Change in the Law regarding RCDs in Rental Properties

[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?

 

[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.