EICRs and LANDLORDS

[Merv]

How do you know the property is safe and sound?
An inspection by a competant person should be carried out before each tenant moves in.
I do such things for a local letting agent and some of the things I've found where previous tenants have fitted their own light fittings etc have rendered the installation somewhat less than 'safe and sound'

Well dave, you've answered your own question there.
The property would be safe and sound because it's been checked. It doesn't have to have a certificate saying as much. Which is the case with the vast number of owner occupied properties.

 

[Merv]

I apologise to marconi.
I misunderstood his second sentence about EICRs and newtenants.

Not surprisingly, my provocative claim that this idea issimply a money spinner for electricians has been sidestepped.

Which speaks for itself.

 

[Dave OCD]

I apologise to marconi.
I misunderstood his second sentence about EICRs and newtenants.

Not surprisingly, my provocative claim that this idea issimply a money spinner for electricians has been sidestepped.

Which speaks for itself.

So you think the EICR is an easy money spinner that electricians constantly push to do ? You couldn't be more wrong - personally I find inspection and testing tiresome,a lot of responsibility is attached and it's very frustrating when genuinely made observations and recommendations are treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' - because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

 

[Merv]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

 

[Octopus]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

Utter. Utter tripe

 

[Hellmooth]

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like paying out for anything?

Just the usual then, talk about money spinners!

 

[Merv]

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

 

[Octopus]

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

Hum. EICR's are not just for landlords. I am doing one on Friday on a 1950's house to determine the condition of the installation and see if it's good enough to fit the new fuseboard the client wants.

Me thinks you've had a bad experience with an EICR. Have you read the best practice guide about condition reports which covers coding etc?

 

[Andy78]

Merv, You have asserted your opinion that electricians on this forum and electricians in general would like to see mandatory EICR to able to fleece landlords. Have you any evidence of this other than your own assumptions ? Are you aware this thread was started by a landlord and not an electrician ?

You criticise others for making assumptions about you as a landlord but that is exactly what you have done about the electricians on this site.

You ask what other conclusion could you come to other than electricians wanting a money spinner if the industry was to push for mandatory EICR. Has the possibility of a conscientious trade focussed on tenant safety never entered your mind ?
I think it would be fair to say that every electrician who deals with rented accommodation will have at some point come across a dangerous condition which is the result of a badly maintained electrical system. Could mandatory EICR prevent this ?

If you want clarification about the reasons and motives for mandatory EICR for rented property, you could contact the Scottish parliament as they will be bringing in mandatory 5 yearly EICR starting this December. You could aim your accusations of the industry being a set of money grabbers in their direction, although calling Scots penny pinchers may see you fall foul of asserting negative racial stereotypes.

 

[DPG]

Me thinks Merv is trolling on this forum to get a reaction. Don't rise to it. I can't see the point of arguing with him until he puts forward a reasoned argument with evidence. Daz

 

[UNG]

Well dave, you've answered your own question there.
The property would be safe and sound because it's been checked. It doesn't have to have a certificate saying as much. Which is the case with the vast number of owner occupied properties.

If you don't have any paperwork or documentation to back up any checks then where is your audit trail when something goes wrong

Dave OCD,
I certainly do think that EICRs are money-spinners for thetrade. The enthusiasm displayed on thisforum to force people to buy EICRs is all the evidence that is needed toconclude that.
Especially when the law already states that it is the responsibilityof landlords to keep their properties in a safe condition .

When tradesmen on here propose to make criminals out ofdecent landlords for not having an in date EICP on a perfectly safe property,then what other conclusion can one come to?

It's no wonder as Dave OCD states ''recommendationsare treated with general distrust and/or subsequently ignored by the 'client' -because they have little or no understanding of the potential dangers involved.

I doubt if it's the potential dangers involved that putsthem off.

I assume you are a landlord by your comments and your maxim is "maximum rent in minimum expenditure going out"

I have met a number of landlords over the years and the one category they don't all fall into is that of "decent landlords" some will go that extra mile for their tenants while others will penny pinch as much as they can and do as little as possible to maintain the property.
I doubt anyone on here is trying to criminalise landlords for not having an in date EICR but if you haven't got one how do you evaluate that your property remains in a perfectly safe state. Should an incident occur which results in the serious injury or death of a tenant due to your negligence in not getting the appropriate safety inspections carried out then you have little or no defence when stood in court if you cannot provide evidence that you have adequately discharged your duty of care to the tenant

It can be seen from the legislation that is now being brought in to bring dodgy landlords into line that the decent landlords as well are being forced into licencing schemes costing hundreds of pounds because of the past antics of these dodgy landlords

''Utter. Utter tripe''

Is that what you call a reasoned and constructiveargument?

''Fair to say you are a landlord who doesn't like payingout for anything?''

Or if you can't construct a counter argument simply makeassumptions about the messenger, and then attack him from that angle.

I think I've made my point about drumming up work and nicelittle earners.
And if you could get the law to find your work for you, then that would bethe icing on the cake.

Well I have not seen much reasoned and constructive argument from yourself other than claiming / whinging about a supposed nice little earner that electricians have and more so if the weight of law is behind it, how about these landlords who put their feet up while using other peoples money to top up their pension pot while criticising other people's ethics

From the tone of your posts it is easy to work out what type of landlord you are I just hope your tenants are happy and don't come to any harm due to your lack of expense

I trust the is post is sufficiently reasoned and constructive for you

 

[Octopus]

For Merv:

Read #4

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First

If you've had a report and the findings differ from this "guide", I suggest you take it up with the spark you used and failing that, report them to trading standards.

Happy reading.

 

[Merv]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?


This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.



No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

 

[Merv]

Why do my posts come out with some of the words joined up?

They're not like that when I hit the reply button.

 

[Octopus]

Why do my posts come out with some of the words joined up?

They're not like that when I hit the reply button.

use the edit button and go back and make the changes.

 

[Merv]

''whats a EIPR?''

Well that's a typo error Murdoch.
No doubt you already knew that.

 

[Andy78]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?


This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.



No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

Well seeing as it's something you've said all along then it must be right. I can tell I'm not going to alter your very set views as you don't seem to be open to alternative ideas.

The requirements you have stated are for landlords. It would unreasonable to include the tenant's property in the landlord's requirements don't you think ?
The landlord would be well within their rights either to not allow tenant's electrical goods or insist that they are tested. I have come across this stipulation by landlords many times before.

Can I ask if you also feel the same about mandatory gas checks, that they are a waste of money and a complete racket and nothing to do with safety ?

 

[Merv]

Thanks Murdoch.

 

[Merv]

Andy 78,
''you don't seem to be open to alternative ideas''

How do you make that out when none have been proposed?

I'm not against EICRs.
It's the criminalising of landlords for not having them that I oppose.

How would electricians feel about someone checking their work, and fining them for any mistakes?
Because that is the ultimate end to this type of legislation.

 

[UNG]

The new rules in Scotland will come into force from the 1stof December 2015.

The regulations say that anything in the property which usesthe electrical supply must be on either EICR or PAT tested, unless the itembelongs to the tenant.

There you go.
If safety is the driving force behind the legislation thenwhy isn't anything belonging to the tenant subject to a test?

This is a typical bureaucratic solution to aproblem that does not exist, and put into effect by people who have beenhoodwinked by others who have vested interests.

No checks for anything owned by thetenant sums it up completely.

Yet portable heaters, lights and hairdriers especially with worn cables, which are a constant and genuine hazard andendanger the lives of other tenants in a block of flats are ignored completelyin the tests.

That's unbelievable really.
And bears out what I've maintained allalong.
That it's simply a case of people with vested interest in EIPRs drumming upwork, and trying to get legislation passed to that effect.

Not sure what point you are trying to make the legislation was introduced because landlords were failing to excercise a duty of care to tenants not because someone thought electricians needed to make more money

No matter what appliance is connected to an installation if the installation does not meet the required standard then you are putting others at risk who through no fault of their own could be seriously injured or killed when using a perfectly safe appliance.

Why should a tenant have to have all their appliances checked just to please you, when you fail to understand that an electrical installation can deteriorate and failing RCD's can go unnoticed with possible fatal results

The only people to blame for all this legislation are the dodgy landlords who for years have evaded their responsibility by not providing safe habitable accommodation for their tenants for many years and are now being forced to provide accommodation of a reasonable and safe standard, the people I feel sorry for are the genuine decent landlords who now are down £300 - £400 every 3 - 5 years for a licence through no fault of their own