Renting house- Electric certificate questions

stphnstevey

You stated that 'a landlord can't be sued if they have a fuse box, even if an incident takes place'

- Which is completely wrong as they could be if it's unsafe

An RCD would be particularly useful in ensuring safety for electrical items plugged in an indoor socket and used outside the home (say in the garden). Something that is lacking from most older fuse boxes and the reason I pointed it out.

You would have to be an idiot to rely on a RCD alone.

real1314

stphnstevey wrote: »

You stated that 'a landlord can't be sued if they have a fuse box, even if an incident takes place'

- Which is completely wrong as they could be if it's unsafe

An RCD would be particularly useful in ensuring safety for electrical items plugged in an indoor socket and used outside the home (say in the garden). Something that is lacking from most older fuse boxes and the reason I pointed it out.

You would have to be an idiot to rely on a RCD alone.

You're right, that is completely wrong. But that is NOT what I said.

stphnstevey

real1314 wrote: »

HSE can't sue a Landlord for having a fusebox, even if an incident takes place.

No, of course you didn't say that?:rotfl:

thesaint

RHemmings wrote: »

It seems a bit strange that you would ask why I'm "bringing you into it" when you have been replying to all my posts with "simply put, you don't need a certificate", when I have never said that the OP needed a certificate. I said that they were responsible for ensuring the electrical safety of the property. This was the case in the first post of mine that contained several links, which you followed up with your non-sequitur.

I am confused as to your motives of repeating a point that in no way addressed the issues that I, and others, raised. I am suspicious that it is because you do not want to admit that a landlord is responsible for ensuring electrical safety. Is this the case? If not, why do you insist on posting a single irrelevant point over and over while refusing to address the actual point I, and others, raised. Are you trolling?

You crazy fool, shut your jibber jabber :mad:

thesaint

real1314 wrote: »

HSE can't sue a Landlord for having a fusebox, even if an incident takes place.

stphnstevey wrote: »

No, of course you didn't say that?:rotfl:

What real1314 is saying that the use of an old rewireable fusebox or brand new consumer unit is immaterial when deciding whether to prosecute someone if an incident takes place.

Think of it this way, if I go and buy a brand new Ferrari with my tenants deposit money, and you buy a 25 year old Ford Capri and we both get drunk and kill someone will you be more likely to go to jail because you were in an older car?

devils_advocate

BTman wrote: »

I can see both arguments..

TheSaint is correct and you do not need a certificate, and an old style fusebox is safe providing the wiring and fittings are up to scratch.
BUT, as RHemmings states a good landlord should have it replaced and the electrics checked and updated to modern specs.

After all, I'm sure no landlord would want the death of their tenants and their kids on their conscience...

I'm sorry, but the final part of this is hysterical claptrap!

I am an owner occupier, with a house with a fusebox. From what you say, BTman, I should have the fusebox replaced with an RCD box to prevent the deaths of my family! What rot!

The avalanche of regulation over the last 30 years has conditioned the average punter not to think for themselves, and to believe that everything in life will fall into an either/or category. This has been shown in this thread where the view in some cases is RCD = completely safe and fusebox = disaster waiting to happen!

Unfortunately, life doesn't work like this. Electrical installations with fuseboxes can be safe and those with RCDs can be dangerous. (note the use of the words 'can be' rather than 'are'.) The big problem occurs when someone takes the view that 'because I've got an RCD, I'm perfectly safe, and nothing can go wrong.'

BTman

devils_advocate wrote: »

I'm sorry, but the final part of this is hysterical claptrap!

In your opinion.

devils_advocate wrote: »

I am an owner occupier, with a house with a fusebox. From what you say, BTman, I should have the fusebox replaced with an RCD box to prevent the deaths of my family! What rot!

I have an old fusebox too and as I said in my previous post that providing all the fittings and wiring is good then it's perfectly safe.
Anyway you are talking about your home, your family, your problem, or not as the case may be...
We are talking about rented houses...

devils_advocate wrote: »

The avalanche of regulation over the last 30 years has conditioned the average punter not to think for themselves, and to believe that everything in life will fall into an either/or category. This has been shown in this thread where the view in some cases is RCD = completely safe and fusebox = disaster waiting to happen!

Unfortunately, life doesn't work like this. Electrical installations with fuseboxes can be safe and those with RCDs can be dangerous. (note the use of the words 'can be' rather than 'are'.) The big problem occurs when someone takes the view that 'because I've got an RCD, I'm perfectly safe, and nothing can go wrong.'

You are right of course, an RCD does not mean a safe electrical installation. But they do save lives in the case of them tripping when you get any leakage to earth.. So them people (silly maybe) who drop electrical appliances into their bath, or try to plug in broken plugs etc. will at least stand a chance...

If I were to rent a house out I would have an RCD and MCB's fitted as well as a full electrical and gas inspection, for my own peace of mind.. If the place were to catch fire at least I would be safe in the knowledge that It wasn't due to anything I had overlooked.

TJ27

red40 wrote: »

No problem TJ, you will find it in this SI

Statutory Instrument 372, Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2006, other than sec257 converted blocks of flats

If you don’t want to read the 2006 Statutory Instrument 372, the quote is:-

(3) The manager must—

(a) ensure that every fixed electrical installation is inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding five years by a person qualified to undertake such inspection and testing;

(b) obtain a certificate from the person conducting that test, specifying the results of the test; and

(c) supply that certificate to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing for it from that authority.

Ah, of course. The Management Regs. Thanks.

It would appear very possible that the OP's house will be an HMO, although of course it might not be. However, if it is let as an HMO the above dictates that a certificate is indeed required. The manager must do those things.

It is interesting to note that there is no notice which can be served under the management regs. It is possible for the council to go straight to prosecution if landlords don't comply with them. A colleague of mine has done exactly that with one of his cases and he received a court date only today. So in theory, if you don't have a certificate you can end up in court with almost no warning whatsoever. I think the max fine would be five grand. (I very much doubt that this would happen in practice just for a certificate though, and usually you do get a letter or two before it goes that far.)

real1314

stphnstevey wrote: »

No, of course you didn't say that?:rotfl:

You may be rolling on the floor laughing at your comments, but perhaps you should read what I said, not what YOU said I said.

The comment you attributed to me would suggest that having a fuse box actually gives immunity from prosecution, whereas the point I was making is (as saint pointed out) that having a fusebox or a rcd/mcb is irrelevant to HSE action. Both are considered safe. It's the wiring that is likely to be the cause of any incident, not the method of disconnection. If you can't understand this distinction, perhaps you should stop attempting (and failing) to take the mickey out of people?


You can apologise now, if you like.

stphnstevey

Why should I apologise for your stupid comments?

I quoted your comment word for word, so it's not what I said but it's a quote from exactly what you said. Maybe you should read it back as it is blatantly obvious no matter how much you try to back track (bloody politicians).

Having an RCD or fusebox is not irrelevant. As pointed out already by BTMan and RCD is a form of protection that can help prevent serious accidents. A precaution that a landlord should try to implement if at all possible.

A standard fusebox does not have this added protection, so could be seen to be less safe than a consumer unit with an RCD.

Saint - your not comparing like with like. Yes, it is the underlying problem that causes the accident (drink driving). But a Ferrari with ABS brakes, crumple zones and airbags might help prevent or lower the chance of a serious accident than a 25 yr old Capri. In the same way updated electrics might help prevent serious accidents.

However, if the underlying problem is not dealt with, a Ferrari wrapped in bubble wrap might not be enough!