chronyx Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: Nor are all owner occupiers, are you suggesting compulsory checks for all dwellings? I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Hug Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: Nor are all owner occupiers, are you suggesting compulsory checks for all dwellings? Well, if a flat blows up, it may take the whole block down. So maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, Bear Hug said: Well, if a flat blows up, it may take the whole block down. So maybe. The nanny state marches on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said: When it's first brought in, sure, but ultimately, the cost of these compulsory inspections will be borne by the tenant, including the letting agent's mark up. No, and there won't be a mark up. This is ONLY catching up with Scotland's law don't forget, where fees are already banned and rents did not rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, mrtickle said: No, and there won't be a mark up. This is ONLY catching up with Scotland's law don't forget, where fees are already banned and rents did not rise. I doubt there will be no mark up in cases where a letting agent has to arrange for safety certificates. It would be unreasonable to expect them to do the work for no recompense. Rents won't rise immediately, as a direct result of electrical safety certs, but I'm pretty sure that in five years time rents will be higher than they would have been had the new legal requirements not been imposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronyx Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: I doubt there will be no mark up in cases where a letting agent has to arrange for safety certificates. It would be unreasonable to expect them to do the work for no recompense. Rents won't rise immediately, as a direct result of electrical safety certs, but I'm pretty sure that in five years time rents will be higher than they would have been had the new legal requirements not been imposed. Completely ignoring the fact that most agents already do an EICR at change of tenant. All the big agents do, anyway. I know that for a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longgone Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said: Head of the household? If in doubt about electrical safety and renting, call landlord or letting agent. If in doubt about electrical safety and owner occupier, call electrician. if the owner electrocutes themselves that`s their choice the house is theirs to look after. if you rent somewhere its the owners responsibility you are not the owner. sounds like a good thing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tes Tickle Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) This could be more of a problem for landlords than gas safety checking, and for good reason. Most DIYers know that mucking about with gas is a big no-no, but I reckon that many are quite happy to wade in with some cable and pliers and add sockets, light fittings etc etc. So, while a gas safety check should be a formality for most - involving little more than a certificate, an electrical check may lead to expensive remedial work being required. I just opted to have an electrical test of my house done in preparation for selling the place. It wasn't required, I just wanted to cover us and possibly increase buyer appeal. It all passed, but I have had to replace a few things since - possibly a coincidence or possibly due to the surges that are used by the testing equipment. I've had to replace a few LED light bulbs plus the electronic transformers that power some low voltage lights, plus an RCD that I had on my workbench loudly literally exploded in a bright flash the day after, the first time I used it after the testing. Edited January 31, 2019 by Tes Tickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 24 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said: This could be more of a problem for landlords than gas safety checking, and for good reason. Most DIYers know that mucking about with gas is a big no-no, but I reckon that many are quite happy to wade in with some cable and pliers and add sockets, light fittings etc etc. So, while a gas safety check should be a formality for most - involving little more than a certificate, an electrical check may lead to expensive remedial work being required. I just opted to have an electrical test of my house done in preparation for selling the place. It wasn't required, I just wanted to cover us and possibly increase buyer appeal. It all passed, but I have had to replace a few things since - possibly a coincidence or possibly due to the surges that are used by the testing equipment. I've had to replace a few LED light bulbs plus the electronic transformers that power some low voltage lights, plus an RCD that I had on my workbench loudly literally exploded in a bright flash the day after, the first time I used it after the testing. High voltage, or flash testing, can be a problem for products without galvanically isolated power supplies. If the new electrical safety certificate requires a "flash test" I would expect the sort of things you mentioned to "blow up". This could indeed be a big problem, who will pay to replace all the LED lights if they fail subsequent to the test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 11 hours ago, chronyx said: It's not their property to take responsibility for? One of the few benefits of renting (Ostensibly guaranteed legally safe gas and electrics) and you're moaning about it. I'm ******ing stunned. A buyer could (And has, I get to tell them the good news) buy a total electrical death trap because they never thought to have a pre-purchase inspection. That is their responsibility. Unless you are one of the "if it saves one life" anything is worth doing types, you would want to know what is the level of risk you are protecting against. In the case of electricity given that every house should have an RCD protected supply, it is probably so small as to make it not cost effective (not cost effective meaning you could save far more lives if you spent the money elsewhere). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Tes Tickle said: This could be more of a problem for landlords than gas safety checking, and for good reason. Most DIYers know that mucking about with gas is a big no-no, but I reckon that many are quite happy to wade in with some cable and pliers and add sockets, light fittings etc etc. So, while a gas safety check should be a formality for most - involving little more than a certificate, an electrical check may lead to expensive remedial work being required. I just opted to have an electrical test of my house done in preparation for selling the place. It wasn't required, I just wanted to cover us and possibly increase buyer appeal. It all passed, but I have had to replace a few things since - possibly a coincidence or possibly due to the surges that are used by the testing equipment. I've had to replace a few LED light bulbs plus the electronic transformers that power some low voltage lights, plus an RCD that I had on my workbench loudly literally exploded in a bright flash the day after, the first time I used it after the testing. I have never heard of a flash test being done on domestic electrical system. It seems a bit redundant on a RCD protected system and I wonder if anyone can prove that doing one actually reduces the risk of a future failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said: I have never heard of a flash test being done on domestic electrical system. It seems a bit redundant on a RCD protected system and I wonder if anyone can prove that doing one actually reduces the risk of a future failure. My company designed, manufactured and sold electronic equipment for use in commercial buildings. We expressly stated in our data sheets that our equipment must not be flash tested and that if it was we would not accept any future warranty claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: My company designed, manufactured and sold electronic equipment for use in commercial buildings. We expressly stated in our data sheets that our equipment must not be flash tested and that if it was we would not accept any future warranty claims. Carrying out one without knowing the details of the safe maximum voltage for every component seems risky/pointless. Still if there is money to be made doing them people will lobby for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 12 hours ago, Bruce Banner said: Correct, so if they're worried they pay you to do an inspection and if there's a problem ask the landlord to fix it. I've asked landlords for lots of things in my >10 years of privately renting in England, the usual response is little or no action. Then what? I can move out, which maybe solves the problem for me (depending on the condition of the next place), but then the next tenant moves in and inherits the problem of a poorly maintained property and a lazy landlord so no net improvement to the UK housing stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Quote Tragic death The plans come at the end of years of campaigning by consumer and safety groups such as Electrical Safety First.The government's confirmation has been announced 10 years after the death of Thirza Whitall who was found dead by her five-year-old daughter Millie at their home in Porthscatho, Cornwall. The 33-year-old had been running a bath and the inquest into her death was told the property had no earth connection. An electric current made its way through the taps and into the water. Recording an accidental death verdict, Coroner Andrew Cox said it was "inexplicable" there was no law on checking the electrics in rented homes. The inquest heard the cottage had not had a full electrical check since 1981.Her mother, Jane Andain said: "The tenth anniversary of Thirza's death has been a very difficult time for the family. What happened to my daughter was a tragedy, but could have easily been avoided if her landlady had made sure the electrics were properly and regularly checked." So did this landlady ever face charges for manslaughter? If not, why not? Seems open and shut to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dorkins said: I've asked landlords for lots of things in my >10 years of privately renting in England, the usual response is little or no action. Then what? I can move out, which maybe solves the problem for me (depending on the condition of the next place), but then the next tenant moves in and inherits the problem of a poorly maintained property and a lazy landlord so no net improvement to the UK housing stock. In my >10 years of privately renting in England I can't recall a landlord ever failing to address any problem that I reported, so our experiences are somewhat different. With regard to a "net improvement to the UK housing stock", surely a requirement for testing of all dwellings would be more effective? However, as I'm not a fan of big government, I would oppose any such suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dorkins said: So did this landlady ever face charges for manslaughter? If not, why not? Seems open and shut to me. I'm not so sure it would be an "open and shut" case, but then I'm not a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: In my >10 years of privately renting in England I can't recall a landlord ever failing to address any problem that I reported, so our experiences are somewhat different. With regard to a "net improvement to the UK housing stock", surely a requirement for testing of all dwellings would be more effective? However, as I'm not a fan of big government, I would oppose any such suggestion. I can't see a problem with compulsory electrical and gas testing for all properties as even in owner occupied properties there are definitely externalities where the person responsible for keeping the property in safe condition is not the only one at risk if they fail to do so e.g. children, houseguests or neighbours. MOT testing is also there to address the externality problem. The freedom to die from carbon monoxide poisoning, fire or electrocution doesn't seem like one worth fighting for. Edited January 31, 2019 by Dorkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, Dorkins said: I can't see a problem with compulsory electrical and gas testing for all properties as even in owner occupied properties there are definitely externalities where the person responsible for keeping the property in safe condition is not the only one at risk if they fail to do so e.g. children, houseguests or neighbours. MOT testing is also there to address the externality problem. The freedom to die from carbon monoxide poisoning, fire or electrocution doesn't seem like one worth fighting for. I can't agree with you there, any freedom is worth fighting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: I can't agree with you there, any freedom is worth fighting for. Silly position. The real world has pros and cons. I'm glad that people are not free to drive around in dangerously undermaintained vehicles without passing a driving test, make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons in their spare bedroom, murder each other etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Dorkins said: Silly position. The real world has pros and cons. I'm glad that people are not free to drive around in dangerously undermaintained vehicles without passing a driving test, make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons in their spare bedroom, murder each other etc. Not silly at all! How about seat belts and crash helmets for adults? Or "Dangerous" sports? I am strongly against laws to protect people against themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: Not silly at all! How about seat belts and crash helmets for adults? Or "Dangerous" sports? I am strongly against laws to protect people against themselves. So basically you're now rowing back from your position that "any freedom is worth fighting for" to the freedom to put yourself (but not others) at risk? As I said before, unsafe gas and electrics don't just put the property owner at risk, they also put others at risk: tenants, guests, children, neighbours etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dorkins said: So basically you're now rowing back from your position that "any freedom is worth fighting for" to the freedom to put yourself (but not others) at risk? As I said before, unsafe gas and electrics don't just put the property owner at risk, they also put others at risk: tenants, guests, children, neighbours etc. I'm not rowing back from anything. How about prohibition? Surely booze should be illegal as you may fall over when drunk and crush a child? No, neither necessary nor desirable, if you get drunk and injure someone the courts will deal with it on a case by case basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: I'm not rowing back from anything. So you would fight for the freedom to murder someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Dorkins said: So you would fight for the freedom to murder someone? I have the freedom to murder someone, because I am not restrained, but the courts would deal with it after the fact and the penalty would be severe. That is how our justice system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.