UK Landlord Forum / Life

I served my tenants section 21. I know that EICR is not necessary to do this, but I had an inspection done and they reported  a host of issues. Now, I had it done very late in years of tenancy (a few months from the end). We live abroad, my partner was in charge, messed up and did not realize we had to.
Not an excuse but it happened. We also did not have the issues fixed in the prescribed two months.

Now I will have the electrical issues fixed, but I have reason to be afraid the tenants will try to use this to invalidate the section 21. Any thoughts?

Other question: Apart form creating issues with the S21, what consequences could I face?

The lack of an EICR (and the existence of electrical problems) can't invalidate a section 21 notice on its own.

The tenants could report you to the local authority who can fine you for not having an EICR and possibly take further action about the issues that the property has.

If the property is not safe and the local authority becomes involved following a complaint from the tenants, that could prevent a possession claim based on the section 21 notice succeeding. But there's quite a number of other things that would need to have happened before that becomes a possibility.

Regardless of the failure to know there was a need for an EICR, if you have had a EICR which found a host of issues and that was a few months ago and they have not yet been addressed, how confident are you that you are not endangering your tenants?
Judges in possession claims are sometimes prepared to address other issues at the same time, so you might want to consider what might happen if your tenants made a compensation claim during the possession claim or submit a defence which makes the judge aware of the safety issues.

"a host of issues" from an EICR / Electrician is something that I'd, personally, be very critical of, even suspicious of.

I have plenty of personal experience that they are used as a job creation scheme within the industry. Landlords are seen as an easy mark. There's nothing more a Sparky loves that going for the unnecessary rewire... shortly followed by bringing the Consumer Unit "up to current regulations". It's very important that Landlords do not take them at their word, unless trusted, and do not ever be afraid of getting a second opinion / EICR in certain situations. I've avoided a [unnecessary] rewire by doing just that.

That said, genuinely unsafe stuff should never have been present anyway, despite the presence of an EICR or not, so take that as you want it, and don't be dead-set against upgrades that actually make perfect sense and introduce extra safety.

Quote from: Hippogriff on May 14, 2024, 03:59:45 PMThat said, genuinely unsafe stuff should never have been present anyway, despite the presence of an EICR or not, so take that as you want it, and don't be dead-set against upgrades that actually make perfect sense and introduce extra safety.

the issues are definitely there.But I see what you mean, it's always worth having a second opinion if it's a lot of work

Quote from: jpkeates on May 14, 2024, 03:28:09 PMJudges in possession claims are sometimes prepared to address other issues at the same time, so you might want to consider what might happen if your tenants made a compensation claim during the possession claim or submit a defence which makes the judge aware of the safety issues.

I was not aware they can make a compensation claim during the possession claim.
I'm new to this...
How does that work?
Do they need to involve the council?


PS Regarding the safety of the tenants, that's a worry and we are looking into that of course.

JPK is spot on, you are endangering your Tenant's and your "it happened" sounds a bit too close to Shit Happens.

You can expect a Tenant to fight you tooth and nail, often because the Council will advise them to as part of their duty to prevent homelessness. 

Failure to comply with the regulations could lead to further action and a fine of up to £30,000 per offence. They usually give you 7 days to produce a clean certificate.

You should also be aware of the following:

Supply a copy of this report to the existing tenant within 28 days of the inspection and test.

Supply a copy of this report to a new tenant before they occupy the premises.

Supply a copy of this report to any prospective tenant within 28 days of receiving a request for the report.

Where the report shows that remedial or further investigative work is necessary, complete this work within 28 days or any shorter period if specified as necessary in the report.

Supply written confirmation of the completion of the remedial works from the electrician to the tenant and the local authority within 28 days of completion of the works.

To prevent Revenge eviction the Tenant should have asked you to carry out the works, you can expect the Tenant to ask the Council to make an Improvement Order or Emergency Works Notice. Once a serious matter or fire risk is reported the Council will turn up with very short notice, they will leave notices for all Tenants about what is happening.  Some Councils charge £500 for every stage of the process to fund their department and you will be given a very short time to make the required improvements or works.  The regulations are stricter for an HMO.

If the property requires a license then in serious circumstances this may be revoked, you may later be deemed as not a fit and proper person to hold such a license. 

Whilst the S21 process does not make it conditional,  you can expect a Tenant ask the Court for time to make a Counterclaim if they have ground for one. It is very likely that the Judge will have huge docket and many look for any reason to deal quickly or grant an adjournment if a short time was allocated. 

The second stage of the S21 process asks you to confirm all the prerequisites have been met, The Court then sends that form to the Tenant with a Defence form showing the same prerequisites and asking if they agree.  If there is no argument the Court will try to hear the matter without a hearing, but if there is an argument they may still only allow 15 minutes for the hearing, this is not adequate if there are serious matters like this.

If they kick it out rather than adjourn it you lose your Court fee and can't recover it on a subsequent claim.

I tend to find that when a Landlord/Agent has been sloppy on one thing then they are usually sloppy on other things.  So Deposit Protection, Gas Safety, no prohibited fees, etc.  The S21 is valid for four months following expiry.  Many Councils will offer to review all documents and give the Tenant a roadmap or refer them to a local law centre.

If there is any defect in the paperwork, for example failure to serve the PI or a Gas Safety that has been forged (yes I have seen this happen numerous times both by Landlords and Gas Safe Engineers after the after the fact), then you can expect the S21 to be thrown out.  If an improvement order has been granted meanwhile then the Tenant can ask the Court to kick out a subsequent S21 on the basis that it is revenge eviction, this prevents a new S21 from being served for 6 months.

Do not assume the Tenant is ignorant because they are informed along the way by so many organisations. 

I would advise you get the works done as a matter of urgency, that is the most important thing.

Quote from: jj1 on May 14, 2024, 02:31:18 PMI served my tenants section 21. I know that EICR is not necessary to do this, but I had an inspection done and they reported  a host of issues.

Now, I had it done very late in years of tenancy (a few months from the end). We live abroad, my partner was in charge, messed up and did not realize we had to.

Not an excuse but it happened. We also did not have the issues fixed in the prescribed two months.

Now I will have the electrical issues fixed, but I have reason to be afraid the tenants will try to use this to invalidate the section 21. Any thoughts?

Other question: Apart form creating issues with the S21, what consequences could I face?

Whilst I might agree that some Agents are keen to carry out works and add 20% to such works and it is always wise to get three quotes, an inspection is different.

If you get a report done and you do not act on the recommendations you open yourself up to wrongful death criminal prosecution if there is a fire and someone dies. 

Certainly get different quotes to have the issues raised dealt with, but do not avoid fixing what you have been told needs to be fixed.

If something happens and you got three Electrical Installation Condition Reports it will not help your defence.  They will see it for what it is, someone trying to do things on the cheap.

The OP said it has been rented for a long time and seems satisfied that the issues do exist.

Imagine the situation where a good firm does the report, the Landlord pays for another firm to do a second inspection and makes it clear they are looking to do the minimum possible. 

Then a year later there is a fire reported in the paper with some fatalities, the original firm may recollect inspecting that property and inform the Police and Coroner.

You can't be made unaware, once you have been informed it is on you.

I actually think that it's very important that Landlords DO take them at their word.

Quote from: Hippogriff on May 14, 2024, 03:59:45 PM"a host of issues" from an EICR / Electrician is something that I'd, personally, be very critical of, even suspicious of.

I have plenty of personal experience that they are used as a job creation scheme within the industry. Landlords are seen as an easy mark. There's nothing more a Sparky loves that going for the unnecessary rewire... shortly followed by bringing the Consumer Unit "up to current regulations". It's very important that Landlords do not take them at their word, unless trusted, and do not ever be afraid of getting a second opinion / EICR in certain situations. I've avoided a [unnecessary] rewire by doing just that.

That said, genuinely unsafe stuff should never have been present anyway, despite the presence of an EICR or not, so take that as you want it, and don't be dead-set against upgrades that actually make perfect sense and introduce extra safety.

Sorry, but I'm not talking theory - I'm talking about clearly incorrect (possibly fraudulent) EICRs created for the sole intention of creating business - obviously with that same Electrician who did the EICR. I've not brought Agents into it but that's clearly an issue all of its own.

What I'm talking about is Electricians producing EICRs that identify C1 and C2 issues that aren't issues at all. As I cited, the most common would be the 'need' to bring a Consumer Unit up to Full Metal Jacket status. I know of several instances where I, and other Landlords, have been told by a variety of Electricians this is necessary to grant a SATISFACTORY rated EICR. I've personally had my own experience of an attempt at a full on re-wire.

Two EICRs can come out with two completely different results - based on the Electrician undertaking - I will not countenance the position that the correct approach is the one with most work identified for the Electrician. Otherwise we'd all be doing rewires and fitting new Consumer Units. If a Landlord just takes the EICR at its 'word' then maybe they deserve all the come in for... but the suggestion an EICR at-fault can't be overridden by an EICR that corrects blatant attempts at work-creation is naïve in the extreme. You come across there like a representative of the industry - those who cannot be questioned.

The 'issues' here are not quantified (yet). I have no idea what they are. One might be that there's no alarms - clearly an issue that needs rectifying, one might be bare wires coming out of the ceiling - clearly an issue that needs rectifying, one might be that RCBOs should be fitted - that's a recommendation, not a C1 or C2. A dodgy Electrician can present both as needed, and many will do so.

Landlords emphatically should not take Electricians (or the EICRs they produce) at their word if your Spideysense tingles.

The avoidance of unnecessary work is not the equivalent of doing things on the cheap - you should take those words back as they're categorically incorrect. You have just assumed that the theoretically dodgy EICR is unquestionable. It isn't.

Quote from: David on May 14, 2024, 04:58:35 PMCertainly get different quotes to have the issues raised dealt with, but do not avoid fixing what you have been told needs to be fixed.

This is the worst advice I've ever seen and meekly encourages Landlords to fall into traps laid by unscrupulous Electricians.

Review what you've been told needs to be fixed and question it if needs be, don't just roll over and have your belly tickled by a con man. If I'd done that with a fellow who did numerous EICRs for me (all passed except one where he thought he'd try his luck) I'd be £3,500 in the hole for a rewire that clearly wasn't necessary. He'd recorded dodgy figures on the EICR that looked odd (even to me as a layperson) and when questioned he became extremely defensive, the second Electrician was told what happened and he was fully aware I was looking to avoid a rewire... he actually did the inspection properly and measured and recorded the figures in a way that made sense. EICRs, for my mind, are way too subjective in how they're completed.

Don't trust, verify.

I recall back to years ago... the second Electrician saw the first EICR and commented that it looked like it had been completed by a five-year old.

Some things are obvious faults.

Some things are obvious scams.

Some things are clever scams that look like issues that need to be addressed... just because a scammer with a qualification has written them down on a form doesn't mean they should be taken at face-value. The number of metal-clad consumer boards supplied and fitted in the last few years must've broken all records. Just because an electrical installation in a property might be old doesn't mean that it is unsafe. That truth is the one most readily thrown out of the window by Electricians who are busy drumming-up work.

Could it by any chance be the way you are going about it.

Perhaps if you search for an Electrician to carry out the EICR and let them know that no matter what they report you will be doing the work by another firm. 

If you still have such a dim view of people then say the same thing to three firms, paying 3x as much for the EICR but don't choose the cheapest.

As I said, if things go wrong people will think/assume you did it on the cheap.

Quote from: David on May 14, 2024, 08:26:37 PMPerhaps if you search for an Electrician to carry out the EICR and let them know that no matter what they report you will be doing the work by another firm.

It's an interesting idea, but it's not efficient. The problem lies solely with the folk who are outed as con-men and chancers. You can't really know this if you're just selecting one Electrician one time, from Checkatrade with plenty of good reviews.

I think what happens in some rare cases is greed takes over. For me, the Electrician was signed up to do numerous EICRs and he very clearly, with hindsight, selected the 'roughest' house of the set to suggest the rewire for. He obviously thought a Landlord could afford it and, because I had amiably accepted his recommendations on a few other - minor - issues, (downlights, RCBO) he thought that I didn't have my eye on the ball and I would just let things pass. I stress this - he was a con-man - the rewire was not a grey area, it wasn't a mistake - he told me it was needed and he even quoted in anticipation... the second EICR has SATISFACTORY on it. The fee for the first was refunded.

There's an onus on Landlords to be on-the-ball, with all Trades, even when you don't understand the technical reasons. The introduction of EICRs some years back didn't mean Electricians became exempt from question or challenge. The timelines that are associated with C1, C2 remediation are just like a con attempt if you think about it - creating that 'false' sense of urgency.

A property doesn't become unsafe due to the creation of an EICR. Just like all the high-rise buildings in the country didn't become riskier for fires because one burned down in London. Getting a correct EICR to replace a 'faulty' one is not doing anything on the cheap, not at all... you're still failing to realise or accept that the first EICR might be just 'wrong' and be an attempt at a con.. It's valueless in the scenario I paint. It doesn't still hold some mystical intangible level of value just because it exists in its incorrect state - it's wrong, it's an attempt at extortion and it holds no value. It just needs to be dismissed.

How on earth (sic) did avoiding an attempt at being conned become equivalent to doing things on the cheap? Shocking (sic).

So many Landlords have been conned over the last few years due to not having their wits about them and the false 'urgency'.

I'd still like to know the issues identified here... and I fully accept they may be real issues that need remediation. As of now it's just described as "a host of issues" and those words got my ears pricking-up... sounds like a pay-day, but could be genuine, sure.

The problem here for the querant is that they have left themselves with no wriggle room to get a second opinion.  There is no excuse for not taking action to either get the work done within that 2 month period,  or get a second opinion and challenge the first report. The possible risks would certainly keep me awake at night.

That said,  Hippogriff is right to be cynical.  Most people, myself included, only have to hear the words " fire risk " or " electrocution "  to agree, nay beg, for the work to be done pronto. How many of us know enough to question such things?  A new one seems to be " does not comply with the new regs" .

Roofing is another trade with lots of potential to scare us.  I spent around a grand years ago for a new chimney, the old one was apparently about to fall down and kill someone down below.  I was later told by chance that it had just needed a bit of re-pointing. 

A friend' s Dad was rescued off his roof once by the fire brigade.  He had seen a leak, and having been a builder he got the ladders out. He was 90, and said he never trusted what tradesmen told him needed doing!   

Being kind and not considering it normal for Electricians to be con-men, I'd suggest even the good ones:

a) don't understand the current regulations, and certainly not how they've changed and compare over the years - I've had seemingly subjective interpretations of the exact same situation

b) don't understand the current regulations absolutely aren't retrospective - an installation that is old, but safe, does not need "bringing up to the current regulations" - although there may be benefit in doing so

c) hide behind the regulations in nearly every conversation you have with them, but often aren't willing to engage in why - it's always just "the regulations"

d) see Landlords as a population ripe for plucking - a rewire is a proper crash-and-grab attempt, but I know for a fact many Landlords have upgraded their Consumer Units on the back of EICRs (I'm part of a WhatsApp group for an apartment block of >300 addresses)

I cannot say this for sure - of course I can't - but the "host of issues" from the OP worried me a lot. It wasn't made clear if some were optional recommendations or all were real issues - we just don't know. They said "fixed", which to me implies "broken" but I bet that's not what's going on. Could be wrong. My point for any reader is don't just do what you've been told (which the OP didn't anyway, but might be soon preparing to). As probably comes across, I learned a lot in those few days and the ramifications of the first EICR meant not only the cost to do it, but the disruption to the Tenant (and her possibly moving out) and time. If I wasn't a suspicious and combative so-and-so then I'd be a much poorer one.

@Hippogriff

To be honest I am astonished by your attitude, obviously some people are more risk averse than others but we are talking potentially killing children here.

With respect it seems that you do not take things seriously until things happen to you.

Tightening up regulations is NOT about risk, it is done because Landlords are not taking things seriously.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/11/two-children-killed-eynesbury-cambridgeshire-house-fire

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/viralnews/17701233.mother-two-children-died-house-fire-likely-started-electrical-fault/

Based on your approach it seems to me that we need even tighter regulations.

I would propose that all EICR reports be centrally filed and connected to the Land Registry deed.  That way a negative report that is not rectified can prevent a home being sold and it could be linked to Local Councils and all Landlords could be forced to be licensed, with no Agent allowed to stand in for them.  Unlimited personal liability also should be allowed. Maybe Mortgage companies could use the database to deny loans on Buy to Let Mortgages.

Normally I would be against such measures but you have changed my opinion, clearly the £30,000  fine is not enough, the risks are worse now, far worse.

The types of devices we have these days mean that we need a much more competent system and wiring that is able to take the potential load after years of use and punishment.  Things like chargers for Lithium 18650 cells that are in so many devices.  The idea is that the wiring and consumer unit can take safe loads and cut off when loads are unsafe.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12259287/Fire-killed-mother-two-children-aged-four-eight-started-charging-e-bike.html

One would hope that the combination of good wired smoke alarms (with battery backup) and an up to date wiring system such fires could be prevented and lives saved.

I am not an electrician, I assume they have equipment that measures things like resistance, load and other issues, certainly I have seen videos from those guys that post the jobs they do on YouTube show why a system needs changing.  They often show botch jobs and even inappropriate RCD's having been installed by previous contractors.

I get that some of the quotes are eye watering, but like everything in property, it should be considered an investment and part of doing business, you can always require an EICR test before buying a property. 

I have seen mechanics make work for themselves and I have seen MOT testing stations pass a car that is subsequently is found to be a write off with a million problems.  So I understand your position, but this is not an area where you can take risks. 

Dismissing my suggestion as not efficient just shows why we need tighter regulation, either you find contractors you can trust and pay them well or you use people who will never get the business and you let them know that upfront.

I know this system works, I have been involved in cases where there were allegations of disrepair on boilers with HA's that had 40,000 and even 100,000 properties.  On one case I drilled down on their policies to figure out the balance of probabilities. 

So on Gas Repair they have a huge company do the annual safety check, they have budget of £500 including labour for each property for the first 12 years of the boilers life.  They only use original parts but they get really good pricing because of the sheer number of properties. 

When there is a fault they send an Engineer, the fault is diagnosed and if the repair can be done under £500 then they do it, but they also take the life of the boiler into account.  No property out of warranty gets a second repair, they standardised on a brand and range of boiler, I think the warranty is 10 or 12 years. 

I looked into the area of the estate, it was relatively new build, under 15 years and I asked the HA to provide repair logs for 18 blocks in the area that they owned.  They had replaced 50% of the boilers in 11 years, which was blamed on the brand of Boiler.  We were able to show that far from having a policy of avoiding repair, they were proactive and responsible, they had the safety reports booked 3 months before due and 99.5% completed within 12 months.

The company that provided the safety inspections and initial diagnosis on any fault does not get any of the installation business, they had no financial interest in exaggerating as they are capped at £500. 

If you feel a contractor is acting illegally or outside the rules then report them, maybe there needs to be a dedicated rating system for these contractors so if there are any bad apples they can be disqualified.

When I found a Gas Safe Engineer providing fake backdated reports to aid eviction I called Gas Safe, they were very interested, I provided the evidence and the matter did also go to the Police.  I also brought it to the attention of the Court and from that point nothing the Claimant said was believed, the Claimant failed.  They had paid over £5k in legal fees.  I won't share how I was able to ascertain that the fake backdated gas safety report was faked but I would advise people to never lie or fake anything in Court.

Another person might suggest that the record of not suggesting a rewire on each of the properties showed the guy you mentioned was bona fide.

I can see that there will be no convincing you, did you REALLY just say use the Grenfell Tower fire as an argument!!  Your disregard for human life is astonishing.

Nobody is saying that all buildings are bad, the example you gave was apparently started by an electrical fault caused by a fridge, but what matters is what exacerbated it and the lessons learnt so that it does not happen again.  The lack of a sprinkler system, the use of cladding and the previous knowledge of the fire risk as well as them ignoring years of warnings.

The point is that the fire uncovered a risk we were unaware of, as a result we will have more regulation and the cladding removed, many people have been ruined because of the risk to their building.  It is not an increase in risk, the risk was always there as it is with properties that need new wiring, new sockets or new consumer units. The regulation is there to try to persuade Landlords like you to take things seriously, but as you have shown, we need much tighter regulation on Landlords.

If there is a systemic issue with firms carrying out exaggerated tests then campaign for an equivalent of Gas Safe, perhaps as an subsidiary of the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC). 

We can't stop people buying dangerous battery driven hair tongs or ebikes but what we can do is provide robust safety measures including adequate electrical installations. 

Don't risk lives because you have to put your hand in your wallet.

What said about doing things on the cheap is what will be assumed after the event.

Quote from: Hippogriff on May 15, 2024, 08:53:04 AM

Quote from: David on May 14, 2024, 08:26:37 PMPerhaps if you search for an Electrician to carry out the EICR and let them know that no matter what they report you will be doing the work by another firm.

It's an interesting idea, but it's not efficient. The problem lies solely with the folk who are outed as con-men and chancers. You can't really know this if you're just selecting one Electrician one time, from Checkatrade with plenty of good reviews.

I think what happens in some rare cases is greed takes over. For me, the Electrician was signed up to do numerous EICRs and he very clearly, with hindsight, selected the 'roughest' house of the set to suggest the rewire for. He obviously thought a Landlord could afford it and, because I had amiably accepted his recommendations on a few other - minor - issues, (downlights, RCBO) he thought that I didn't have my eye on the ball and I would just let things pass. I stress this - he was a con-man - the rewire was not a grey area, it wasn't a mistake - he told me it was needed and he even quoted in anticipation... the second EICR has SATISFACTORY on it. The fee for the first was refunded.

There's an onus on Landlords to be on-the-ball, with all Trades, even when you don't understand the technical reasons. The introduction of EICRs some years back didn't mean Electricians became exempt from question or challenge. The timelines that are associated with C1, C2 remediation are just like a con attempt if you think about it - creating that 'false' sense of urgency.

A property doesn't become unsafe due to the creation of an EICR. Just like all the high-rise buildings in the country didn't become riskier for fires because one burned down in London.

Getting a correct EICR to replace a 'faulty' one is not doing anything on the cheap, not at all... you're still failing to realise or accept that the first EICR might be just 'wrong' and be an attempt at a con.. It's valueless in the scenario I paint. It doesn't still hold some mystical intangible level of value just because it exists in its incorrect state - it's wrong, it's an attempt at extortion and it holds no value. It just needs to be dismissed.

How on earth (sic) did avoiding an attempt at being conned become equivalent to doing things on the cheap? Shocking (sic).

So many Landlords have been conned over the last few years due to not having their wits about them and the false 'urgency'.

I'd still like to know the issues identified here... and I fully accept they may be real issues that need remediation. As of now it's just described as "a host of issues" and those words got my ears pricking-up... sounds like a pay-day, but could be genuine, sure.

Quote from: David on May 15, 2024, 01:36:05 PMDon't risk lives because you have to put your hand in your wallet.

I can't take you seriously now. You've - clearly - not digested anything here. In my case the EICR was incorrect and fraudulent. In other cases I've personally cited - unnecessary work has been undertaken taking advantage of fear and ignorance. In the case of the OP I suggested that "a host of issues" may not actually need addressing at all, so be careful.

Your argument doesn't survive in the real world... only in theory - your perspective is that one should commission an EICR and take whatever the form says at face-value, and as some kind of authority, and then meekly pay for whatever it says to be done. Frankly, that's bad advice to any Landlord. Like me, you have zero idea what the "host of issues" were here - but we all know that "recommendations" can be presented as "issues" to the unsuspecting.

What can be agreed is that real C1, C2 issues on a genuine EICR should be addressed. But the opposite to that has never been put forward anyway. you're really just digging your heels in because someone has called you out when you said - "Where the report shows that remedial or further investigative work is necessary, complete this work within 28 days or any shorter period if specified as necessary in the report." - which you probably just cribbed from some website anyway (you certainly didn't come up with it yourself).

In fact, thinking on it, all of your advice here seems mainly theoretical and quoted. Each and every one of my properties has an EICR marked SATISFACTORY... so why would a £30,000 fine ever begin to worry me, it doesn't remotely apply to me at all. Do all properties have metal-clad Consumer Boards? No. Why not? Fun fact you seem to enjoy ignoring - they don't need to because they're safe as-is and the latest-and-greatest regulations aren't retrospective. QED.

I would add that my own home doesn't have a metal-clad Consumer Unit... so I'm willing to put myself at the same risk as Tenants.   

I'm an equal opportunity Landlord - we all have that chance of going up in flames (actually I did do a rewire at a property in 2016 and there's a metal-clad unit there... regulations). Another property I bought in 2018 also has a metal-clad Consumer Unit. I think one property I've owned from 2000, built in 1990, might have a Consumer Unit made of wood. 

I don't have an EICR or GSC for home, though.

@Hippogriff

I can't take you seriously either, so we can agree to disagree.

I have "digested" fine, you have stated your position and seem willing to risk lives because you no longer trust ANY Electrical Engineer.  You feel they are all on the take so you are prepared to risk the lives of your Tenants and their Children, not to mention any neighbours.

This has not been about the OP for some time, they clearly believe their works need to be done.

Whatever I quoted came from the regulations, dur, yes these are on Government, Council and other websites, dur, which means you will have no excuse when the worst happens to your Tenants.

I have proposed a solution to your inherent distrust of the Engineers who are qualified, you reject it, I have suggested you campaign for a better system of certification of said Engineers along the lines of Gas Safe.

Your cavalier attitude shows we need much tighter regulation, maybe you blame the Tenants at Grenfell? I mean to use them as an example shows just how low you are prepared to go, how little you value.

As for your being able to put up with things yourself, sorry, that is not the bar for regulation, anyone can be brave or stupid, but they don't have the right to subject Tenants to that stupidity.  That is why we have regulations because of people like you.

Quote from: Hippogriff on May 15, 2024, 02:12:21 PM

Quote from: David on May 15, 2024, 01:36:05 PMDon't risk lives because you have to put your hand in your wallet.

I can't take you seriously now. You've - clearly - not digested anything here. In my case the EICR was incorrect and fraudulent. In other cases I've personally cited - unnecessary work has been undertaken taking advantage of fear and ignorance. In the case of the OP I suggested that "a host of issues" may not actually need addressing at all, so be careful.

Your argument doesn't survive in the real world... only in theory - your perspective is that one should commission an EICR and take whatever the form says at face-value, and as some kind of authority, and then meekly pay for whatever it says to be done. Frankly, that's bad advice to any Landlord. Like me, you have zero idea what the "host of issues" were here - but we all know that "recommendations" can be presented as "issues" to the unsuspecting.

What can be agreed is that real C1, C2 issues on a genuine EICR should be addressed. But the opposite to that has never been put forward anyway. you're really just digging your heels in because someone has called you out when you said - "Where the report shows that remedial or further investigative work is necessary, complete this work within 28 days or any shorter period if specified as necessary in the report." - which you probably just cribbed from some website anyway (you certainly didn't come up with it yourself).

In fact, thinking on it, all of your advice here seems mainly theoretical and quoted. Each and every one of my properties has an EICR marked SATISFACTORY... so why would a £30,000 fine ever begin to worry me, it doesn't remotely apply to me at all. Do all properties have metal-clad Consumer Boards? No. Why not? Fun fact you seem to enjoy ignoring - they don't need to because they're safe as-is and the latest-and-greatest regulations aren't retrospective. QED.

Quote from: David on May 15, 2024, 03:13:10 PMI have "digested" fine, you have stated your position and seem willing to risk lives because you no longer trust ANY Electrical Engineer.  You feel they are all on the take so you are prepared to risk the lives of your Tenants and their Children, not to mention any neighbours.

Straight over your head - whoosh.

I state again... all properties have an EICR marked SATISFACTORY. That's the same as every successful EICR. Exactly where is the risk to life that I'm prepared to take that you mention? That's rather offensive.

There's nothing half-hearted or cheap about the EICRs I am in possession of - they're the same as every passing EICR, because that's exactly what they are. I have never once stated EICRs should not be done, just that their contents are subjective and there's value in questioning them. Is the beef you currently have that you somehow think I should have just paid for the full rewire instead of questioning the need for one? Have you conveniently forgotten that this was attempted fraud? The readings shown on the EICR weren't true - they were made-up (and it was expected I'd skim over them as I was supposed to know nothing), as verified by the second EICR (which had actual readings which made sense).

If that's your position then you deserve to be sat in the corner, wearing a conical had with D on it.

You are the first person to ever accuse me of laxity - mostly I get the criticism of doing things by the book too much. 

I own an apartment on the 26th floor of a building and let it out (yes, it has an EICR, no GSC though - maybe I'll get one).

I - again - have first-hand experience of what is happening in this space since one building burned down in London coming up to a decade ago now. I know all the troubles that owners are going through, as their Management Companies, the original Builders and the Government all fight tooth-and-nail to push the responsibility (the cost) onto the shoulders of any other party, including in some cases - Leaseholders, who are in no way responsible.

But Leaseholders are responsible it seems. How so?

Well, the Insurance industry has taken the position that while these buildings across the country had acceptable risk profiles and premiums before Grenfell... after Grenfell and after lots of soul-searching - those same buildings now required insurance premiums 400% of what they once were. Nothing has changed about the make-up of the buildings. They have the same protections against fire as they always have - some more, some less, I guess, but on a building-by-building basis - they are as they were. And there's still no end in sight as the aforementioned parties continue to squabble and engage study after study and assessment after assessment so they can apply via route after route to fund after fund. I quote something now, but not something that I cribbed from a website:

"We understand that the insurance remains a real concern to property owners at ADDRESS and that the current level is far from ideal, it is however unavoidable whilst the cladding/façade issues remain. As per our other recent update we continue to work on resolving these issues so that the insurance can be reassessed and hopefully return to a lower level."

Yes, there were casualties at the time - in one building. The knock-on effects to hundreds of thousands of people continue today. Yes, Landlords now adhere to electrical regulations - what does that mean? It means that they have an EICR in place.

Not an EXEMPLARY EICR or an EICR with DISTINCTION. A SATISFACTORY EICR as that's what a passing EICR gets, one without any C1s or C2s. So, again, what risk is it that am I willing to take on behalf of my Tenants that you think is morally wrong? What regulations have I stuck two-fingers up at?

I genuinely think you just don't understand the situation now. The advice you've given here is extremely poor in my view - it's "shut-up-and-pay-up" even though we have no knowledge of the issues (you're now backing yourself up by claiming the OP seems satisfied the issues are real issues - but we have zero information, I've - at least - accepted that).