My insurance policies say nothing about qualifications of trademen (or myself). It's hard to see how an insurance company could have an argument for someone inspecting their own installation - after all, it's an inspection and apart from the opportunity to introduce bad connections, you won't be introducing any faults.
At the same time, you could get "anyone" to come and do electrical works which do involve design etc and have a far higher risk of introducing faults. Yet there's no restrictions on who they might be.
And how could the local authority cause any problems ? Unless it's something so blatant that no-one could have missed it then it's all down to judgement anyway. In my case, I could probably stop them dead in their tracks with something along the lines of "so, this person who's saying I'm wrong, what qualifications does he have and do they at least match mine ?"
Interestingly the page that link goes to now (RLA have merged with NLA to form the NRLA) doesn't contain that bit of text. It does however contain a number of factual errors and the way it's worded suggests that it was provided for them by Napit - oh, I hadn't looked at the top where it says it was provided by Napit. As is usual for stuff produced by the scams, it contains either "factual errors", or very careful wording that's designed to leave someone with a false impression - usually to lead someone into believing that it's a legal requirement to use a registered electrician. In this case it's just an outright lie, it says that "Any Electrical Inspector you employ to undertake the electrical inspection and testing within your property must ..." and then goes on to list 4 requirements which are not specified in the regulations at all. All good ideas, but not one of them qualifying for the use of "must".
When I became a landlord I paid a company to do an electrical inspection. They were so good that they managed to issue a certificate without getting keys to the property. After that I updated my qualifications and now do my own inspections. Never had an issue with the tenants and I know it is done right.
We can expect a lot more of that in the coming few months - along with the "long list of spurious C2s and a suitable quote to fix them" results.
I hope nobody minds if I resurrect this discussion. But it's pretty much exactly the same question I was going to ask. I'm also a retired sparks. Also a landlord. Also need and eicr before April 2021. And although not strictly needed, a cu change, because I'm considering selling in the next year or so, and if I have to have an eicr anyway, I might as well upgrade.
Technically I can easily do it. But same question , --- am I allowed?
Yes, assuming you were a competent sparks and you haven't lost that, then legally you are good to go. Test equipment might be an issue, but I'm sure you can sort something out round that.
For a CU change, the
ONLY thing not being a scam member causes you is having to notify it via the LA BC dept - and some of them have silly fees to the point where it's cheaper to employ someone to do it (and put it right to your satisfaction later !)
