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