20200714_181815.jpgGrumpy:
    Sparkingchip:

    Where is it located?


    You've guessed it, under the stairs, gulp!

     




     


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines