odd pir advice

[electrician4u]

Just been looking at the esc website and saw a strange report which i've never come across before which can be used instead of a pir called a domestic visual condition report. has anyone seen that before? seems like if the general public knew, they would generally go for that as it involves no testing-not safe, obviously but with so many unscrupulous, tight landlords, house sellers, etc. around it seems to make the pir a bit redundant. 

 

[Engineer54]

Quote: As I said you're pretty good at insults and it would be very pleasant to be ignored by you. :QUOTE



You've got it !!

 

[oxocube]

Quote: As I said you're pretty good at insults and it would be very pleasant to be ignored by you. :QUOTE



You've got it !!

Thank you

 

[1shortcircuit]

I need to go back to the beginning of this thread now to remember what it was all about as I got sidetracked eating my popcorn watching the mud wrestling that came out of nowhere lol

:thumbsup

18:30, soon be beer o'clock so hopefully the tension will be drowned out and replaced with cyber-love and friend making on electriciansforums

 

[tlangdon12]

As a responsible, but new, landlord, I intend to have my properties PIR'ed every five years, PAT done at each change of tenant, AND visual condition inspections of the electrical installation done by my letting agent at each change of tenant.

Another landlord might be interested in having the visual condition inspection done by another party if their Letting Agent didn't want to provide this service. So having a ready-made format for such an inspection that a electrician can carry out is perhaps not such a bad idea. Providing the person requesting the visual condition report understands its limitations, it does have a place in an overall management plan.

Tony

 

[Des 56]

Of course the visual could have some place in a plan

The problem with the "thingy2 as I like to call it for derogatory purposes,is that it is not an inspection and test as per the good book.
It is however,a very easy simple tool that a dodgy or even an ignorant landlord could use instead of a proper testing regime,(which is possibly the best way of a landlord passing responsibility of his duty of care to another party) and being in a strong position should any incident occur

The only problem with my above statement that I see,is the actual pir can and very often is carried out by electricians who may not be competent to do so

The main culprit with that is the Niceic, who use the dangerous qualified supervisor systen, where an unskilled person can and often is sent out on these missions
Then you have the crap pir to show, that may exclude you the landlord from the courts wrath,but betrays the safety of the tennant
If you are genuine in your desire for a safe installation,forget the myth and nonesense that an Niceic Pir is the one to get, and instead insist on the electriocian, who actually will be doing the testing and inspection,make sure he is qualified (2391 perhaps)and experienced
A labourers inspection signed by a guy in an office who may have never seen the installation is as much a fake as the visual "thingy"

 

[electrician4u]

thanks for the replies. hadn't expected the subject to get so heated..i think my original point though was the fact that customers generally chose the cheap option, landlords nearly ALWAYS do, so if this is given as an option, it's a slippery slope to the full PIR test being sidelined.

 

[oxocube]

Possibly, but if you agreed to a visual non intrusive PIR and found signs of burning around fuses or sockets, multiple plug adapters and extension leads, etc, etc. You would be straight back to the client telling him that due to the poor condition a full test and inspection should be carried out. Its like any other inspection, you can only make conclusive decisions after the inspection when you know whats what.

 

[electrician4u]

Of course if you see burning or broken accessories a visual wouldn't be enough but the danger of course is that a visual inspection misses out on various potential hazards, in particular, no or bad earthing.

 

[RexT]

Hi Guys,

Very interesting and as ususal very well made points by people on this forum.
However it is worthwhile considering if a landlord (as the case seems to have as ana example) has a visual inspection only then surely his liability would be greater if an occurrance happens involving injury, death or damage?
I can just see the landlord's insurance company happily paying out (or rather not) on visual inspection reports only.
Of course this would come up afetr the event, like a lot of things with electrical installations.
I guess it is the landlord who takes the risk (or will he try and pass the buck back to the electrician carrying out the inspection) even though the document clearly states the terms of the inspection? Even though the defence would be that this is in keeping with BS7671?
May be a bit like a pilot kicking the tires of his aeroplane and the passengers happily accepting the terms of that flight until the crash and the solicitors get involved.
Best wishes,
Rex

 

[tlangdon12]

I'm also a pilot, and while pilots do 'kick the tyres' and the passengers are quite happy that they do, it is the case that the pilot is only doing a visual inspection and cannot determine the airworthiness of the aircraft from the visual inspection alone. It is the overall maintenance process that ensures the airworthiness.


But a visual inspection is worth doing, as many problems come to light, with both aircraft and electrics. If nothing else, a visual inspection should inspect all the key components, not just the items that are easiest to see or are used most often. It's funny how people are often prepared to pay others to be thorough for them!