IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Rented property.
Topic Summary: Old but safe electrics.
Created On: 17 November 2012 02:36 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 17 November 2012 02:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 1670
Joined: 14 December 2006

As I understand it, the requirements for a landlord are that the electrical installation and any appliances provided in a property to be let must be safe to use.

But safe to which era?

For example, a property with just rewireable fuses, where main and equipotential bonding all test satisfactorily, you could say it's safe to use, but not as safe as it could be.

In a situation where a tenant brought with them to a property a faulty appliance that subsequently injured or killed them, where such injury may have been prevented by the landlord installing a 30mA RCD,
who would be to blame?

The tenant for not ensuring their electrical appliance is safe to use.
Or the landlord for not allowing for such a situation.
Or equally to blame.

Any thoughts on this?

Mike
 17 November 2012 02:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Well if an installation wouldn't pass an EICR then it's not safe. In the example you've given lack of RCD is a C2 and would therefore be unsatisfactory.
Thing is a landlord has no obligation to have an EICR carried out. The law needs changing so electrical testing is compulsory. The same as gas.
 17 November 2012 02:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 5879
Joined: 04 July 2007

But safe to which era?
--------------
This is interesting Mike, the way I see it is that if the installation was safe in say 1970 for instance and it's condition is the same as it was then it can't really be any less safe now than it was then can it? It's of course true that it can be made more safe by the use of mcb's & rcd's etc but is that relevent? The only way I can see the installation could be less safe than it was originally is if less safe accessories are being used. Does it say anywhere that a landlord has to provide the most modern safety features in his installation? i'm not sure that it does. Sorry, not much help to you but an interesting point to discuss I think!

Dave.
 17 November 2012 06:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



antric2

Posts: 1034
Joined: 20 October 2006

Evening all,
Lack of an RCD would not deem the property unsatisfactory from a reg point of view,but from a common sense and safe point of view yes it would in my eyes.
No alterations done then no RCD required.

Now from a landlords point of view he\she has a Duty Of Care and if he wants to cover his backside then it is his decision to upgrade or not to RCD.......he would be daft not to put one in.

Just because it is old and I & T is within specs does not mean it is unsatisfactory for continued use but a shorter recommende time of next inspection is good advice.
Regards
Antric
 17 November 2012 06:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 1670
Joined: 14 December 2006

Originally posted by: rutts
The law needs changing so electrical testing is compulsory.

You could do that, but you still need to know what is deemed acceptable and what isn't so that you can inform the landlord.
 17 November 2012 09:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Davesparx

Posts: 262
Joined: 30 October 2009

As already stated unless it becomes law then it is all for nothing. Landlords in domestic or commercial business can look at our reports and are under no obligation to rectify any of the codes that we put down. We have been carrying out EICR's for a local authority for a long time now and you would be amazed how little they actually do in terms of C2's. They may as well just have one code. If its not a C1 then don't bother noting it.
 17 November 2012 09:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Originally posted by: antric2

Evening all,

Lack of an RCD would not deem the property unsatisfactory from a reg point of view,but from a common sense and safe point of view yes it would in my eyes.

No alterations done then no RCD required.



Now from a landlords point of view he\she has a Duty Of Care and if he wants to cover his backside then it is his decision to upgrade or not to RCD.......he would be daft not to put one in.



Just because it is old and I & T is within specs does not mean it is unsatisfactory for continued use but a shorter recommende time of next inspection is good advice.

Regards

Antric


have I missed something? If a property has an EICR carried out on it and there's lack of RCD protection then that is coded as a C2. This makes the EICR unsatisfactory.
 17 November 2012 09:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Originally posted by: mikejumper

Originally posted by: rutts

The law needs changing so electrical testing is compulsory.


You could do that, but you still need to know what is deemed acceptable and what isn't so that you can inform the landlord.


again have I missed something? If EICR's are made compulsory then you test to the current regs and inform the landlord what is acceptable.
 17 November 2012 09:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Originally posted by: Davesparx

As already stated unless it becomes law then it is all for nothing. Landlords in domestic or commercial business can look at our reports and are under no obligation to rectify any of the codes that we put down. We have been carrying out EICR's for a local authority for a long time now and you would be amazed how little they actually do in terms of C2's. They may as well just have one code. If its not a C1 then don't bother noting it.


On the old PIR one code 1 was unsatisfactory . You could have code 2's and get satisfactory. So people were under no obligation to get code 2's rectified. However as C1 and C2 now prompt unsatisfactory surely landlords have to get them rectified? When I worked for letting agents if a landlord asked for an inspection to be done and it was unsatisfactory they couldn't move in tenants until it was satisfactory.
 18 November 2012 11:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



aligarjon

Posts: 2730
Joined: 09 September 2005

Lack of rcd protection is a C3 not a C2 unless the socket is likely to supply equipment outdoors.

Gary

Referring to Mikes original post, a C3 recommends they fit an rcd (covering the inspector) so its up to the landlord in my view.

-------------------------
Specialised Subject. The Bleedin Obvious. John Cleese
 18 November 2012 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

So is everyone C3ing lack of RCD protection? TBH since the 17th came in and, RCD protection in certain circumstances has been required since the 16th, I always code it a C2. As 411.3.3 and 522.6.103
 18 November 2012 12:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 5879
Joined: 04 July 2007

I say C3 if not feeding or likely to feed outdoor equipment,

Dave.
 18 November 2012 12:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Ok. If it's not likely to feed sockets for outdoor equipment or anything in a special location (like a shower). I then yes. I realise my statements were a bit blonde. And I've been coding as everyone else.
 18 November 2012 01:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

So what I meant to say to the OP is that rcd protection is required (supplying outside equipment, showers, etc) then an EICR would state it needs doing. If it's required as per 17th (all sockets, etc) then you can only recommend. Tbh under the later circumstance it's not that dangerous if everything else complies (bonding, zs, etc). I think the 17th in some instances is to reliant on rcds anyway.
 18 November 2012 01:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8808
Joined: 03 October 2005

The issue surrounding this is the legal term 'retrospective', you cannot penalise anyone financially or otherwise for an act or adoption of previous laws or standards at the time they were in force.

The law needs changing so electrical testing is compulsory.


The government is not going to regulate the consumer when our mission is to remove or ease the burden of regulation.
There are also no pressing safety issues that require legislation of this nature, 'safety' is an instrument of the propaganda machine to line the pockets of all.

The EICR/PIR is a risk assessment and whether it is satisfactory or not installations deemed safe under previous standards and that continue to give satisfactory service do not need to be brought up to current standards until major refurbishment is planned or when it is prudent to do so.

Local authorities or other licencing and certification bodies may require the presence of an RCD as added safety under terms of their agreements.

With regards to someone who brings in an appliance and plugs it into an installation designed to previous standards the issue of 'duty of care' and 'liability' will revolve around the legal term 'retrospective', there is no guarantee that an RCD could have prevented harm as it is wholly dependant on the conditions at the time of the incident, a well designed installation without the presence of an RCD can be just as effective as one with.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

Edited: 18 November 2012 at 02:41 PM by rocknroll
 18 November 2012 02:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4409
Joined: 10 December 2004

The requirement to provide 30mA RCD protection to socket-outlets which would reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors came in with the 15th edition.
As such if the installation was designed to an earlier edition,there would have been no requirement for any form of RCD protection.
The 17th edition requires 30mA RCD protection for mobile equipment used outdoors.
Doesn't actually state that a socket used for such equipment should be protected, just that the equipment should be protected.
Compliance could technically be achieved by use of an RCD plug attached to the mobile equipment.
Allways assuming that there is mobile equipment being used outdoors.
 18 November 2012 02:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

All sockets under the 17th used by ordinary persons require RCD protection.? Regardless of what's plugged into it.
 18 November 2012 03:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4409
Joined: 10 December 2004

Not so.
It is only socket-outlets that are intended for general use that require 30mA RCD protection.
Socket-outlets that are intended for a specific item of equipment such as a washing machine, fridge or even a TV do not require 30mA RCD protection.
 18 November 2012 04:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Ok. If they are labelled as such. For the purposes of an EICR I've never come across it. Even if labelled in most households it'd still leave several sockets for 'general use '
 18 November 2012 05:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rutts

Posts: 127
Joined: 21 September 2012

Which again could be covered by the use a plug in RCD. Ok. I'll shut up now.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Rented property.

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.