RCD in rented property

[Mfctitch]

Evening everyone

I was having a chat with a friend who is thinking about renting out his property. And i'm sure that I have heard or read somewhere that if you are renting out a property then the property has to be protected by an RCD. Can anyone tell me if i'm right or whether I should just keep quite

Thank in advance for your help.

 

[Octopus]

I know that some agents will insist on RCD protection before they advertise a property for rent

 

[SirKit Breaker]

It is not necessary. But a PIR is advisable, and if you state the reason for the PIR as "To assess its condition in relation to current standards" then no RCD would be a code 4, does not comply with BS7671:2008.

If it just to "Assess its condition for continued use" or similar, then you are assessing it to the regs in force at the time of the original installation, so if all is well, then no codings at all.

So there is no requirement to retrofit RCD protection on an installation that is in good condition if RCD protection was NOT a requirement at initial installation. If mods are carried out now, then the installed cables must (with the odd exception) be RCD protected.

Cheers.........Howard

 

[FatBob]

A PIR is a minimum requirement with most agents. Some will require you to be fully compliant with BS7671:2008.

 

[roukel01]

It is not necessary. But a PIR is advisable, and if you state the reason for the PIR as "To assess its condition in relation to current standards" then no RCD would be a code 4, does not comply with BS7671:2008.

If it just to "Assess its condition for continued use" or similar, then you are assessing it to the regs in force at the time of the original installation, so if all is well, then no codings at all.

So there is no requirement to retrofit RCD protection on an installation that is in good condition if RCD protection was NOT a requirement at initial installation. If mods are carried out now, then the installed cables must (with the odd exception) be RCD protected.

Cheers.........Howard

I don't quite agree with that...

If sockets can potentially be used for appliances outdoors then code 2

 

[ian]

All the agents I work for require a PIR before lease starts,most require RCD protection.
ian

 

[pushrod]

All the agents I work for require a PIR before lease starts,most require RCD protection.
ian

Not being funny but.. you're a spark working for agents doing PIRs so it's not surprising that the ones you work for require a PIR.

Landlords have a duty of care to their tenants and with regard to electricity the easiest way for them to prove this is to have some sort of electrical inspection carried out. However, there is no statutory regulation that says a PIR must be carried out, nor is there any statutory regulation about need for rcd protection on a rented property. It is not like the legal requirement for there to be an annual gas safety inspection on rented property.

 

[topquark]

Not being funny but.. you're a spark working for agents doing PIRs so it's not surprising that the ones you work for require a PIR.

Landlords have a duty of care to their tenants and with regard to electricity the easiest way for them to prove this is to have some sort of electrical inspection carried out. However, there is no statutory regulation that says a PIR must be carried out, nor is there any statutory regulation about need for rcd protection on a rented property. It is not like the legal requirement for there to be an annual gas safety inspection on rented property.

Would you like to add but should be a legal requirement ? Go on, you know you do!

 

[FatBob]

Would you like to add but should be a legal requirement ?

PIRs should be a legal requirement... And rented accommodation should exhibit 17th compliance IMHO

 

[nickblake]

some letting agents cant see why they are inspected ive one i used to work for paid a guy £30.00 for a land lords safty certificate , i used to follow him round condeming them some of the things he passed ill never understand one example VIR 3 core flex to the water heater , with a seperate earth and earth bond to water was attached to a pipe which was dangling in mid are cut off it passed , having said that he did issue a land lords safty certificate which to me is like a red rag to a bull , as has been said its a duty of care and realistically should be brought up to at least 17th ed with RCD protection as these house are normally occupied by un caring people who will damage any thing and every thing ive seen it so many times , i totally agree with puch bob , and pushrod , and 99.99% of howards comment

 

[baldsparkies]

We always code 2 sockets on a ground floor, our logic is that they have the potential to supply outdoor equipment.
Not so with 1st floor upwards but who's to say they cant bung an extension lead out the window, how far do you go ??
If its 6 floors up I wouldnt want to be the poor so and so who gets hit on the head with the bu##er

 

[nickblake]

and they do 1st floor landing socket , up into the loft through the slates over the roof and down to a light

 

[SirKit Breaker]

I don't quite agree with that...

If sockets can potentially be used for appliances outdoors then code 2

I can see where you are coming from, but i still disagree with you. If you are assessing it to current standards, then there is still no requirement to fit RCD protection if it was not a requirement at the time the install was done. The install is OK except for non compliance to 17th edition so it has to be a code 4. We have to test and inspect without opinion. I agree it would be my recommendation to fit some kind of RCD protection, but i wouldn't code 2 it, as this is just my opinion. I would put comments in the comments part of the report to recommend upgrades as i saw fit.

Cheers.......Howard

 

[nickblake]

i agree with all the posts ,howard is 100% correct in what he is saying , so realy in the perfect world i would say a minimum requirement in a rented property would be All circuits protected by an RCD and bonding in place ,its to easy for land lords to hide certificates under the carpet duty of care or not they do as well see it so often ,prime example 5 bed property 8 chineese people occupying it scottish power switched the supply off due to the install being dangerouse and the land lord ignoring it

 

[baldsparkies]

I can see where you are coming from, but i still disagree with you. If you are assessing it to current standards, then there is still no requirement to fit RCD protection if it was not a requirement at the time the install was done. The install is OK except for non compliance to 17th edition so it has to be a code 4. We have to test and inspect without opinion. I agree it would be my recommendation to fit some kind of RCD protection, but i wouldn't code 2 it, as this is just my opinion. I would put comments in the comments part of the report to recommend upgrades as i saw fit.

Cheers.......Howard

But what if your scheme provider says, any socket that can reasonably be expected to supply outdoor equipment (Or somfing like dat) should be code 2 without rcd protection.
Example NIC EIC (after the two hour wait) technical.
Also I cover the botty these days. Tenant gets a fatal shock you did the PIR, Its poo poo's time.

 

[Octopus]

People who code "no RCD" any higher than 4 are not doing the trade any favours and/or probably trying to scare customers into spending more money.

An assessment of the property is simply that, and not an assessment of whether it complies to the 17th edition.

 

[Octopus]

But what if your scheme provider says, any socket that can reasonably be expected to supply outdoor equipment (Or somfing like dat) should be code 2 without rcd protection.
Example NIC EIC (after the two hour wait) technical.
Also I cover the botty these days. Tenant gets a fatal shock you did the PIR, Its poo poo's time.

IMHO You can still code 4 the lack of RCD, and put a remark in the "comments or summary" area recommending the change

 

[SirKit Breaker]

It matters not what any scheme providers says or thinks, it is purely opinion. If you take a 1962 Ford Anglia for its MOT, it does not need seatbelts, because when it was registered they were not standard, nor will it fail the test because they are not fitted, the MOT inspector or Dept of Transport can not give you an advisory because they are not fitted as they are there to test to standards, not opinions. We are no different in my mind.

Cheers..........Howard

 

[nickblake]

IMHO You can still code 4 the lack of RCD, and put a remark in the "comments or summary" area recommending the change

Wonder what we'll do when the amendments come out ,im sure code 4 is going

 

[ian.settle1]

Wonder what we'll do when the amendments come out ,im sure code 4 is going

So is 1, 2 and 3 in theory as they are being renamed.