Change in the Law regarding RCDs in Rental Properties

[Spazz]

I have been in contact with my local AM about the need for a legal requirement for all rental properties to contain RCDs to protect against electric shock, she fully agrees with myself that this is a requirement which needs to be brought inline with the requirements that are imposed with Gas Safety.

I have the backing of the Electrical Safety Council with this, and now looking for the backing of all the members on here as well.

Please visit https://www.------------/pages/Electrical-Safety/434757336534379 and like this page.

This is now being put in front of the Welsh Housing Minister to get this imposed in Wales, then we will be looking at UK wide.

Your backing would be greatly appreciated with this


Admins please sticky this

 

[GLENNSPARK]

so does your witchhunt mean that all rented houses still using C/Us with fuses to BS3036 will need to either have these consumer units removed or an upfront RCD fitted....even if supplementary bonding is in place and passes a visual and test?....so i guess we`l just (2) it all across the board now shall we?..lol...

 

[Spazz]

In 2007 there were 267 deaths from faulty electrical supplies and equipment - an RCD would have reduced this!

I have the backing of the ESC, local MP and AM on this.

I fully know understand that systems which use no earth would not need an RCD, but most properties these days are either TT, TNC or TNC-S all which would benefit from a RCD for additional protection.

The other side of this as well which the ESC are fighting for is annual safety checks (EICRs) on rental properties.

 

[Spazz]

Also the situation as well which has been mentioned on here a few times about plumbers removing supplementary Bonding also tenants removing them because they don't have a clue what they are!

We are not looking at using the RCD just to trip in the event of someone being electrocuted, but mainly fault protection. How many of you have been to a property with no RCD and when you plug everything back in the RCD trips due to an earth leakage fault which could not be picked up without using an RCD because the earth and Neutral are fused together - hence not tripping the fuses.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

i aint saying that additional protection by means of RCD isn`t beneficial...far from it.....my argument is ..is that a perfectly servicable installation.....one that could be considered good for continued service may/would have various of its components condemned...just for the lack of RCD........look, when most landlords open their mouths..the first thing out of it is `how much`....if they dont like the price..they just wont do it..simple as....a rented is supposed to have a PIR undertaken on it at every change of tennant....and/or every five years in any case.....it just dont happen....the amount of times my boss n I go into these places....theres no IEC, no previous schedules nowt....it just wont happen....and whoos going to enforce it?...the turnips that are supposed to be enforcing the state of affairs as it is now....dont make me laugh...

 

[Spazz]

my argument is ..is that a perfectly servicable installation

How many landlords actually do this?

the first thing out of it is `how much`

Fully agree - this is what making it law will force them to do it

a rented is supposed to have a PIR undertaken on it at every change of tennant

This is recommended not law - This is what ESC are trying to do, and what will come part of the RCD becoming law as well

and/or every five years

10 years for a rented property - they are still domestic (as far as NAPIT are concerned) - 5 years for commercial

and whoos going to enforce it?

Insurance companies will require it or they wont cover them - same with agents
We have backing from agents and insurance companies saying if it is law they can request these as a minimum - no insurance no rental
Yes we will still get rental properties with no insurance but these are far between


All we are looking for is to save people's lives nothing more!
If we save 1 life then is it not worth it?

 

[Spazz]

Also the bigger problem is like I keep seeing on here is who enforces it?
The next best thing after a legal requirement making EICRs mandatory in renal properties

is to have a system where if one of us issue a DNO (for example no earth bonding) then we also required not just to issue the occupier with a copy of i but to issue a copy to the LABC, for them to inspect the property!
If the property owner does the work then have a system saying that they are doing the work - no requirement for an inspection.

We need to get rid of these cowboys who are doing notifiable work without notifying it!

There are several parts being disused part of this, but limits to what can be made public until things can be put forward.

Im open to suggestions from everyone on here to what also need to be made legal


this RCD has created an open door and this is where to put other ideas forward to what else needs to be put in as part of it!

 

[Des 56]

Interesting Nicholas that you had a positive response from an assembly member I doubt though whether that same response will be forthcoming from the Welsh government

I know its a little off track from your enquiry,but as you may know,the responsibility for part p in Wales now lies with Cardiff bay
I wrote a comprehensive letter to the minister John Griffiths

In a nutshell he said nothing will change,if things change in England,he will then have a look,if any change is then on the cards,they will then review part p

This approach will mean in practice that Wales will have the dreaded nonsense for many years to come,perhaps even years after England has waved it Goodbye

The response to part p may be an indication of the non priority that is given to electrical installation by the Welsh government
It should leave you in no doubt that fine words will make not the slightest bit of difference, whether you think Rcds should be mandatory or not,its a dead duck before its started


Here is the reply

The Welsh Government is currently undertaking a review of Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Power) of the Building Regulations and will be going out to consultation later in the spring. It is not our intention to carry out a review of any other areas of the Building Regulations until the Part L review is complete and the new Part L approved documents are redrafted.

We are aware that an English review of Part P is currently underway and through our regular engagement with the Communities and Local Government (CLG) in England (and the other administrations) we will monitor developments. CLG are also in the process of introducing additional “Authorisation Criteria” requirements for new and existing members of Competent Persons Schemes including the requirement of being UKAS accredited. This will require independent appraisal of each member within the schemes.

The Welsh Government will review the outcomes of the English consultation in relation to Part P and will consider this and any other future changes in Wales on the basis of evidence, with public safety being a key factor.

Any further changes to the regulations in relation to electrical safety would be subject to public consultation, therefore I would encourage you return your comments for consideration.

 

[Des 56]

Hmm.
I have no more to add,except, at least I get the thread back in the list

 

[Spazz]

Des - can I ask what did you ask them to do?
A review of Part P?

 

[Spazz]

The Welsh Government will review the outcomes of the English consultation in relation to Part P and will consider this and any other future changes in Wales on the basis of evidence, with public safety being a key factor.

This is what we are going down - I am in the process of getting up todate stats for how many where killed in 2010 due to faulty electrical supplies.

Interesting only 86 people died from CO poisoning in 2010 and the government issued that Gas safety certificates every year is mandatory!

Im sure we can persuade them 3 times more deaths per year as a result of faulty electrical supplies.

Also on the point of who will police it - who polices the Gas Safety Certificate?
The insurance company and Agents
So who will be left to police the Electrical Safety?
The insurance company and Agents

 

[Des 56]

Des - can I ask what did you ask them to do?
A review of Part P?

A review,no no no,I asked the only question that is worthy of being presented

I asked them to get rid of the failed nonsense Part p and leave installation open to anybody who believes they can install
Mainly because Part P was and is completely unenforceable, it is a waste of time and effort to all involved

I asked them to concentrate their efforts on Test and inspection,to be carried out by a registered Competent and experienced person only

 

[Spazz]

That makes sense what you said - they seem to have everything the wrong way around at the moment!

certified to install

Anyone to inspect and test


but it seems like that in other countries as well - it all needs to be done by competent registered persons, and everything should be sent to LABC so they can police it!

 

[Spazz]

But thinking about what you said Des - anyone can install under Part P - they just have to get LABC to sign it off!

But what does not make sense is that you have to be registered to inspect and test a new installation but not for an existing one!

 

[thekingiam]

until the goverment does a campain and pay for it on the tv the public are not any the wiser,if you mention part p to joe blogs on the street he is not going to know what your on about and probably does his own electrics himself from stuff he bought in b&q.the only time an electrician is called out is when something has gone wrong.a rcd is supposed to be the last point of protection. i do like theidea howether unless we battle all the failures then we may findmore of the public believing they can do work themselves and if the rcd don't trip then it is ok.

 

[Spazz]

I have also sent 20 emails to famous people asking for their support - firstly to get more public on board with the idea
secondly to spread the word - using their money.

Most people know they are meant get it signed off, but the problem is how many sparkys are signing joe public's work - this is what needs to be taken control of!

 

[paul_griff]

I have been in contact with my local AM about the need for a legal requirement for all rental properties to contain RCDs to protect against electric shock, she fully agrees with myself that this is a requirement which needs to be brought inline with the requirements that are imposed with Gas Safety.

I have the backing of the Electrical Safety Council with this, and now looking for the backing of all the members on here as well.

Please visit https://www.------------/pages/Electrical-Safety/434757336534379 and like this page.

This is now being put in front of the Welsh Housing Minister to get this imposed in Wales, then we will be looking at UK wide.

Your backing would be greatly appreciated with this


Admins please sticky this

RCD's are only a good thing, but this could only be applied at change of tenant

 

[Guitarist]

Sorry if I am missing something here. Are you saying that it should become law for all rental properties to have RCD's fitted, but the millions of private dwellings in the rest of the UK can continue as they are?
Surely a life is a life....

 

[Spazz]

RCD's are only a good thing, but this could only be applied at change of tenant

Why - how long does it take to change a main switch for an RCD? not long!

RCD's are not notifiable!

You only have to check Zs.

The problems comes where you have an earth leakage.

I normally insist in them having a full EICR done at the same time - then your looking at change-overs.
But I normally persuade them to have a full CU change and tell them that it includes a free EICR and I can do it for the same price plus I will also throw in 6 years work guarantee as well.

EICR is an inspection - you do a full inspection when you do a CU change
6 years work guarantee - standard with all notifiable work - but you make out its a free be.

They usually go for the CU change.

Out of interest how much does everyone charge for:
EICR and MK RCD change?
Replacement CU (10 way) - also how much does the parts cost?

Both have all earth bonding in place and no problems - simple change.

 

[oldtimer]

Nicholas I have done a similar thing with the Scottish Parliament on their review with rental properties with regards to testing and insisting on scheme provider members only that can sign. So what wrong with that well I had to remind them that if they did this it would be a restriction of free trade under European law an example would be the 2 boxers who could not get a permit to fight in the uk but because Luxemburg gave them one they could not be stopped from plying their trade as it were. I also highlighted that the Schemies had a conflict of interest as they were advising the committee but at the same time they would gain financially selling courses and registration plus I highlighted that the Visual Electrical Inspection Report was not worth the paper it was written on and enquired if it was a legal document why was it not included in the BGB.

Plus the regs are not retrospective so as some of the guys say it it passes muster then it ok so am i putting this down NO because it is either going to be the Welsh or the Scottish Parliments who will pass something a bit like the minimum cost and the no promotions on alcohol law up here that is being adopted by the rest of the UK so I ont think they will force the use of RCDs but more like push them in that direction or in other word get an EICR every 5 years but if no RCD then get it every year so economically you would be cheaper to get a RCD yes politics work in a strange way so all the best and good luck

 

[Spazz]

Thank note taken Oldtimer.

Im going to find out what the welsh minister says in reply to the letter the AM is sending him next week and see where to go from there.

I have a few more contacts and places to go.

I am posting all letters on the Facebook page so if anyone wants to follow it please do.

There is no harm in trying is there?

 

[spark 68]

The thing is Nicholas, an upfront RCD does not comply with the current regs, agreed it is better than not having one at all, but how would you square this, as in written in law ?, I know we have sometimes 'bent' the regs in some situations (again safer than it was), but for someone to actually sign and legislate to break the regs is another matter IMO.

10 years for a rented property - they are still domestic (as far as NAPIT are concerned) - 5 years for commercial

I think you will find the recommended Max is 5 years for rented accommodation, GN3 table 3.2, general domestic (private) is max 10 years.

Some LA's already have requirements above BS7671 (don't forget BS7671 it the minimum requirement) WRT RCD protection on sockets etc., and in some cases have insisted on this requirement on the private sector too, but agreed this depends on the individual LA, and it would be nice to have some consistency.

Some private landlord's insurance companies are also insisting on EICR's and RCD protection too, but again this is dependent on individual companies.

Part Pee, is bad enough (for many reasons), do we really want more 'ill thought out legislation' ?
Iam not disagreeing with you btw, but until the powers that be are all singing from the same hymn sheet, and/or get some common sense, I fear little will change, it is not that the concepts are a bad thing per se, it is just once the Government get involved, you just know they will balls it up, or balls up the implementation of it, which usually results in the legitimate trader being penalised, or have additional costs and paperwork heaped on us while the 'rogue element' will just carry on regardless.

 

[Spazz]

The thing is Nicholas, an upfront RCD does not comply with the current regs, agreed it is better than not having one at all, but how would you square this, as in written in law ?, I know we have sometimes 'bent' the regs in some situations (again safer than it was), but for someone to actually sign and legislate to break the regs is another matter IMO.


I think you will find the recommended Max is 5 years for rented accommodation, GN3 table 3.2, general domestic (private) is max 10 years.

Some LA's already have requirements above BS7671 (don't forget BS7671 it the minimum requirement) WRT RCD protection on sockets etc., and in some cases have insisted on this requirement on the private sector too, but agreed this depends on the individual LA, and it would be nice to have some consistency.

Some private landlord's insurance companies are also insisting on EICR's and RCD protection too, but again this is dependent on individual companies.

Part Pee, is bad enough (for many reasons), do we really want more 'ill thought out legislation' ?
Iam not disagreeing with you btw, but until the powers that be are all singing from the same hymn sheet, and/or get some common sense, I fear little will change, it is not that the concepts are a bad thing per se, it is just once the Government get involved, you just know they will balls it up, or balls up the implementation of it, which usually results in the legitimate trader being penalised, or have additional costs and paperwork heaped on us while the 'rogue element' will just carry on regardless.

I fully agree with everything you have said.

Again same problem consistency! always the same problem!
You mention that some insurers ask for RCD and EICRs but I am yet to find one. They all said to me that they cant justify it until the law changes!

ITs the same problem - passing the buck!

Don't forget that the BGB is not a legal document however if we dont follow it the bodies we work under wont stand behind us (not saying they would anyway), the insurance company would not cover us if something went wrong, and the courts will refure to it when they prosecute us.

As you and everyone keeps saying who is going to police it, what about the rogues.
Don't get me wrong I would rather a rogue install a RCD and hash something up (the RCD will not stay active) than the rouge not install one and hash the same thing up.
Don't forget without a RCD we are only relaying on that circuit drawing more current than the fuse is rated for for it to blow.

Think about it:

average human body = 1500 ohms (for this example)
Voltage = 230v

Ohms Law!
Current draw: 153mA - DEAD (100mA at 50Hz (230v) will kill an adult)

This would not trip any MCB or fuse - however it would trip a 30mA RCD within 40ms - saving the persons life!

 

[Spazz]

Dont get me wrong I fully agree with what everyone has said!

If I was doing this on my own then I would not stand a chance!
But as I have the MP, and AM on my side as well as the ESC I stand a better chance - and as long as there is a chance of saving these 267 lives (or even 1 of them per year) Im going to keep going.

If the AM and MP give up then I will have to really rethink the whole situation - but at the moment they see what I am getting at and the principal behind it

 

[ian.goddard57]

I totally agree with this. Definitely save lives. Tried to get in on face book but I cant log in with no facebook account. Not much of a techno whiz.

 

[Spazz]

create a facebook account - lol

 

[spark 68]

The RCD question is not in dispute, I agree they save lives.

I did some contract work for a LA, and they insisted that all sockets had to be RCD protected, and earthing and bonding brought up to scratch, although they stopped short of a full blown (pardon the pun) 17th ed upgrade, as the housing stock was due a full rewire and modernisation a year or two down the line.
This is what I meant about over and above BS7671, as technically they did not have to (the regs not applying retrospectively).

In one area, they (the council) ordered all private landlords to get a PIR (as it was then) done and again sockets to be RCD'd, bonding and earthing up to scratch within a six month timeframe, or they (the council) would carry out (sub-contract) the PIR at a cost of £500, and then force them to make good at additional cost to the landlord.

Iam not sure what legal stick they used to beat the landlords with (maybe withdrawing housing benefits ?), but this was just in one area.
I should point out this was a council regeneration (run down) area, ear-marked for improvement and threats of compulsory purchase on long standing derelict/empty properties etc., so there is some legislation already there, it would appear.

Also I did some work for a letting agent, much the same story as above, and they said it was down to their insurance broker, (maybe a higher premium if not done ?).

This may be the key here, insurance companies.

As I say, I was not privvy to what was threatened, or what was used to 'persuade' these landlords (both social and private) to carry out this work, but as you say they did not do this off of their own back.

My only concern stated in my previous post, is badly thought out/implemented 'knee jerk' policies, which add more red-tape and hoops to jump through for the legitimate traders (usually at our cost), while the unregulated cowboys will still undercut us, SNAFU.

Spark 68: it is not that the concepts are a bad thing per se, it is just once the Government get involved, you just know they will balls it up, or balls up the implementation of it, which usually results in the legitimate trader being penalised, or have additional costs and paperwork heaped on us while the 'rogue element' will just carry on regardless.

 

[Dave 85]

How many landlords actually do this?


Fully agree - this is what making it law will force them to do it


This is recommended not law - This is what ESC are trying to do, and what will come part of the RCD becoming law as well


10 years for a rented property - they are still domestic (as far as NAPIT are concerned) - 5 years for commercial


Insurance companies will require it or they wont cover them - same with agents
We have backing from agents and insurance companies saying if it is law they can request these as a minimum - no insurance no rental
Yes we will still get rental properties with no insurance but these are far between


All we are looking for is to save people's lives nothing more!
If we save 1 life then is it not worth it?

Although I rather agree that mandatory RCD's in rented properties would be no bad thing, it is after all a one off expense that shouldnt damage landords wallets too badly, I disagree about annual inspections. Absolute waste of time and money IMO. Why in the name of god would a tenant go and disconnect an earth bond that clearly states SAFETY ELECTRICAL CONNECTION DO NOT REMOVE on it, just because 'they dont know what it does'. Nonsense, wouldn't happen.

The chances of a small house with say six low loaded circuits and complete RCD protection suddenly becoming fatally dangerous every year are virtually none.

And your last statement: If we save 1 life then is it not worth it?
To be frank I'm afraid its this kind of attitude that has helped get the UK economy in the sorry state that its in.
The idea that to save one (probably not too bright) person in 60 million from accidental death ever, is worth literaly infinite amounts of money is just ludicrous. Personally i'd rather live in a country where my chances of accidental death are slightly higher but we still have an economy worth a damn. This is one of the many reasons the UK cant manufacture anything anymore, its just not cost effective with all the ridiculous H&S.

Evolution got us where we are today. Fatal accidents are what sorts the wheat from the chaff, why reverse it?

 

[Spazz]

Hi all, I have been off for the last 2 days due to work - Dave glad you agree with me on the RCD point.

With the comment of EICRs annually this is not me fighting this - this is the ESC!

When you say you doubt that a tenant is going to disconnect the earth cable when it is clearly marked SAFETY ELECTRICAL CONNECTION DO NOT REMOVE - dont over estimate these tenants!

I did an EICR on a property that I did a new CU change on only 2 weeks ago and the bloody tenant had gone off and disconnected the earth bonding off the gas supply where it came into the house. I only put a new bonding clamp on when I did the CU change 2 weeks ago as the clamp was not in the best condition and didn't have any labels on!

Tenants excuse was I didn't like the look of the label


its like I went to a property the other month on an emergency call out as the electric went off - opened the CU (old solid wire fuses) and the unit had caught fire - pulled out the fuse to fine that someone had bridged the shower fuse with 6mm cable as they ran out of 32A fuse cable - PRAT!!

So saying that these tenants are not going to do stupid thing is a laugh!

When I said if we save 1 life is it not worth it? - I was actually meaning that ain't 1 life worth saving - yes in theory we would be aiming to save at least half of the people killed per year!
Sorry if we save 1 life I personally think we are gaining something! Yes we need to work harder to save the others but come one!

You say the UK economy in the sorry state that its in!

Sorry the UK economy is in this state because noone is spending money and the government we have in place dont know the difference between the AR$E and the Head and not mentioning the Press - just look at the last so called fuel strike we where going to have! The pumps ran dry because every hour the bloody press where saying that this one was going to be worse then that last! same as the recession! We are not in as bad as they say! If they shut up about it for few days then maybe this country could recover with the rich spending money and then maybe the small businesses could actually start trading again instead of closing down!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In the year before the introduction of Part P, there were ten fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations.
You are stating that some two years after the introduction of Part P the number has increased by more than 2000%.
I think either your figures are incorrect, or you have tipped your lance at the wrong windmill.

 

[i=p/u]

have to say i know it as an average of 10 persons per year..

but contact the sun and get them to throw your story up . them journalists are good at blabbering something out... but if this helps the working man il be impressed ....

'its the world that we live in.......... thats me singling that

 

[oldtimer]

In the year before the introduction of Part P, there were ten fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations.
You are stating that some two years after the introduction of Part P the number has increased by more than 2000%.
I think either your figures are incorrect, or you have tipped your lance at the wrong windmill.

Spinlondondon I dont agree or disagree here but what i have noticed over the past 2 years is that our eastern european cousins who come over to work and stay are bringing their habits with them I had to fo in to a house after them and they fixed the bathroom lights for the landlord but some of them stopped working plus the new tenant thought he got a tingle from one of the MR16 casing so when I investigated they had removed all 6 trnsformers connect the cable straight into the chock block then got GU10 lamps and twisted the cable around the studs.

Now they think they are being clever but as we all know that is not the case

 

[Guitarist]

Have to agree regarding the press.... People are being told every day how badly off we all are, and many wealthy people are believing it, regardless of what they have in their accounts.

 

[Dave 85]

Hi all, I have been off for the last 2 days due to work - Dave glad you agree with me on the RCD point.

With the comment of EICRs annually this is not me fighting this - this is the ESC!

When you say you doubt that a tenant is going to disconnect the earth cable when it is clearly marked SAFETY ELECTRICAL CONNECTION DO NOT REMOVE - dont over estimate these tenants!

I did an EICR on a property that I did a new CU change on only 2 weeks ago and the bloody tenant had gone off and disconnected the earth bonding off the gas supply where it came into the house. I only put a new bonding clamp on when I did the CU change 2 weeks ago as the clamp was not in the best condition and didn't have any labels on!

Tenants excuse was I didn't like the look of the label


its like I went to a property the other month on an emergency call out as the electric went off - opened the CU (old solid wire fuses) and the unit had caught fire - pulled out the fuse to fine that someone had bridged the shower fuse with 6mm cable as they ran out of 32A fuse cable - PRAT!!

So saying that these tenants are not going to do stupid thing is a laugh!

When I said if we save 1 life is it not worth it? - I was actually meaning that ain't 1 life worth saving - yes in theory we would be aiming to save at least half of the people killed per year!
Sorry if we save 1 life I personally think we are gaining something! Yes we need to work harder to save the others but come one!

You say the UK economy in the sorry state that its in!

Sorry the UK economy is in this state because noone is spending money and the government we have in place dont know the difference between the AR$E and the Head and not mentioning the Press - just look at the last so called fuel strike we where going to have! The pumps ran dry because every hour the bloody press where saying that this one was going to be worse then that last! same as the recession! We are not in as bad as they say! If they shut up about it for few days then maybe this country could recover with the rich spending money and then maybe the small businesses could actually start trading again instead of closing down!

Im sorry, but if you are suggesting that the government we have in place is doing a worse job than the previous one, I am going to struggle to take anything you say seriously.

 

[Spazz]

Dave I didnt say that

The government in general - this one, the last one, etc.

Yes fair enough this government is new and we will have to watch where they go with changes!

 

[briand]

I qualified as an electrician when I took early retirement to become a full-time private landlord so I could correct any of my own electrical problems. Out of the 9 properties I own 3 are 16th edition 7671 compliant, and a further 4 have been rewired to 17th ed. I only have 2 to update - both have 3036 rewirables, and a single power and lighting circuit, so both will need a full rewire. I agree with the neccessity for RCD protection, but neither of my tenants will want the disruption of a full rewire! As both are long term tenants I'd love someone to advise me how to persuade them that its in their best interests!!

 

[Spazz]

This is one of the problems faced daily by all landlords!

Yes this is a different situation to most as these require a full rewire.
Yes they will have to be found alternative accommodation during this time, which brings its own problems.

Most situations a RCD can be inserted into the existing 16th Edition CU, or a change of CU.

Both are less than a days work if all goes well - yes sometimes things happen - especially in rented properties.

Dont get me wrong this wont be an overnight change - this will be something that will have to come in over 1-2 years allowing every landlord (like yourself) to arrange a suitable time which is the most suitable for their tenants.

I have family in the same situation, between my grandfather, my uncles and ants, there are over 35 properties which all will need RCDs adding to them, and most of these have not been done for the very reason mentioned above!

I fully understand, but we have to put safety before anything else.

 

[oldtimer]

briand if you can do it I would replace the 3036 boards with a duel RCD board and yes you would like to rewire but at the same time your are making the installation 100 times safer

 

[vernam616]

As both are long term tenants I'd love someone to advise me how to persuade them that its in their best interests!!

Erm... why not try " im the landlord and im rewiring this property to improve your safety, date when rewired is ??/??/???? thanks"

 

[Brown969]

Great idea. More safety and more enforcement please!!

 

[Spazz]

Just had this from a county council. Information containing the council, names etc have been data protection reasons



Dear Mr Owen,

I would support a mandatory requirement for shock protection to be installed in rental properties.

I would also support a mandatory requirement for electrical installation condition reports in rental properties.

My understanding is that there are two main pieces of legislation which impose statutory duties on landlords in relation to the safety of electrical equipment as follows:-

The Consumer Protection Act 1987
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

The Consumer Protection Act affects all persons who let property in the course of their business because it defines them as suppliers, i.e. they are supplying goods to the tenant. There are several pieces of secondary legislation under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act which are directly relevant to the supply of electrical goods, including:

The Low Voltage Electrical Equipment Regulations 1989
The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994
The General Product Safety Regulations 1994
The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994

These regulations impose a duty on landlords to ensure that all electrical equipment supplied by them is safe for use by the tenant. The Consumer Protection Act provides a defence of due diligence, i.e. a landlord can defend a contravention of the Act if they can demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence.

The Health and Safety at Work Act places a duty of care upon both employer and employee to ensure the safety of all persons using work premises. This general requirement appears to have been extended by the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 to include self-employed persons. In these regulations a self-employed person is defined as follows:-

'a self-employed person is an individual who works for gain or reward otherwise than under a contract of employment whether or not he employs others'

This definition would appear to apply to landlords and agents; similarly tenants would appear to be a group of persons affected by the landlords operations. This tends to suggest that the Regulations, which are ostensibly directed at employers and the workplace, are equally applicable to landlords, their premises and their tenants.

Having regard to the foregoing I would be inclined to class rental properties as commercial dwellings requiring inspections every five years.

An inspection at the change of every occupancy would be desirable as it would reveal any tampering or unsafe DIY work carried out by the occupant. However, where there is a high turnover of short-term occupants this requirement might be regarded as unduly onerous.

Yours sincerely,

Housing Standards
Domestic Public Health

 

[Roger]

Great discussion,thought I might get a early night but hey there's always tomorrow.

A friend of mine asked me to go round and see his parents as every time a light bulbs goes the one RCD that controls 8 circuits trips ! What can I do to stop this happening.She fell down the stairs as it was dark and she could not see !

In the last few months more and more people ask for a EICR because the solicitors have requested it be carried out for change of occupancy.
I have completed work for landlords in Surrey and Hounslow from many different social groups and the first thing they always ask is how much will it cost.
I have had stand up arguments with some insisting they have it rewired because its unsafe but they just seem to do the minimum to get by.
Letting agents seem to be a little more in tune with the safety aspects and generally don't hesitate on changing or upgrading.

A property I went to in the week had been modified by the tenant in the bathroom.He had complained to the landlord that the lights in the bathroom were not bright enough.He had his
eastern european friends take a permanent feed from the back of the shaver socket to feed 2 new lights,bayonet surface mount light no enclosure,no shade just a lamsp.The owner of the property was asking me that she could not find the switch to operate them,you had to remove the lamps.I explained what had been done and she replied 'how can I police this?'
A yearly inspection I replied .

keep fighting the good fight

 

[mogga]

IMHO RCDS are not the Beall Endall of electrical safety like some people lead to think and JoeBloggs doesnt understand the THS TT ect and time delay RCDs ect ect
What is required I recon would be something similar to Gas Safe 1 register of electricians By having so many schemes , D.I. electrical trainee ect ect the gov has created a right mess for general pbic who have to check god knows howmany web sites to assertain your credentials and if they dont check the right one and dont find the electrician who has just told them they need this n that They then tell their friends that said electrician Isnt qualified ecte ct ect the whole industry needs shaken from the core BUT this will never happen as most folk seen to be of the opinion "Its MY house and Ill do what I want in MY house!!"

 

[Guitarist]

Always amazes me that LBC will let poor electrics go, yet won't sign off an extension if your loft insulation isn't thick enough.

 

[UNG]

I think there are other crusades to be fought other than mandating the installation of RCD's in rented property

Unfortunately statistics are a set of figures twisted to suit the publishers requirements and don't give a true picture of the situation you only have to look at the statistics involving 4x4 vehicles or better still how green a Toyota Prius is!!

I think there should be automatic speed humps that are activated when somebody is detected exceeding the speed limit but it ain't going to happen even though more people are killed on the roads by speeding vehicles than are killed by faulty electrics, I'm not going to spend any time on this as it would not happen much as I would like it too

The economics of what you are proposing will only have an adverse affect on the rents on rental property by increasing them to meet the increased expenditure at a time when landlords are under pressure over what they charge and pressure groups are trying to get the government to legislate on rents and force private landlords to reduce their rents

Whilst I don't condone landlord's who's rental properties have unsafe electrics there has to be limits on the nanny state we have become, we have soldiers in Afghanistan getting killed has no one realised if we don't put them in the danger zone they won't get killed or seriously injured, may be we need legislation for that as well

It would probably more effective to campaign for a clearer inspection certificate system similar to the MOT system where a red certificate is issued when an electrical installation fails to meet the required standard and a blue one is issued if it meets the requirements and if needed advisory notes are clearly added. On top of that it would be much more effective if the regulatory bodies accepting these certificates I.E. OFSTED actually knew and understood what they where looking at as a few times when I have been asked to carry out inspections I have found fake or incomplete certification has previously been issued to the occupier of the premises

 

[Spazz]

What I did find out through the LADPH, was they cant do anything in regards to electrical as there is no law about it. All it states in law is it must be safe and maintained - there are loads of different ideas on how it could be safe and maintained.

There needs to be a more clearer layout here - e.g. shock protection in every rental property - this could mean: RCDs, RCBOs, Bonding, etc
Also with the maintained - all rental properties must undergo a full EICR - This could mean get a qualified Spark in or do it yourself - at the end of the day a cert has to be issued, and joe blogs is not going to know what to put on the cert - they will make up the results and it will be obvious with the R1+R2, Zs, Ze because they wont add up when you do the maths.
Then yes this will need to be checked but thats where the Agent or insurance comes in -they need to know how to check these certificates to make sure they are not made up!

Easy to do
1. Make sure no R1, R2, Rn readings are on Radial Circuits
2. Zs = Ze+(R1+R2)
3. Check who signed it
4. Reference method filed in correctly
5. RCD times are correct
6. conductor ratios are correct (2.5mm T&E - 1mm CPC)

These are basic things that joe blogs are not going to know, but basic training needs to be done so the insurance companies and Agents know how to check them.
Even have a system where they can pass EICRs that they are not sure on over to LABC or an agency that can check them.

Easy things!


Yes the best thing would be to have a law in where only those on the C-P-R can do EICRs but that will go against the law where anyone should be allowed to do the work themselves (cant remember the exact law or the wording).

Comments are welcome regarding the above.

I am meeting the MP tomorrow morning to discuss this so I want as many ideas as possible from everyone

What I am looking at is:
1. Shock protection in all rental properties
2. EICRs to be completed every 5 years for rental properties
3. EICRs recommended every change of occupancy
4. Insurance companies and Agents are responsible for ensuring these are done.

If this goes ahead I will add a part to my business which deals in checking EICRs so the insurance company and agents can pass them over and get confirmation that they have been completed inline with recommendations in GN3 as far as I can tell. And charge a small fee - the advantage I would have is I was party of getting this law in-place.

 

[Spazz]

I think there are other crusades to be fought other than mandating the installation of RCD's in rented property

Unfortunately statistics are a set of figures twisted to suit the publishers requirements and don't give a true picture of the situation you only have to look at the statistics involving 4x4 vehicles or better still how green a Toyota Prius is!!

I think there should be automatic speed humps that are activated when somebody is detected exceeding the speed limit but it ain't going to happen even though more people are killed on the roads by speeding vehicles than are killed by faulty electrics, I'm not going to spend any time on this as it would not happen much as I would like it too

The economics of what you are proposing will only have an adverse affect on the rents on rental property by increasing them to meet the increased expenditure at a time when landlords are under pressure over what they charge and pressure groups are trying to get the government to legislate on rents and force private landlords to reduce their rents

Whilst I don't condone landlord's who's rental properties have unsafe electrics there has to be limits on the nanny state we have become, we have soldiers in Afghanistan getting killed has no one realised if we don't put them in the danger zone they won't get killed or seriously injured, may be we need legislation for that as well

It would probably more effective to campaign for a clearer inspection certificate system similar to the MOT system where a red certificate is issued when an electrical installation fails to meet the required standard and a blue one is issued if it meets the requirements and if needed advisory notes are clearly added. On top of that it would be much more effective if the regulatory bodies accepting these certificates I.E. OFSTED actually knew and understood what they where looking at as a few times when I have been asked to carry out inspections I have found fake or incomplete certification has previously been issued to the occupier of the premises

Just to clear a few things up UNG.

The statistics have been provided by the HSE, so they are from the coroner and postmortem.

In regards to deaths on roads due speed is only 1%, compared to loss of concentration is 99%.

Speed is a factor don't get me wrong but it is not as big as it is mad out to be.

If speed was as big of a killer as they claim it to be - then every emergency vehicle which goes over 70MPH will have an accident or kill someone - they don't because they are trained to be more aware of their surroundings and what to look out for.

I know this as I was working with the Welsh Ambulance Service in 2007 doing emergency calls, and we regularly went over 100MPH. I left as I hurt my back at the end of 2007, still suffering now because of it - hence why I am self employed.


We will have to see what happens with the rent - but that is set by the tenant - tenants not willing to pay high rent wont rent from the higher rent landlords and they will be forced to reduce the rent to get the tenants. Im sure those who rent properties (on here and off here) will tell you they would love to increase the rent by £50-£100 every month but they know they wont get the tenants!

Dont get me started with Afghanistan - that is another bud bear and I am not getting into that on here!

clearer inspection certificate system similar to the MOT system - This is part of what I am looking at -we will see what options and how it can work - ideas welcome.
Electrics are exactly the same as MOTs - Pass, Pass with conditions, Fail. This is effectively in place now but not done how it should:
PASS - EICR
PASS with conditions - EICR
FAIL - EICR and Electrical Danger Notice

I also what the EDNs to become more used in rental properties, but we will see what happens there.

I am more than happy to issue a EDN if there is a problem in rental properties that I see when I do other work.
Say Im painting a wall, or tiling and I dont see any bonding - I will check it out and if none in place a EDN is issued. I find people are scared of these EDNs because they think that we are touting for work - short story - we issue one - covering our backs, its upto he landlord to do the work or not.

I also have yellow forms I have made called Electrical Condition Notices, exactly the same as the old advisories (on a separate page) with MOTs.

 

[Des 56]

Nicholas,I wish you well with your meeting,but in all honesty,after replying in a thread where a builder, after 5 weeks is considered better equipped to be a spark than a fully qualified maintenance electrician,there are many in this industry who dont understand the role of an electrician, never mind those external to the industry

You are dealing with politicians who may be genuinely concerned about safety, but that safety will be judged by its priority in this society, the perception of the dangers of using electricity are not high,whether justified or not and the priority irrelevant of any costs is extreemly low

My own conclusion is that note should be taken of this link
Google Image Result for http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iXZOlOSO2qM/TVOiT3CXvVI/AAAAAAAABJQ/32VHgs_ypxg/s1600/dead%2Bhorse.gif

 

[Spazz]

Thank you for your advice.

I fully agree with what you say with the politicians but with all respect people being killed because of electrocution and fires due to faulty electrics is very important - and there are more with regards to electrical compared to gas! And the government have passed a law in regards to that! Cut off vales, CO detectors, annual inspections, etc - where as with electrical - nothing!

I have seen the result of electrocution first hand!
I have also see the result of faulty gas first hand!

I have been in this game for 6 years (1 year registered - 5 years through LABC). I know this is nothing compared to others and I take my hat off to them! Full respect!

If no one stands up and fights for our safety then nothing will be done.
I have the ESC on-board and they think I am going the right way about it, so do the LABC and public Health Departments of several councils, some of them already have these requirements in-place but they are having problems reinforcing them.

I am not on my own here with this campaign - I am leading it, but there are over 400 others behind the scene who fully supports it and helping with bringing this forward.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There's a numbert of issues with this thread.
Firstly the stastistics:
Prior to the introduction of Part P, it was widely purported that there were on average 30 fatalities per year in England and Wales caused by electricity in domestic dwellings.
In fact there were on average 34 per year for all types of installations, including 10 per yaer on the railways.
The stastistics however indicate that on average there were only 4 per year in domestic dwellings, in the whole of Great Britain.
In the first year of Part P, this number increased to 10, and in the second year to 13, unfortunately there has been a change in the reporting of the cause of death, and there are no reliable figures for any time after March 31st 2006.
Looking at the stastistics, it would appear that rather than requiring RCD protection in domestic installations, it would have had more impact on safety, to require RCD protection in commercial/industrial installations. It should also be noted that many of the fatalities on the Railways, involved persons coming into contact with the third rail, as such I doubt whether RCD protection would have had much of an impact.
It has been suggested, that a scheme similar to Corgi/Gas Safe be introduced.
The Corgi/Gas safe scheme allows home owners and tennants to conduct work on their own gas installations, and requires anyone else offering to conduct gas work for remuneration to be fully qualified and licenced.
At present, there are a number of schemes licncing electricians for Part P, or for commercial/industrial work. One of the largest being the JIB, which only really covers commercial/industrial work.
Unfortunately many qualified electricians are unable to obtain an 'electrician' grade through the JIB, whilst many of the schemes will licence unqualified persons, some of whom are not electricians, but are in fact plumbers or kitchen fitters.
With regards to the Landlords safety Certificates:
From what I understand, a gas safety Certificate, only really covers a very few appliances such as boilers, cookers (if provided by the landlord) and gas fires.
Whereas a PIR/EICR covers a whole installation (but not any appliance), and should involve (visual inspections not withstanding) much more work and time.
As such the cost should be much greater, and would vary according to the size of the installation.
As has already been pointed out, someone will have to pay for this, most likely the tennant.
There are the added complications, that at present the PIR/EICR allows for limitations, which is not something allowed for with gas safety certificates, and there are variuos codes that can be applied ranging from immediately dangerous (should be condemned) to it's not quite right, could be improved. Again something the gas safety certificate doesn't allow for.
Then there's the legal standing.
As I understand it, a gas engineer can disconnect a supply, if in their opinion the situation warrents it, whereas currently an electrician cannot, without obtaining the client's agreement.
I assume that some record is made somewhere, when a gas installation is condemned?