Selling property with C2 EICR issues

[zandana]

Hi all, we got an EICR report done before tenanting our previous home having become "accidental landlords". See attached.

The report came back with some C2 and some C3 codes. I requested quotes from the management company but, perhaps due to lockdown etc, the work was never actioned.

Now the tenancy is ending and we are having to sell the property. My question is: what would you do in my scenario? We will be disclosing the report to the solicitors and no doubt the buyers will query whether the remedial work was carried out, to which the answer is no. Should we be expected to get the remedial work completed before the sale, take it into account in the price, or take no further action?

The report failed for:
4.16: RCDs provided for fault protection - includes RCBOs: C2
5.11 c: For cables concealed in walls/partitions at a depth of less than 50mm: C2
5.11 d: For cables concealed in walls/partitions containing metal parts regardless of depth: C2
5.11 e: For all AC final circtuits supplying luminaires: C2

There is RCD protection on all sockets, but none for circuits 1-7 which contain the Hob, immersion heater, lights, smoke detectors and door bell.

Property was built in 2004.

Thanks all in advance for your advice!

 

[James]

unless asked for it by the buyers, do not hand it over.
if they want an electrical report done, they can get one done.

 

[zandana]

unless asked for it by the buyers, do not hand it over.
if they want an electrical report done, they can get one done.

Thanks James,

I'm obliged to send it to my solicitor based on the question on the property information form "Has the whole or any part of the electrical installation been tested by a qualified and registered electrician? If yes please state the year it was tested and provide a copy of the test certificate."

 

[pc1966]

Some of those could be argued as C2 codes[*], but one way or another you don't have to fix them for sale. It is up to the buyer to decide if they are happy or not, some might walk away but most will either negotiate a price drop to cover the work (probably under £1k here) or if they really want to get it, just accept it themselves.

I would be wary of hiding it as non-disclosure of known issues might come back as more trouble down the line and cost more than the options to fix at your expense or to negotiate some agreement on the points.

The Best Practice guide #4 covers coding guidance, but it is always down to the electrician doing the work to decide on risk. Some guidance has lack of RCD as C2 always, but BPG#4 has C3 or C2 depending on the specifics:

https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

 

[littlespark]

There may be an argument here that those particular things you listed, basically down to no RCD's, would be classed as a C3... "improvement recommended" in a property for homeowners own use.

Its only because the property at the time was going to be let that these were downgraded to C2.

 

[brianmoooore]

In part 6 of this EICR, Item 1 should be C3, not C2, Item 3 is correctly coded as C3, but item 2, if it means what I think it does, should probably be coded C1.
The C1 can be sorted for a matter of pence, and C3s, although officially meaning "improvement recommended", in most cases just means that although it was compliant when the circuit was installed, it would not be compliant if installed now, as a result of the regulations having been changed.

 

[Dartlec]

It may well be best to provide it given your answers, but leave it to any potential purchasers to decide what they want to do.

Certainly nothing on that list is particularly serious or couldn't be fixed for a relatively small cost (in comparison to a house price), so I wouldn't let a purchaser use it to drive the price down by anything significant.

I doubt it would be worth getting the remedial work done yourself really. None of the remedials (apart from possibly the missing grid switch) are 'dangerous', just a case of safer installs now being mandated when new work is carried out.

It looks fairly standard for a property built in 2004 and given the current property madness, I expect it will make no difference to the final sale price.

 

[i=p/u]

5 second disconnection time???

 

[Dartlec]

5 second disconnection time???

Can't claim software error either!

Managed to get 0.4 for the RCD affected circuits - someone who trained a while ago and isn't remembering when they are supposed to apply? (Were they specified differently back in 16th or before times? I have a vague memory but can't be bothered to look back)

 

[telectrix]

4.16: RCDs provided for fault protection - includes RCBOs: C2. only if Zs readinggs are OTT
5.11 c: For cables concealed in walls/partitions at a depth of less than 50mm: C2.....rubbish. a C3
5.11 d: For cables concealed in walls/partitions containing metal parts regardless of depth: C2. debatalble
5.11 e: For all AC final circtuits supplying luminaires: C2. also rubbish. C3 at worst.

send the inspector on a course. prefereably Lillihammer without a sled.

 

[UNG]

That EICR is flawed in so many ways it could be argued it doesn't exist yet as the date of the test on page 1 is 14/01/2026
Are there any testers out there that can measure an RCD trip time to 100ths of a millisecond
And the 6mm² T&E with a 4mm² CPC

I think I would be telling your solicitor that there is an EICR but doubt has been cast on it's quality and validity due to errors being found within the document

 

[brianmoooore]

When I sell a car, I always do so with a brand new MOT pass, whether the previous one has expired or not.
Considering the amount of money involved in house sales, wouldn't the best solution be to commission a new EICR, provided by someone who actually knows how to perform one?

 

[Dartlec]

When I sell a car, I always do so with a brand new MOT pass, whether the previous one has expired or not.
Considering the amount of money involved in house sales, wouldn't the best solution be to commission a new EICR, provided by someone who actually knows how to perform one?

That's what the original intention of Home Information Packs was when they were first mooted.

Unfortunately, Estate agents and landlords campaigned enough to get that part removed and the HIP became the useless energy efficiency rating that (maybe not now) no-one ever factored into their decision.