Landlord EICR's

[SG_Electrical]

Hi all. I have recently issued a few unsatisfactory reports to different landlords, some of whom are electricians themselves (albeit not self employed/registered with CPS). My question is regarding the required remedial works. If said landlords/electricians carry out their own remedial works which are notifiable, but do not certify or notify BC, can they then get me to carry out another EICR? It seems like people are trying to use EICR's to circumvent certifying and notifying their own work. Thanks in advance

 

[Mike Johnson]

Perhaps turn a blind eye and just do another full EICR and charge full price again as if it's a new install. ?

 

[Flanders]

You raise an interesting point. Sounds like a get around. The problem. Is there would be no paper trail . You would have a unsatisfactory and a satisfactory report for the same property just a couple of weeks apart with no reference to any remedial work All ok until something goes wrong and questions start getting ask . I would definitely not be doing a second EICR so close to the first one. Maybe the landlord could get a 3rd party the certify the work for him. I guess the landlord could employ a second electrian the carry out the second EICR . But then the second electrian may find a load more deviations the the first electrian missed and still end up with a unsatisfactory Eicr

 

[Deleted account]

If they do notifiable works then they need to be notified. You doing an EICR after they have done notifiable works does not negate the fact the works should have been originally notified.

However you can carry out EICRs at any time. As many as you like as often as you like. It’s not you who has carried out the notifiable work and it’s not you who has failed to inform building control. so yes you can do the EICR, but they shouldn’t be doing notifiable works.

 

[Robson689]

The building control notification side is not your concern. That's the landlords responsibility as the property owner.

 

[ebee]

Yep indeed, you are not at fault only doing an EICR, it may irk you that the proper procedure is not being followed ref notification (if indeed the remedial work is actually notifiable) but it`s not your fault and at least it "should" be a lot safer then when you did the first EICR so you can hold your head up. You might think it is totally immoral though and refuse to do it. As hinted your first EICR on a property could be a few weeks after an unsatisfactory EICR by A N Other and you might not be aware of it. It does leave a paper trail and the miscreant might be brought to account sometime in the future - but I doubt it. I think, at worst, if LABC find un-notified works they will either ignore it or do a regularisation, the only time this Part P aspect is thrown in the mix ref a court case is if the works causes/is likely to cause danger. The original intent behind Part P by Parliament seems to have been lost long ago. Unfortunately we all live in the real world not an ideal world

 

[Lister1987]

Add a note to the EICR "The Installation is utilised b skilled person, with electrical knowledge and shows sufficient competence that they are likely to attempt remedial work themselves, the products of which would be outside of the scope of this EICR. Should the customer look to do remedial work themselves, We strongly advise that they notify building control (in line with Building Regulations)."

 

[Mike Johnson]

I strongly advise not to do that, you are adding a complication that is not needed and could be seen as interfering with the regulated route, especially mentioning the customer carrying out their own remedial's heaven forbid.

 

[Deleted account]

Add a note to the EICR "The Installation is utilised b skilled person, with electrical knowledge and shows sufficient competence that they are likely to attempt remedial work themselves, the products of which would be outside of the scope of this EICR. Should the customer look to do remedial work themselves, We strongly advise that they notify building control (in line with Building Regulations)."

I like this concept. And I think I would put it in observations, but it would not affect the outcome of the report And would not be an official coding, but it would be a good ar*e covering exercise.

I’m always putting extra observations on EICRs with no code.

 

[Lister1987]

I strongly advise not to do that, you are adding a complication that is not needed and could be seen as interfering with the regulated route, especially mentioning the customer carrying out their own remedial's heaven forbid.

How so? The customer has given the inspector reason to believe they might try and rectify any highlighted issue and then bring in A N Other spark to 'test' the clients own handiworks. The spark may get wise and cover thier arse but by being explicit about what may happen, it covers you should it happen.

"Your honour we strongly advised the client that even with their self-procliamed expertise, that they would need to notify building control, or get in a spark that can (owing to Thier CPS membership). The fact he has done just this and blindsided Sparky B into giving (what the client believes is) certification for the complete install, including the clients undisclosed meddling is of no fault to the inspector or the subsequent inspector, due to the explicit advise to get in a proper perd."

How would that get picked apart exactly?

 

[snowhead]

Agree with Mike.
By putting that comment in you are making assumptions and allegations, which may turn out to be false.

The person carrying out the EICR doesn't need to cover themselves re Notified or not notified work.
Either the installation is good enough for a Satisfactory EICR or it's not.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Also agree with Mike. An EICR is a report on an installation at a particular point in time, what happens after is the owner's business and responsibility.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Lister1987 Imagine standing in the witness box or Dock and fully explaining why you put that on the documentation without hearsay or slandering anyone, or more importantly dropping yourself in the deep deep mire.

 

[ruston]

It may even be that the skilled electricians have a building notice in , or the BC have accepted their qualifications of a multiple empire of properties they may have..
It may even be that he is registered and minds his own business.

 

[Lister1987]

Lister1987 Imagine standing in the witness box or Dock and fully explaining why you put that on the documentation without hearsay or slandering anyone, or more importantly dropping yourself in the deep deep mire.

I had reason to believe that the customer may attempt to rectify any faults identified themselves, owing to their conversations with me about the industry, the job and how they used to be on the tools. I wanted to ensure that the extent of any certification I was doing was clear and made specific mention of the clients technical background, with a view that the customer may look to remedy issues himself and should any of those remedies involved those outlined in Part P of the Building Regulations 2010, that my recommendation was to notify LABC or use a contractor registered with a CPS.

Indemnity insurance is for this exact sort of thing no? To indemnify you for your technical knowledge, reasoning and application against those that just want to sue you as they disagree?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I had reason to believe that the customer may attempt to rectify any faults identified themselves, owing to their conversations with me about the industry, the job and how they used to be on the tools. I wanted to ensure that the extent of any certification I was doing was clear and made specific mention of the clients technical background, with a view that the customer may look to remedy issues himself and should any of those remedies involved those outlined in Part P of the Building Regulations 2010, that my recommendation was to notify LABC or use a contractor registered with a CPS.

Indemnity insurance is for this exact sort of thing no? To indemnify you for your technical knowledge, reasoning and application against those that just want to sue you as they disagree?

You wouldn't be certifying anything by carrying out an EICR, it's a report. What someone else might do afterwards, and your perception of their competence, etc isn't part of it.

 

[Mike Johnson]

with a view that the customer may look to remedy issues himself and should any of those remedies involved those outlined in Part P of the Building Regulations 2010, that my recommendation was to notify LABC or use a contractor registered with a CPS.

Supposition therefore inadmissible.

 

[Lister1987]

Supposition therefore inadmissible.

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

You're inventing problems for yourself. An EICR is a safety report comparing an installation to current BS7671. Building regs and notification are irrelevant to the report. Everything the owner needs to know is in the guidance for recipients, appended to the report

 

[UNG]

The original intent behind Part P by Parliament seems to have been lost long ago.

It has never really been possible to produce any tangible statistics on whether Part P achieved it's original aims as the 17th edition and the RCD requirements it brought in make it difficult assess with any accuracy how much safer Part P has made installations when RCD's are required now on most circuits

About the only benefit it may of had is that more work now gets properly certified

 

[i=p/u]

And how many jobs is done in UK a day and not certified ....
Richard burns would know the algorithm to work it out but heard he labouring to brickies and out of the lecy game?

 

[Mike Johnson]

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

That is a very slippery slope, where do you stop.

 

[Lister1987]

That is a very slippery slope, where do you stop.

How so? You're advising them of thier legal obligations under Part P of the building regs, (which you have working and professional knowledge of), no different from say a fire alarm installer/maintenance company advising a client of thier obligations under RR(FS)O after the notice things during scheduled maintenance/inspection.

 

[Mike Johnson]

You are stepping outside the remit of the work for witch you where employed, your responsibility is to carry out and report on the condition of the electrical installation and that is all, to diversify into other areas is asking for trouble when the client in the Dock says "but my electrician (you) told me" You are looking to remedy a problem that does not exist as I said above where do you stop advising on problems that don't exist, a Barrister would have a field day about what you did not advise on.

 

[Lister1987]

You are stepping outside the remit of the work for witch you where employed, your responsibility is to carry out and report on the condition of the electrical installation and that is all, to diversify into other areas is asking for trouble when the client in the Dock says "but my electrician (you) told me" You are looking to remedy a problem that does not exist as I said above where do you stop advising on problems that don't exist, a Barrister would have a field day about what you did not advise on.

I don't see it personally, possibly my age and lack of experience but I honestly can't see why it would be turned against you. You weren't the one that did or certified the work. You completed the work you were asked and commented that certain works would need notification if undertaken by the person ordering the works or a party not registered with a CPS, furthermore you state that you don't undertake commissioning of third party work.

If it's in your T&C's (as opposed to on the report as I was suggesting) then they had a hard time trying to tie it up on slander/libel or what have you, as they're your terms of service, which were accepted when the work commenced, surely?

Enjoying the discussion ?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Anything that turns court proceedings in favour of any party is fair game and will be used against you, your terms and conditions are irrelevant if they do not conform to the DTE guide lines, the problem is stepping outside the realms of what you where there for in the first place, its a mine field if something goes wrong either with the work you carried out or any other part of the perceived work that the client wish's to view as part of your advice.

 

[Lister1987]

Anything that turns court proceedings in favour of any party is fair game and will be used against you, your terms and conditions are irrelevant if they do not conform to the DTE guide lines, the problem is stepping outside the realms of what you where there for in the first place, its a mine field if something goes wrong either with the work you carried out or any other part of the perceived work that the client wish's to view as part of your advice.

Surely that's the purpose of indemnity insurance? To enable you to give your professional opinion on the realms of electrical work?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Electrical work you carry out Yes, but nothing outside that work.