Landlord EICR's

[SG_Electrical]

Hi all. I have recently issued a few unsatisfactory reports to different landlords, some of whom are electricians themselves (albeit not self employed/registered with CPS). My question is regarding the required remedial works. If said landlords/electricians carry out their own remedial works which are notifiable, but do not certify or notify BC, can they then get me to carry out another EICR? It seems like people are trying to use EICR's to circumvent certifying and notifying their own work. Thanks in advance

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I had reason to believe that the customer may attempt to rectify any faults identified themselves, owing to their conversations with me about the industry, the job and how they used to be on the tools. I wanted to ensure that the extent of any certification I was doing was clear and made specific mention of the clients technical background, with a view that the customer may look to remedy issues himself and should any of those remedies involved those outlined in Part P of the Building Regulations 2010, that my recommendation was to notify LABC or use a contractor registered with a CPS.

Indemnity insurance is for this exact sort of thing no? To indemnify you for your technical knowledge, reasoning and application against those that just want to sue you as they disagree?

You wouldn't be certifying anything by carrying out an EICR, it's a report. What someone else might do afterwards, and your perception of their competence, etc isn't part of it.

 

[Mike Johnson]

with a view that the customer may look to remedy issues himself and should any of those remedies involved those outlined in Part P of the Building Regulations 2010, that my recommendation was to notify LABC or use a contractor registered with a CPS.

Supposition therefore inadmissible.

 

[Lister1987]

Supposition therefore inadmissible.

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

You're inventing problems for yourself. An EICR is a safety report comparing an installation to current BS7671. Building regs and notification are irrelevant to the report. Everything the owner needs to know is in the guidance for recipients, appended to the report

 

[UNG]

The original intent behind Part P by Parliament seems to have been lost long ago.

It has never really been possible to produce any tangible statistics on whether Part P achieved it's original aims as the 17th edition and the RCD requirements it brought in make it difficult assess with any accuracy how much safer Part P has made installations when RCD's are required now on most circuits

About the only benefit it may of had is that more work now gets properly certified

 

[i=p/u]

And how many jobs is done in UK a day and not certified ....
Richard burns would know the algorithm to work it out but heard he labouring to brickies and out of the lecy game?

 

[Mike Johnson]

As opposed to a discharging of duty of care by informing them of the mean to comply with building regs?

That is a very slippery slope, where do you stop.

 

[Lister1987]

That is a very slippery slope, where do you stop.

How so? You're advising them of thier legal obligations under Part P of the building regs, (which you have working and professional knowledge of), no different from say a fire alarm installer/maintenance company advising a client of thier obligations under RR(FS)O after the notice things during scheduled maintenance/inspection.

 

[Mike Johnson]

You are stepping outside the remit of the work for witch you where employed, your responsibility is to carry out and report on the condition of the electrical installation and that is all, to diversify into other areas is asking for trouble when the client in the Dock says "but my electrician (you) told me" You are looking to remedy a problem that does not exist as I said above where do you stop advising on problems that don't exist, a Barrister would have a field day about what you did not advise on.

 

[Lister1987]

You are stepping outside the remit of the work for witch you where employed, your responsibility is to carry out and report on the condition of the electrical installation and that is all, to diversify into other areas is asking for trouble when the client in the Dock says "but my electrician (you) told me" You are looking to remedy a problem that does not exist as I said above where do you stop advising on problems that don't exist, a Barrister would have a field day about what you did not advise on.

I don't see it personally, possibly my age and lack of experience but I honestly can't see why it would be turned against you. You weren't the one that did or certified the work. You completed the work you were asked and commented that certain works would need notification if undertaken by the person ordering the works or a party not registered with a CPS, furthermore you state that you don't undertake commissioning of third party work.

If it's in your T&C's (as opposed to on the report as I was suggesting) then they had a hard time trying to tie it up on slander/libel or what have you, as they're your terms of service, which were accepted when the work commenced, surely?

Enjoying the discussion ?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Anything that turns court proceedings in favour of any party is fair game and will be used against you, your terms and conditions are irrelevant if they do not conform to the DTE guide lines, the problem is stepping outside the realms of what you where there for in the first place, its a mine field if something goes wrong either with the work you carried out or any other part of the perceived work that the client wish's to view as part of your advice.

 

[Lister1987]

Anything that turns court proceedings in favour of any party is fair game and will be used against you, your terms and conditions are irrelevant if they do not conform to the DTE guide lines, the problem is stepping outside the realms of what you where there for in the first place, its a mine field if something goes wrong either with the work you carried out or any other part of the perceived work that the client wish's to view as part of your advice.

Surely that's the purpose of indemnity insurance? To enable you to give your professional opinion on the realms of electrical work?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Electrical work you carry out Yes, but nothing outside that work.