Domestic EICR – is this a bit OTT ?

[gerry maddenParticipant @gerrymadden53711]

I have a small 20 year old flat that I have been renting out via an agent for 15 years. Every so often the electrical installation condition is checked over and a report made. Each time this occurs, changes are 'recommended' and, as I've been working, I've just paid up without looking too hard to the details.

Now that I've retired I can spend more time on these things. In the latest report (in a/c with BS7671:2018) a few 'C2' issues (ie. "potentially dangerous" ) have been highlighted and for this reason the installation has not been approved.

One of the C2s has been for the 11 halogen downlighters which have apparently:

1) not been installed to minimise build-up of heat. (It looks like a 'normal' installation to me with the unit clipped to the plasterboard.)

2) show signs of overheating to the conductors/terminations (…I would imagine this is nothing more than normal heat-discoloration of the plastics as a result of 'normal' heating over a long period, as opposed to 'overheating'  )

My agent has forwarded me a quotation for rectification (from a different company to the one that issue the report) which includes the replacement of 11 units with LED "fire rated units" (whatever they are!!) including IP rated units for the bathroom.

I have two questions about all this:

The first is that, as landlords, are we required to continually upgrade equipment to the latest safety/building standards or should the report (as with MOTs) be conducted in accordance with the standards prevailing at the time of the property build ?

Secondly, LED bulbs will not generate anything like as much heat as the halogens that are currently fitted. Would not replacing just the bulbs be a sufficient upgrade to reduce the likelihood of fire from 'normally' hot bulb holders ?

I have no objections to paying out to keep others safe, or to keep within the law but don't want to be taken for a ride.

Any thoughts, comments or guidance from those in the profession ?

Gerry

 

 

Edited By gerry madden on 03/02/2023 20:33:47

[gerry maddenParticipant @gerrymadden53711]

[ChrisLHParticipant @chrislh]

We had a series of downlighters fixed in the ceiling and they were prone to turning off in warm weather as the thermostat fitted transformers got a bit too hot. The cheap cure was to shift some of the insulation (single story).

After selling the house, the purchasers tried to take us to court for several £k to have the place rewired because the lighting circuits were only 2 wire instead of the current 3 wire. We pointed out (via a solicitor) that 2 wire was the standard at the time the house was built and that building regs. are not retrospective (can't be can they otherwise every house older than a month or two would be non-compliant). Fortunately buyers shut up after that.

Re installation of LEDs, I can't see how the electrician could complain about that other than to perhaps insist that holders which won't accept Halogen bulbs are fitted.

Apologies, just read the last line. I'm not a professional at least in building regs. so it would be good if others more qualified confirmed (hopefully) the above.

[Chris Pearson 1Participant @chrispearson1]

Posted by gerry madden on 03/02/2023 20:32:39:

The first is that, as landlords, are we required to continually upgrade equipment to the latest safety/building standards or should the report (as with MOTs) be conducted in accordance with the standards prevailing at the time of the property build ?

Yes and no! Have a look at R. 3 of The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020. The inspection and testing will be to the current version of BS 7671, but that does not necessarily fail an installation i.e. C1, C2, or FI. A reasonably modern installation in good condition may get some C3s, which means that improvement is recommended, i.e. bring it up to the current standard.

Your C2 sounds dodgy, but without seeing the lamp fittings, it is impossible to say more.

The quality of EICRs is a recurring theme in an IET forum where you will get a reliable response to your question. Try here: https://engx.theiet.org/f/wiring-and-regulations

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

These things do turn up useful stuff from time to time, but the main reason for these regulations is to gouge wealth out of the private sector and spread it into the wider economy

Pretty much every government council and public sector building in the country would fail the standards they impose on the little people and it would cost them billions to rectify

Look at the state of parliament which is one building, it's been a fire trap for decades

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

In this case it is reasonable to just replace with LED lamps retianing the orginal fittings. That assummes ther is no actual damage to the ifttings.

Unfortunatly " The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 " requirement to TEST to the specified standard (British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018) has been interpreted by many electricians as the installation must COMPLY with specified standard. This would mean a signficant re-wire for many properties and any landlords have been talked into this. The TESTING and INSPECTION specified in the standard say the installation only has to comply with the standard in force at the time of installation and have no dangerous or potentally dangerous faults. So for instance a plastic consumer unit does not have to be replaced unles it is broken even though a new one would have to be metal (from 17th edition).
Some electricians are taking advantage.

The legislation is very poor. The keen eyed will have spotted that it actually specifies the 2018 edition of BS7671 "18th Edition" even down to the full ISBN number (ISBN-13:978-1-78561-170-4) So as soon as the 19th edition is issued (or possibly even ammendments to or reprint of, the 18th) the legislation will have to be ammended or will be requiring compliance with an out of date standard. It would have been better to specify "..edition current at time of inspection"

Robert .

[Chris Pearson 1Participant @chrispearson1]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 04/02/2023 19:49:49:

The TESTING and INSPECTION specified in the standard say the installation only has to comply with the standard in force at the time of installation and have no dangerous or potentally dangerous faults. So for instance a plastic consumer unit does not have to be replaced unles it is broken even though a new one would have to be metal (from 17th edition).

…

It would have been better to specify "..edition current at time of inspection"

That is not quite correct. I&T is to be done i.a.w. Part 6 of the current edition of BS 7671, which is 18th Amd 2. So your plastic CU gets a C3. Similarly, lack of RCD protection would get a C3 for each unprotected circuit. If testing were to the edition which was current at the time of installation, things like lack of earthing might be acceptable.

If legislation were to specify the current edition, it would be "ambulatory", which is to say that BSI/IET would change the law every time that BS 7671 was updated. This would never do because only Parliament can change the law.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Learned today that the 2005 school my niece teaches at has a single toilet for the 30 teaching staff

Yup. It's all about standards

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Chris Pearson 1 on 04/02/2023 21:01:25:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 04/02/2023 19:49:49:

The TESTING and INSPECTION specified in the standard say the installation only has to comply with the standard in force at the time of installation and have no dangerous or potentally dangerous faults. So for instance a plastic consumer unit does not have to be replaced unles it is broken even though a new one would have to be metal (from 17th edition).

…

It would have been better to specify "..edition current at time of inspection"

That is not quite correct. I&T is to be done i.a.w. Part 6 of the current edition of BS 7671, which is 18th Amd 2. So your plastic CU gets a C3. Similarly, lack of RCD protection would get a C3 for each unprotected circuit. If testing were to the edition which was current at the time of installation, things like lack of earthing might be acceptable.

If legislation were to specify the current edition, it would be "ambulatory", which is to say that BSI/IET would change the law every time that BS 7671 was updated. This would never do because only Parliament can change the law.

Chris,

I don't think you are being very clear by quoting the codes, You are bascally agreeing with me that a plastic CU would not require replacement. The test / inspection is to the 2018 edition but the installation requirements are those in force at the time of installation. Thus a plastic consumer unit (fuse box) installed under the 16th edition does not HAVE to be replaced. For those who don't know the codes, C3 is "improvement recommended". Only C1 "Danger Present" or C2 " Potential Danger" are a " Unsatisfactory" result (Fail). A missing blank on a consumer unit allowing you to touch a live part after opening the door would be a C2. A broken cover exposing a live part directly would be a C1.

The problem is that some electricians are saying the the law means that private rents must meet the latest INSTALLATION requirements. Some are just putting C2 codes on C3 items. This is clearly wrong and can be challenged. Others are more careful and if they find a C2 (or C1) defect they issue an unsatisfactory EICR and decline to repiar the C1/C2 fault unless the C3 recommendations are also addressed. They may imply that this is a requirement of the letting regulation. It is of course up to them what work they accept but they leave the landlord with a unsatisfactory EICR and having to find a new electrician.

There is no reason why a law cannot state the current revision of a standard. Basically a well written law would say the item must be safe and then say a / the means of determining this is to comply with the latest edition of a recognised standard (BS EN 7671 in this case).
There are plenty of examples of this. Keeping on subject the Low Voltage Directive (and UK replacement / enactment law) says a item using electricty (60 to 1000V) must be safe. This is the "Essential Requirement". It then says if you comply with the extant edition / revision of an approrpriate "harmonised standard" (issued by BS /EN etc) it is proof of a safe item. Thus the law does not have to keep up with technical improvements.
Even the non private letting laws on electrical safety (various buliding regs etc) do not REQUIRE compliance with BS7671. The trouble is convincing the building inspector and / or your insurance company that an alternative approach is acceptable.

Personally I think it is wrong that private landlords are held to a different, higher, standard than local housing authorites, hotels etc.
No I'm not a landlord.

Finally a pet peeve of mine. Legally BS7671 is a standard, not a set of regulations.
It's only considered regulations by the IET. The title of the document is " Requirements for Electrical Installations " This is clear on the BS website https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/industries-and-sectors/construction-and-building/requirements-for-electrical-installations-iet-wiring-regulations/ The only reference to regulations is a subtitle "IET Wiring Regulations" Interestingly the IET use the subtitle not the main title https://electrical.theiet.org/bs-7671/
Too many electricans promote the idea, and possibly believe, that BS7671 is a legal requirement. This is only true, unfortunatly, for private lets.

Robert.

[Author]

Posts