landlord

[Smilers]

Hi all just been requested to carry out a CU change by a landlord- I've been down to look at the property and found the usual probs that will need upgrading as well as the CU- after having a look round i notice a damaged socket, pull cord loose on the ceiling etc. anyway there were a few other potential issues around the property- i spoke with the landlord and suggested a PIR to highlight any underlying problems with the installation - instead of CU change then 2 days of fault finding to keep the RCD's to hold in! So i ask for the previous PIR he's says there isn't one and its hasn't had one for a long time! He continues to say its not a legal requirement to have an electrical safety assessment anyway. I told him that everything should be checked for safety at the change of occupancy but he was adamant and i didn't want an argument since he was a potential new client - so my question is what are the specific regs or legislation that i can copy and paste in an email to him to show him his responsibilities.

Cheers all thanks again

 

[Technician]

Address Gn 3; Landlord liability legislation; duty of care to

tenant. I think landlord liability legislation is 1985 (could be

wrong).

No mistake about it, it could turn out bad for him if he has not

had it done. Further, the tenant as the user has to have a

copy and should ask for one.

Gn 3 STATES PIR at maximum of five years interval for rented.

Recommended 10 year for domestic owner occupied.

You have it right about a periodic to identify problems BEFORE

board change.

The Regulatory reform order (Fire safety) 2005 is also applicable.

The tenant is in control of the building as long as he has the keys.

Even if there is a fire and the cause is not electrical, the landlord

could be in a spot if he is asked for the PIR and he could be asked

by the Fire Authority.

 

[Doc Hudson]

BS7671 is a non statutory document, it is only guidance for good practice. (This legal aspect always used to be part of the C&G exam questions, perhaps it is no longer covered?). As such the landlord is correct that legally he does not have to have a PIR (or EICR from 2012). He does have a legal duty of care, but the is not a black and white rule to say that therefore he must have a PIR. All good reputable landlords and property letting agencies will have regular PIR's done and I would recommend no one takes a tenancy at a property where they have not seen a copy of a recent PIR. But you have no grounds to insist that he does have one done. I would suggest you do the work he has requested, as when doing your CU change you will be testing all the circuits anyway. Any additional anomalies you identify put in a covering letter to him with the EIC & part P compliance notification you will be doing. Unless of course the installation is so unsafe that you cannot carry out the CU change without major improvement works.

Doc H.

 

[m4tty]

Go to the esc website and there's a download which has got the info you want mate.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Go to the esc website and there's a download which has got the info you want mate.

But the guidance for landlords is over 50 pages long, not a quick print a copy & stick it with a covering letter. Guidance for landlords : Electrical Safety Council

Doc H.

 

[Theorysparky]

PIR before cu change ?????

has he asked for it ????

just do all the testing required for a cu change noting all the problems etc and tell him before you go ahead,,,,whats the point of doing 2 lots of paperwork.

as for the damaged socket and pullcord loose,,,,just sort them when you do your testing.

The letting agent i work for only ask for visual reports which has my additional works sheet on it.So when they do a change on tenancy they know everything should be ok but just then just check that all the switches,sockets are not damaged

I lost a letting agency for telling them they needed to do at least a visual.....they said there was no requirement......didnt help that i called them F@#cking cowboys !!!!!!

 

[Smilers]

The reason i have asked to do a PIR was due to what i noticed on the walk round, i think a visual might highlight a few problems but potentially not all- if i then change out the CU and the board trips out the I have to find those problems before i leave! I have not said i wont change the CU without a PIR i just advised it was favorable, the alternative might be another days work rectifing faults. He wants a price, and i like to know the condition before starting a CU change otherwise i might be doing the rectifying for free, just wanted others opinions is all ta

 

[Theorysparky]

Smilers

do you not have a contract that you give to your customers when doing major work,,,,,,this would alert them to any potential remedial work..???

this is what i do for a cu change

advise customer that you will test all ccts before changing the cu,,,,any issues arising will be notified and would require rectifying before proceeding.

while locating which cct has what on it you can do a visual and note any issues,,,,,outside cables,garages etc

so would you charge him

 

[Smilers]

Roughly yeah, I've done loads of CU changes mainly commercial tho, however i believe my question has been answered ref: landlords responsibility. I will most likely give him a price for usual CU change with a pre work stating obviously that the rectification of any hidden faults will be notified to the landlord with any hidden faults noted through out the test and that rectification cost will be unquantifiable & separate PIR price for a more comprehensive assessment. The decision is his he's paying. But the extent of what i check will only cover what i come into contact with when changing the CU which will be defined on the test certs for the obligitory bum coverage

 

[Technician]

Doc...thanks for the detail. Yes, the legal aspect of BS7671 is addressed

in C & G and it should NOT be dropped or ommitted. I ALWAYS draw attention

to the statements in respect of BS7671 used to prove compliance OR assess

competence.

I had a call to look at a new build near me for a little job (did not get it) but I

had a sneak look behind one socket. No flyer lead from the socket back to the

front. Told the landlord. I asked if one contractor had done the entire estate.

He replied in the affirmative. I replied that in all liklihood, all the sockets in all

the properties were the same.

 

[steptoe]

Doc...thanks for the detail. Yes, the legal aspect of BS7671 is addressed in C & G and it should NOT be dropped or ommitted. I ALWAYS draw attention

to the statements in respect of BS7671 used to prove compliance OR assess

competence.

I had a call to look at a new build near me for a little job (did not get it) but I

had a sneak look behind one socket. No flyer lead from the socket back to the

front. Told the landlord. I asked if one contractor had done the entire estate.

He replied in the affirmative. I replied that in all liklihood, all the sockets in all

the properties were the same.

thats not required unless a surface mounted MC fitting, so its NOT an issue.

 

[Technician]

That's funny Steps...all the older mentors I had years ago

told me it was. But, won't argue...

 

[sprocketflup]

The landlord is gonna think "If he does the PIR thats a price that I definately HAVE to pay, but he may do the CU change and not get any faults........."

Im guessing hes gonna go with the latter

 

[steptoe]

That's funny Steps...all the older mentors I had years agotold me it was. But, won't argue...

under what circumstances?

almost any back boxes I have ever used have 1 fixed lug, and most sockets have the screws earthed via the front plate anyway,

there is normally NO requirement to earth the back box, its not an accessible part.

this is, I think, akin to having to earth the bathroom radiator.

but, it may have been required prior to 15th, I dont go any further than that, sorry.

anyway, thats irrelevant, its not required under 17th (or 16th) so Im unsure as to whether you were inferring the previous contractors were cutting corners, or simply wiring to a required standard, or you were implying to your prospective customer you wanted to carry out un-necessary work at more expense,

perhaps thats why you didnt get the job. :C

 

[NozSpark]

under what circumstances?almost any back boxes I have ever used have 1 fixed lug, and most sockets have the screws earthed via the front plate anyway,

there is normally NO requirement to earth the back box, its not an accessible part.

this is, I think, akin to having to earth the bathroom radiator.

but, it may have been required prior to 15th, I dont go any further than that, sorry.

anyway, thats irrelevant, its not required under 17th (or 16th) so Im unsure as to whether you were inferring the previous contractors were cutting corners, or simply wiring to a required standard, or you were implying to your prospective customer you wanted to carry out un-necessary work at more expense,

perhaps thats why you didnt get the job. :C

Is that forward or backward from?? ; )

But yes,, although some people see it as good practice , if you use at least 1 fixed lug then you don't need to earth the backbox

 

[Technician]

Steps...like your post. Good points.

I did not want the job anyway, I had

quite enough on my plate.

 

[hxsarge]

Our eca guy told us he found it unacceptable for no flying lead, just in case of a fault occurring where the socket is still live when taken off, ie crossed rings so socket is still live when off, when the sockets taken off there's no earth to the box. Just what he said though, my mates in niceic and they apparently approve of not doing it. About time these bods where standardised eh?

 

[Doc Hudson]

Our eca guy told us he found it unacceptable for no flying lead, just in case of a fault occurring where the socket is still live when taken off, ie crossed rings so socket is still live when off, when the sockets taken off there's no earth to the box. Just what he said though, my mates in niceic and they apparently approve of not doing it. About time these bods where standardised eh?

In the event of someone being seriously injured whilst working live on an accessory without an earthed back box. I think you will find the HSE would be investigating why it was considered essential to work live, rather than if there was an earth fly lead or not. There is no reasonable excuse for opening any socket or accessory whilst the circuit is live. Numerous testers are available to confirm the presence of a voltage before accidentally opening up a live accessory. The fly lead is not there as a protection for poor Health & Safety work practice compliance. Whilst I understand what you are trying to say hxsarge and that we all know some people do choose to open live accessories. This is not a reason for fitting an earth fly lead as the earth is not the cause of the problem in this scenario. I would just note for the record that the forum would never recommend anyone opens up an live accessory.

Doc H.

 

[hxsarge]

Yea I know what u mean and I agree, I'm just saying that was his stance.

 

[steptoe]

well he is a pratt,

give him my phone number.

am glad you didnt say NAPIT or NICEIC ,

cos I woulda had a blooming stern word with either of them.!

dont know any ECA guys.