Change in the Law regarding RCDs in Rental Properties

[IQ Electrical]

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?

Excellent post and figures more in-line with what I've been able to find.
In my opinion, a statutory requirement for periodic inspection to be written into the Landlord & Tenant Act would be far more beneficial.

More and more landlords are being forced on to Local Authority approved lists and this would be an ideal way of policing inspection requirements.

 

[oldtimer]

Nicholas
just a couple of points or 2 I have wriiten to the Scottish Parliment about 3 months ago as they are doing a review also. I have highlighted.

1. Insisting on Scheme membership would breach European free trade law.
2. There is a clear conflict of interests that the 2 scheme providors advising the committee will gain finacially.
3. A visual electrical condition report is not worth the paper its written on plus its not even ref in the BGB.
4. An EICR every 5 years well yep but an EICR every time a change of occupancy is a problem for landlords as the cost will have to be picked up by the tenant which will have to apply to social housing so why noy an EICR every 5 years with a baby EICR if there is a change of tenant in this time ie Zs readings RCD tests a lot better than a visual that means nothing.

Also in the current economical climate it would be suicide it impose more regulation onto private and social landlords yes this would keep someone in work but tell that to the tenant or family whose income has collapsed dont get me wrong I want to see a safe system in place but me thinks this current government who are talking about abolishing regulations to free up growth is not going to say yes please to more of it.

The other thing is PAT testing from what I can pick up they are going to change this in August and are talking about some environments that should not be tested , stop testing class II (visual only) and changing the intervals

 

[Spazz]

Just looked at the stats that ESC sent me - I took the number of deaths from accidental Fires in UK in 2007.

These are the correct stats:
21,424 Fires as result of Faulty Electrics (supplies & Equipment)
49 Deaths from Electrical Related Fires - 2007 (26 in 2010-2011)
3,477 Injuries from Electrical Fires - 2007 (1,204 in 2010-2011)

19 Deaths from Electric Shock in Domestic Homes
2,788 Injuries from Electric Shock



Deaths from CO Poisoning in 2010-2011 - 14 (13 in 2007)
Injuries from CO Poisoning in 2010-2011 - 343


2010 stats are from HSE and Fire Statistics

Thanks for pointing it out spinlondon

 

[Guitarist]

So, what you are saying is that electrics are more dangerous than gas, yet gas fitters can disconnect a supply if it is deemed dangerous, but we can't?

Sorry to sound thick (I did ask this before), but why are rental properties important, yet private premises aren't? Surely if there is a campaign to improve H&S it should apply to all properties and not just those for rent?

 

[IQ Electrical]

So, what you are saying is that electrics are more dangerous than gas, yet gas fitters can disconnect a supply if it is deemed dangerous, but we can't?

Sorry to sound thick (I did ask this before), but why are rental properties important, yet private premises aren't? Surely if there is a campaign to improve H&S it should apply to all properties and not just those for rent?

I don't think it's about 'importance' but often the installations in rental properties are in a far worse condition than that of privately owned property.
The landlord has a duty of care so any legislation can be applied and enforced through that.
In some cases, the tenant only has the legal route to force landlords to carry out repairs.

 

[Spazz]

Thanks IQ, could not have put it better myself

The other thing on top is the situation where
if someone dies in a rental property - who is to blame/up on stand infront of the wigs - The landlord
if someone dies in their own home - who is to blame/up on stand infront of the wigs - The mother/father of the dead child or even the person who was killed.

Its the blame society - also landlords have a duty to maintain their electrical installation - the private homeowner has the moral responsibility to maintain.

All life is important but the law can only make landlords do things and people who install in the first place.

Its down to the owner to look after their own safety noone-elses - where as the rental property the buck always stops at the landlord

This is to protect them, not to punish them as most think!

 

[snowhead]

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?

A Gassafe engineer CANNOT disconnect gas appliances or gas pipework WITHOUT the agreement of the responsible person (home owner, building Manager etc.). I'm also Gassafe registered.

If the situation is such that the responsible person refuses, then the Gassafe engineer reports this to the Transporter (National Grid, formerley Transco) who if they also think it is dangerous can disconnect without permission.

The same system could be used in the Electricity industry, but given some of the typical responses from the DNO, the law would have to be changed to compel them to investigate

 

[Geoffsd]

There seems to be some misinformation behind the proposal and naivety of how things in the legislature work.

If these (however many) deaths and injuries could be prevented by stipulations from the insurance companies then it is certain that they would have made them already - purely for financial reasons.

 

[Guitarist]

I don't think it's about 'importance' but often the installations in rental properties are in a far worse condition than that of privately owned property.
The landlord has a duty of care so any legislation can be applied and enforced through that.
In some cases, the tenant only has the legal route to force landlords to carry out repairs.

I understand what you are saying, but living in a mainly "retired" area I see many, many old peoples' houses with old and sometimes dangerous electrics. I often advise work to make the places safer, but many elderly either can't afford it or just won't part with their cash. If there is going to be a law, it should apply to all installations. I'm sure that if the figures were broken down further, it wouldn't be rental properties which were any more responsible for injury or loss of life.

 

[snowhead]

If there is going to be a law, it should apply to all installations. I'm sure that if the figures were broken down further, it wouldn't be rental properties which were any more responsible for injury or loss of life.

Any changes in Law /Regs would not and could not be retrospective.
It would be unenforceable.

 

[oldtimer]

Yep its all about timing RCDs were only quoted when they became cheap to manufacture but right now you have the regulators trying to justify their jobs and the law makers trying to rip up regulation interesting times indeed

 

[Spazz]

I understand what you are saying, but living in a mainly "retired" area I see many, many old peoples' houses with old and sometimes dangerous electrics. I often advise work to make the places safer, but many elderly either can't afford it or just won't part with their cash. If there is going to be a law, it should apply to all installations. I'm sure that if the figures were broken down further, it wouldn't be rental properties which were any more responsible for injury or loss of life.

For everyone's information there are grants available through most councils for electrical work - called small works grants/minor works grants
This gives a one off grant for over 65s to get work done on their homes, there are conditions but most over 65s do fall into the criteria.

The biggest part of the criteria with regards to electrical work is the existing installation must not be safe (could be no RCD or no bonding), or the work will make the property alot safer than it currently is.


But saying this - I a still having old aged ladies turning down free CU changes (from solid fuses - no RCD or bonding) because their daughter says they dont need it because its been fine as it is for the last 60 years.

BIG HINT 60 years - it needs checking at least!!



I have looked and still looking for statistics for rental property deaths but cant find any.


Just to clear this up as it keeps coming up - this would only apply to rental properties as with owned homes, this cant be reinforced - it is currently recommended but that is down to us to push how important it is to have RCDs in place.

 

[Spazz]

I have just seen this several times on the ESC website and their documents:

"Landlords of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), have a legal obligation to have a periodic inspection carried out on the HMO property every 5 years."
​

in The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006

It would be interesting to see what the response is from these landlords if we told them this!

I already know the response - its not law! - it clearly is!!




And also in The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Wales) Regulations 2006
[h=2]Duty of manager to supply and maintain gas and electricity[/h]6.—(1) The manager must supply to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing from that authority the latest gas appliance test certificate which the manager has received in relation to the testing of any gas appliance at the HMO by a recognised engineer.(2) In paragraph (1), “recognised engineer” (“peiriannydd cydnabyddedig”) means an engineer recognised by the Council of Registered Gas Installers as being competent to undertake such testing.(3) The manager must—

(a)​

ensure that every fixed electrical installation is inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding five years by a person qualified to undertake such inspection and testing;

(b)​

obtain a certificate from the person conducting that test, specifying the results of the test; and

(c)​

supply that certificate to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing for it from that authority.
(4) The manager must not unreasonably cause the gas or electricity supply that is used by any occupier within the HMO to be interrupted. ​

 

[jase]

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

what about reg 314?

 

[Spazz]

what about reg 314?

What about it:

314.1 - Every installation shell be divided into circuits, as necessarily,


All CUs which are compatible for RCDs to be fitted are divided into circuits - yet to find one which aint!
This regulation is on about circuits not split load with RCDs.

Also check out the EIC - there is a section on there for when Main Switches are RCDs.

 

[spark 68]

Nicholas,

Jase is correct, even dual split RCD boards don't fully comply to the 17th ed, and this was a misnomer from the start on cost grounds, ie, the so-called 17th ed CU.

The only way to fully comply is to have seperate RCBO's for each final circuit.

see 314.2

I have already brought this to your attention once further back in this thread, it would help your cause considerably if you knew the regs you were advocating.

 

[Spazz]

as said in another thread the regulations are not retrospective.

 

[spark 68]

as said in another thread the regulations are not retrospective.​

True, until you start altering circuits and protection etc., your alterations have to comply with the current regs.

 

[Spazz]

Nicholas,

Jase is correct, even dual split RCD boards don't fully comply to the 17th ed, and this was a misnomer from the start on cost grounds, ie, the so-called 17th ed CU.

The only way to fully comply is to have seperate RCBO's for each final circuit.

see 314.2

I have already brought this to your attention once further back in this thread, it would help your cause considerably if you knew the regs you were advocating.

In regards to 314.2 - this can be read in so many different ways - It mentions about those circuits are not effected by the failure of of other circuits, an RCD is fault protection.

This is the problem with the regs there are so many different ways to read it - 314 (in general) is talking about MCBs and fuses (as far as the ESC are concerned), plus why would they make a 17th Ed board which does not comply - they wouldn't!

I do see your point thought!

 

[Spazz]

This is also why when installing a split board you install up lights on same RCD as bottom ring and bottom lights on same RCD as top ring.

 

[spark 68]

314.2 seperate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be seperately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits...


It does not mention OCPD anywhere in that reg, only protection devices.
This is BS7671, the ESC don't write the regs.

Iam not trying to nit pick, but you are talking about legislation, and this needs to be properly thought out and water tight.

 

[Geoffsd]

Just to point out that a 'House of Multiple Occupancy' is, for example, one property let to several tenants (e.g. student houses).

There are no regulations (apart from duty of care) for rented houses, flats etc. as far as the electrical installation is concerned.



Nicholas: This will not happen.

 

[Spazz]

Spark 68 - just to clear this up this is not legislation - this is regulations

legislation is law
Regulations are not

them with wigs will follow the Regs though but if you have a good reason to differ that will sand up then you can

 

[spark 68]

Iam talking about regulations too, you are talking about changing the law (title of this thread), ergo legislation, if you are going to change the law, then you need to be very clear on your proposals.

Edit: look at the mess that is part P, this was not thought out properly either, and yes I pay for registration because it is the law.

 

[spark 68]

Nicholas Owen: plus why would they make a 17th Ed board which does not comply - they wouldn't!

I have already said there is no such animal, it does not exist except in marketing speak.

even dual split RCD boards don't fully comply to the 17th ed, and this was a misnomer from the start on cost grounds, ie, the so-called 17th ed CU.

 

[UNG]

I think this thread should be renamed fatally flawed statistics

You and your 400 accomplices are trying to bulldoze government to introduce legislation with statistics that are not worth the thread they are posted in I just hope you keep it in Wales.

You post statistics with big numbers yet no breakdown to support this crusade, as with all statistics they distort and twist the truth to suit the authors needs and very rarely show the true picture due to poor analysis of the raw data and incidents being placed in the wrong category

It has to be said that statistics are like a broken lamp standard great for leaning on but they don't show any light

You quote HMO regs yet these are already regulated as far as I'm aware by licence which is renewed every 3 or 5 years and documents and premises are checked by the council

I for one would oppose more nanny state legislation like I oppose Part P as a useless not fit for purpose waste of space

If it did get to law you could have a new business opportunity going round to rented accom pressing the test button every 3 months as I bet the occupier wouldn't do it and I've seen a lot of RCD's that don't trip because of this when they are really needed

In terms of time spent lobbying to get this into law and the costs you are obviously incurring I cannot see what motive you have and can only assume you are hoping to recoup your outlay by this hitting the statute book and gaining more business from it although I do think you under estimate the ability of an insurance company to read an EICR

How about a poll on the forum to see how many support what you are proposing

 

[Guest123]

How about a poll on the forum to see how many support what you are proposing

I'd be happy to arrange it mate, if the op agrees.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'd be happy to arrange it mate, if the op agrees.

Ha, I thought you meant the topic title change!

 

[Strima]

Who'd be responsible for conducting 3 monthly tests of the RCD's. I'd quite happily charge £35 a time to turn up at the door and press a couple of buttons and fill in a bit of paperwork. Who'd pay for this? Bet the tenant ends up paying adding extra financial burden.

Sidenote: According to Vic Reeves 76% of statistics are made up!!!

 

[Knobhead]

89% of Vic Reeves is made up = 11% true.
76% false statistics= 24% true
So 11% of 24% = 2.64% of statistics could be true.

This thread is getting silly.

 

[FatBob]

Pulling this back on topic, until someone invents a better device than a RCBO I will continue to fit them on every final circuit where I can. We are all responsible for the circuit that is connected to this, and if you want to end up in court, working on rented accommodation is a good place to improve your chances. You will be asked the reasons for the design and work you have carried out in great detail. Cost is never on a courts agenda; looking after the tenants best interests will be.

Decent Landlords generally understand their obligations, and I find, will let you fit or upgrade to, the safest, and lowest maintenance installation possible.

 

[Spazz]

For latest updates on this matter please visit the facebook page where you will find a few letters received from Local Authority Public Protection Department.

I will be approaching all Local Authorities in England over the next few weeks so keep an eye on the Facebook page to see what your local authority's views are!

https://www.------------/pages/Electrical-Safety/434757336534379

 

[Guest123]

And for those of us that find Facebook abhorrent???

 

[Spazz]

Sorry all letters are posted on there - create a facebook account and keep track.

At the moment its just letters and replies on there from different LAs.

Im waiting for the response from what my AM and MP are doing now on my behalf then I will post them on here.

 

[Guest123]

I would rather eat my own face than create a facebook account.

Sorry.

 

[Spazz]

Thats fine Lenny - anything big I will be posting it on here.

Where you from Lenny as I see your SW

 

[Spazz]

I just tried the link when not logged into facebook and it loads fine - so try going clicking the link below and you should see the page.
https://www.------------/pages/Electrical-Safety/434757336534379?ref=notif&notif_t=page_new_likes

 

[Guest123]

Where you from Lenny as I see your SW

Not a million miles away from you byt the look of it.

Was down in Dale today infact. Lovely view of the refinery across the bay.

 

[Spark1979]

I have just seen this several times on the ESC website and their documents:

"Landlords of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), have a legal obligation to have a periodic inspection carried out on the HMO property every 5 years."

I am in agreement that landlords should be enforced to have safe properties but as stated above a periodic must be done every 5 years for licencing on HMO. I tested houses in 2007 failed them, now i am going back to fail them again 5 years on, on an EICR nothing gets done, the councils are supposed to enforce this but dont, they've inspected the properties. Ask a landlord about a gas CP12 failure, they jump through hoops to get those sorted ASAP​

 

[spark 68]

Oh I agree with part of what Nicholas was saying,

I did not disagree nor agree with everything suggested, but what I had resrevations about was introducing more new legislation, it would be better IMHO to better enforce the legislation that already exists.

As we have seen the dog's breakfast that part P turned out to be.

 

[Spazz]

In regards to what Darrenburton has said, what is happening in Wales is all rental properties will need to be licensed - this will require EICRs to be submitted! Any problems outlined on these (mainly C1 and C2) will be required to be repaired.

As I have said on previous posts if you have any C1 problems issue a EDN and send a copy over to the Public Protection Department for your LA. Some of these landlords dont pull their finger out until they are made to by the LA.

The problem is not the system! if it was the system then Gas would have the same problems - but that doesn't does it? - NO!
A Gas safe engineer has the same rights as we do!
The only difference is that a Gas Safe Engineer reports problems to someone who can do something about it! - we dont!

Things wont change until we change.

Part P is not the Problem - we are! - if something is dangerous then reporting it to the landlord - is that really going to make a difference - maybe - maybe not! - If we report it to the LAPP (Public Protection) then would this make a difference - YES!

If the landlord does not fix it then LAPP will bring them to court and the landlord will have to explain to the wigs why that issue you said was not safe the said landlord didn't think it warranted sorting out!

Also in regards to Bonding - I have see that its C2 - how is this when if a fault occurred - this will kill someone! It is also stated that NO WORK IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL ALL BONDING IS ADEQUATE!
I know this is our regs - recommendations - but the question is how do you rate this?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh Ya - Lenny your mail box is full - empty it please!

 

[Guest123]

Done....

 

[UNG]

Things wont change until we change.

Part P is not the Problem - we are! - if something is dangerous then reporting it to the landlord - is that really going to make a difference - maybe - maybe not! - If we report it to the LAPP (Public Protection) then would this make a difference - YES!

You have it wrong WE ( Qualified electricians ) are not the problem Part P is an ill thought out piece of legislation that allows partially qualified operatives to masquerade as electricians and is a problem

With regard to reporting it to all and sundry I am an electrician, I am not a policeman time is money and reporting it and filing paperwork and any follow up from LAPP will be time consuming and most of all UNPAID.

The problem we have is the certification we use does not clearly indicate to the untrained the state of the installation, this is IMO what needs changing and a cover sheet that identifies Good, Dangerous or advisory work needed by colour coding or large clear wording or both would go some way to address the problem

Personally if you want to be out of work shop your landlord customers to the LA and they won't use you again.

To be honest a lot of people place a lot of faith in an RCD or RCBO actually working when it's needed even though it never tested every few months by the occupier as the labels on the CU suggest. I was always taught to design the installation protection correctly and use RCD's to provide secondary protection where needed

 

[spark 68]

^^^^^^

Exactly! mate,

What would help is, if the councils actually acted on the EICR's, and DEMANDED that any non-conformances (C1/C2) were actually remedied.
Then made sure the inspections were carried out every 5 years max with possibly a couple of random spot checks, then we may be getting somewhere.
Not by piling any more crap on us with more ill thought out legislation, and more hoops to jump through.
As I said, the legislation is already there if needed, but this is too much hard work for the LABC, so I would not hold my breath.

 

[Guitarist]

And for those of us that find Facebook abhorrent???

Facebook is the scourge of our era. I bet in years to come it will be likened to the invention that started the creation of the Terminators.....

 

[Spazz]

If you forward all EDNs to LAPP they dont contact you unless you request it! It takes less than 2 mins!

You say if you want to be out of work - this is what Gas does and they are still in work!

Plus how many of these landlords actually act on your recommendations - some but not all - the ones who act on your recommendations do you really need to fill in a EDN - NO!
Only those who dont act on your recommendations within a set time need to be reported to LAPP.

Like I said they problem is us!

Plus in regards the untrained are not a problem - yes they take work off us - but thats our personal problem!
When they do it right its fine - when they do it wrong you issue a EDN or advisory and that gets reported to LAPP - same thing!

The bigger problem is that some of us are willing to sign off work that we have not done! or seen done!

In Gas the home owner can do his own work and report it to the LABC - SAME AS WITH ELECTRIC!

The only difference is that the gas engineers dont stand by and allow dangerous installs to remain in houses - some of us do because we dont want the agro, because we dont want to fill in a form for free. THE PROBLEM IS OUR ATTITUDE!

Yes in an ideal world only trained and licensed persons will do the work - those who blame the system should be looking at themselves first!

 

[Mark_Burgess]

As I have said on previous posts if you have any C1 problems issue a EDN and send a copy over to the Public Protection Department for your LA. Some of these landlords dont pull their finger out until they are made to by the LA.

Part P is not the Problem - we are! - if something is dangerous then reporting it to the landlord - is that really going to make a difference - maybe - maybe not! - If we report it to the LAPP (Public Protection) then would this make a difference - YES!

If the landlord does not fix it then LAPP will bring them to court and the landlord will have to explain to the wigs why that issue you said was not safe the said landlord didn't think it warranted sorting out!

When I carry out an EICR and it is unsatisfactory, I will give the customer a quote to put it right. They have the freedom to choose whoever they like, I may not not know if it has been rectified.
Are you suggesting that every EICR that is unsatisfactory, must be reported to the LAPP with immediate effect?
Or that we keep asking the customer if it has been rectified? Or state that if they have not done it by a certain deadline they will be reported?

Bad reputation spreads faster than a good one, i'd be branded a grass and find myself at Tesco or Asda working in no time!

 

[Spazz]

^^^^^^

Exactly! mate,

What would help is, if the councils actually acted on the EICR's, and DEMANDED that any non-conformances (C1/C2) were actually remedied.
Then made sure the inspections were carried out every 5 years max with possibly a couple of random spot checks, then we may be getting somewhere.
Not by piling any more crap on us with more ill thought out legislation, and more hoops to jump through.
As I said, the legislation is already there if needed, but this is too much hard work for the LABC, so I would not hold my breath.

LABC dont have anything to do with existing installations - LAPP are - they carry out regular checks, but they dont know what they are looking for so all they check is has the property got a BS3036 CU or NO RCD - they can only recommend!

The problem is once the EICR is a legal document then and only then they can enforce it!
They cant demand that the home owner has an EICR until it becomes law - they cant take it to court so nothing can be done.

However the law states that the installation must be safe - so if we find it unsafe then we need to report it because the LAPP cant test it - so they wont know.

Only once its law the LAPP can demand a copy of the EICR and take action on it. Those LAs who request a copy of it is only requesting the landlord can say no - I dont need one by law and the LA cant do anything about it!

Check the emails on the facebook and it will open your eyes!


One of 2 things needs to happen:
1. We report all dangerous installs to LAPP
2. Law needs to change so the LAPP can see the EICR and act on it. - then its down to us to make sure they are filled in correctly!

 

[Spazz]

When I carry out an EICR and it is unsatisfactory, I will give the customer a quote to put it right. They have the freedom to choose whoever they like, I may not not know if it has been rectified.
Are you suggesting that every EICR that is unsatisfactory, must be reported to the LAPP with immediate effect?
Or that we keep asking the customer if it has been rectified? Or state that if they have not done it by a certain deadline they will be reported?

Bad reputation spreads faster than a good one, i'd be branded a grass and find myself at Tesco or Asda working in no time!

This is the problem! only dangerous situations needs to be reported!
If everyone started to report these dangerous situations then you wont be classed as a grass! because it will be everyone going it!

Lets see what happens - out of interest if EICRs are not made law but it was law you had to report all dangerous situations to LAPP would you?

 

[rufus10]

Good idea but as has been said all through this thread, you will never get anyone to enforce it.