Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wayne

landlords liability

Recommended Posts

A new post but really an update from me regarding a question in January.

After 22 weeks we have eventually got hold of the Forensic report in to the fire at my daughters.

She by the way is still with us...there is still no electric or heating at her house...all damage has been repaired...all together workmen have been in the house a total of 12 days!

The forensic report says that a loose screw in the neutral block of the consumer unit of the storage heaters was loose thereby causing 'resistive heating' resulting in the aforementioned fire.

Importantly he says ' the screw may well have been loose from the day the unit was installed or may have been disturbed from other work'.

Now then the really important bit.....

The house has been on the HA's books for 21 years. The storage heaters were installed in 2002 with the installation certificate stating ' next inspection no more than 5 years'...2007 right?

The HA can NOT produce ANY PIR's for the house. My daughter took up the tenancy in 2005. No electrical work has been done in the house since moving in.

At a stage 2 complaint a Service Director from the HA wrote to us and stated the following..." Periodic Inspections are not law. However ........... board took a strategic decision in 20011 to have Periodic Inspections carried out on their stock

of houses..."

Effectively admitting that this ' caring association whose tenants come first ' have carried out NO ELECTRICAL SAFETY INSPECTIONS ON ANY OF THEIR 21,000.......EVER!!!!

As a dad who could well have lost his daughter and grandson albeit for the grace of god...I feel that this association has been criminal in it's attitude towards the safety of electrical installations in their 'business premises'.

They are still fighting our compensation claim and believe me I am really looking forward to the whole fiasco going to the County Court.

Watch this space.

Waspie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest, and this assumes your are a home owner, when did you last cause an electrical inspection to your own house ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest, and this assumes your are a home owner, when did you last cause an electrical inspection to your own house ?

I wondered if someone would bring that in to the equasion......If my house burns down due to an electrical fault the insurance company I'm sure will investigate it throughly.

And because of this fire I have indeed had a EICR carried out on my house....3 months ago.....it cost me £135 + vat.... no faults were apparent but a worthwhile investment..yes?

Obviously this was after I had investigated the safety rules due to the fire at my daughters house. It's not the sort of thing your every day householder would be aware of.

A large Housing Association in my opinion should be up to speed on this very important issue and not start ' carrying out these Inspections ' after the door has been opened and the horse is long gone!!

Sorry but it reeks of negligence.

They want the money but don't want the responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so so you have learnings due to the event. You imply most householders wouldn't do such unless caused to, and I agree.

You state that every day householders aren't aware. Aware of what isn't clear. Aware that electricity can cause fires if with fault, I don't agree. In fact most would believe it to be more prevalent than it is and still wouldn't consider an inspection.

You hold the HA responsible but they have acted within legislation. They will, I expect, carry insurance for such events. Insurance won't replace lives just compensate for loss. If you believe this to be inadequate will you stop driving a car in protest ? The dangers are there continually most accept them, until.....

Our blame culture is all to swift to point fingers and most often with the benefit of hindsight. Look around and you will see the have nots blaming the haves (as they perceive). The continual inferred responsibilities prevent business from functioning, then the unemployed are unhappy.

To be specific about the inspection as you believe should have been carried out.

Live to Neutral loop testing would have missed this fault (as would earth loop testing) as the fault was beyond the fixed wiring.

No inspection calls for intrusive inspection of all equipment, the scenario there would be to lift all floorboards (for example) to find all junction boxes and check for terminal tightness.

PAT testing would not apply as this isn't portable equipment, it is fixed.

If the tester were to check the resistance of the heater (very unlikely unless a fault is reported and he is there to repair) he would then have to calculate the loading from the resistance obtained.

Higher resistance (as was) could indicate an open circuit element so wouldn't help.

Even if such results were trended, as is only a requirement in industry if they have this policy, the same assumption of blown element would be made.

I am open to correction as I hope to continue learning but without a heater strip down for invasive inspection I don't see how this fault would have been hi lighted. This is not a requirement of the '10 year' suggested (by the IEE) periodic inspection

The HA are liable, their equipment failed. Their insurance should deal directly with the claimant(s Solicitor).

Your choice but looking for someone to hang isn't going to bring satisfaction.

Edit: After thought,

don't I remember some discussion about the responsibility of a T to insure their own belongings ?

"The HA are liable", maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it all really comes down to :

1. Wether the fault could reasonably be expected to have been identified during a normally electrical safety check. and

2. Wether the court considers that in light of the absence of any specific legislation requiring periodic testing of the failed parts, wether the HA had been negligent. and

3. Wether there were any other mitigating circumstances that i) led to the failure or ii) caused the HA to fail to identify a potentiall failure.

Often when circumstances are such, it is judged that no blame can be attributed. It is often the case that bad things happen but it is not always the case that someone is to blame for the situation.

Please let us know the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so so you have learnings due to the event. You imply most householders wouldn't do such unless caused to, and I agree.

You state that every day householders aren't aware. Aware of what isn't clear. Aware that electricity can cause fires if with fault, I don't agree. In fact most would believe it to be more prevalent than it is and still wouldn't consider an inspection.

You hold the HA responsible but they have acted within legislation. They will, I expect, carry insurance for such events. Insurance won't replace lives just compensate for loss. If you believe this to be inadequate will you stop driving a car in protest ? The dangers are there continually most accept them, until.....

Our blame culture is all to swift to point fingers and most often with the benefit of hindsight. Look around and you will see the have nots blaming the haves (as they perceive). The continual inferred responsibilities prevent business from functioning, then the unemployed are unhappy.

To be specific about the inspection as you believe should have been carried out.

Live to Neutral loop testing would have missed this fault (as would earth loop testing) as the fault was beyond the fixed wiring.

No inspection calls for intrusive inspection of all equipment, the scenario there would be to lift all floorboards (for example) to find all junction boxes and check for terminal tightness.

PAT testing would not apply as this isn't portable equipment, it is fixed.

If the tester were to check the resistance of the heater (very unlikely unless a fault is reported and he is there to repair) he would then have to calculate the loading from the resistance obtained.

Higher resistance (as was) could indicate an open circuit element so wouldn't help.

Even if such results were trended, as is only a requirement in industry if they have this policy, the same assumption of blown element would be made.

I am open to correction as I hope to continue learning but without a heater strip down for invasive inspection I don't see how this fault would have been hi lighted. This is not a requirement of the '10 year' suggested (by the IEE) periodic inspection

The HA are liable, their equipment failed. Their insurance should deal directly with the claimant(s Solicitor).

Your choice but looking for someone to hang isn't going to bring satisfaction.

Interesting reply Cor....but off the mark if you think I'm only here to blame my daughters Landlord.

I'm on here to hopefully save lives by highlighting the essential need for people renting one or twenty one thousand houses to ensure that electrical safety inspections are carried out regularly . Landlords have a duty of care to their tenants...bottom line.

Periodic Testing.....as recommended by the Electrical Safety Council...which I presume some landlords..not all obviously....carry out to alleviate this problem of blame......part of this inspection WILL REQUIRE the competent person to remove the CONSUMER UNIT FASCIA and as well as a visual inspection of

the wiring for burning, ALL terminations WILL be tested for tightness....I did say earlier 'Consumer Unit '...not the heaters themselves. The loose screw was supposed to hold one of the five neutral wires that fed one of the storage heaters.

This information coming from the NICECI.

I agree entirely that hidden junction boxes underfloor boards or alterations carried out by non competent persons after Inspections will not stop fires from occurring. BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.

So I will say that NO, most householders will NOT be aware that a loose screw can AND will IF left in that condition over a period of time CAUSE this ' localised resistive heating ' and WILL result in arcing within the unit which WILL create immense heat resulting in internal melting of metal and setting fire to plastic 's within

the unit. I agree that the HA is liable. They are fighting the claim, I reiterate, that because the PIR or EICR is not law unlike the Gas certification they are not responsible and had no way of knowing that there was a fault with their property in the house.

If you or others think this argument holds water I'd love to hear the reasons why. Is it because there is no legislation they have acted correctly? What about the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the duty of care as regards safety of electrical installations...or the Electrical equipment ( safety ) Regulations 1994.

If that consumer unit had had a proper inspection in 2007 as required by the Installation Certificate, held by the HA, that loose screw would certainly have been found and no fire would have happened...my daughter would have had a nice Christmas in her own home. She would not now be diagnosed with PTSD .

Her entire house would not have been covered in smoke debris and powder from the fire service putting out the flames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies I should have read more closely, yes a loose screw in the CU 'should' be picked up at an inspection.

The appearance itself would indicate high resistance due to discolouring. Besides to inspect the cables are removed from the breaker / fuse to loop test and then reinstalled. There is only hope that the cable(s) will be re- tightened sufficiently, but not applicable here anyway just to try an point out that a fault following / due to inspection could have the same result.

Yes LL's have a duty of care but the lack of an inspection that isn't required by legislation doesn't seem like negligence to me. A good Barrister would certainly make them look like Shisters but then they would have a Barrister to defend their case by then, and not applicable to the County Court.

What is the HSE view on this ?

I would expect them to be involved in the investigation, after all the 'forensic investigation' must be for some purpose.

There is no loss of life or injury to be compensated for.

I would view that the inconvenience and alternative accommodation cost would be a LL liability.

The T's own belongings should be the responsibility of the T, was this a clause in the rental agreement ?

Your attempt to hi light the need for legislation to cause LL's to regular inspect is reasonable. Most here are probably surprised we haven't been loaded with this already as we seem to be held as responsible for so much else.

A personal view is that what is reasonable to expect a LL to do to ensure safety should be applied to all households, but that's not a vote winner. Most households have 'innocent' people under the roof at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi waspie,

I am much more sympathetic to your plight than, perhaps, some others on the forum. I totally agree that a Housing Association should demonstrate a clear duty of care to their tenants - not least because they are providing housing accommodation to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I know that legislation does not demand periodic inspections ...... but that doesn't mean you should endanger the lives of your tenants (by not ensuring the accommodation provided is both safe and fit for human habitation).

I am an accredited landlord with my local Council - and have been for many years - and all of my properties have periodic inspections every 5 years and are inspected by Environmental Health.

I am not a great fan of LEGAL action (as the only people that usually benefit are the prosecution and defence lawyers) .. but I do think you need to do something to put pressure on the HA .... so here is what I would do :-

1) Demand a meeting with the Director of the Housing Association so that they can explain themselves to you.

2) Make a huge media issue of this very newsworthy - local interest - story. Get the local newshound to write a piece entitled "THE HOUSING ASSOCIATION NEARLY KILLED MY DAUGHTER" .... get a picture ... get the local radio involved ... get the council involved. Involve your local MP.

3) Demand a meeting with the local Council Member who is responsible for Social Housing and also the Director of Social Housing within the Council. The Council Member may not ultimately attend the meeting (too busy etc etc) .. but he will get you access to the head man at the Council. Involve Environmental Health as well. Invite the Housing Association to the meeting as well.

At the meeting you want an explanation on why the Housing Association (utilised by the Council) endangered the life f your daughter .... and you want to understand what safeguards have been put in place to stop this from ever happening again.

Hope some of those ideas help ...... I have no time for dodgy landlords that endanger their tenants lives ... and even less time for badly run Housing Associations who take advantage of vulnerable people .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it all really comes down to :

1. Wether the fault could reasonably be expected to have been identified during a normally electrical safety check. and

2. Wether the court considers that in light of the absence of any specific legislation requiring periodic testing of the failed parts, wether the HA had been negligent. and

3. Wether there were any other mitigating circumstances that i) led to the failure or ii) caused the HA to fail to identify a potentiall failure.

Often when circumstances are such, it is judged that no blame can be attributed. It is often the case that bad things happen but it is not always the case that someone is to blame for the situation.

Please let us know the outcome.

Hi Richlist

What is this normal electrical safety check you speak of? how and when is that carried out?

So a LL having a house on their 'books' for 21 years, knowing that storage heaters were insatlled in 2002 because they ordered same, were not aware that they and the wiring should have been inspected again in 2007 but failed to inspect them. This is what caused the fire making my

daughter ill, homeless and losing many personal possessions. Do you think that they should at least carry a large proportion of blame or not?...or should we just shrug our shoulders and say.." hey thats life "......and they have the gall two weeks after the fire to put her rent up by £300 a year....

or maybe that's an insurance fiddle..??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi waspie,

I am much more sympathetic to your plight than, perhaps, some others on the forum. I totally agree that a Housing Association should demonstrate a clear duty of care to their tenants - not least because they are providing housing accommodation to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I know that legislation does not demand periodic inspections ...... but that doesn't mean you should endanger the lives of your tenants (by not ensuring the accommodation provided is both safe and fit for human habitation).

I am an accredited landlord with my local Council - and have been for many years - and all of my properties have periodic inspections every 5 years and are inspected by Environmental Health.

I am not a great fan of LEGAL action (as the only people that usually benefit are the prosecution and defence lawyers) .. but I do think you need to do something to put pressure on the HA .... so here is what I would do :-

1) Demand a meeting with the Director of the Housing Association so that they can explain themselves to you.

2) Make a huge media issue of this very newsworthy - local interest - story. Get the local newshound to write a piece entitled "THE HOUSING ASSOCIATION NEARLY KILLED MY DAUGHTER" .... get a picture ... get the local radio involved ... get the council involved. Involve your local MP.

3) Demand a meeting with the local Council Member who is responsible for Social Housing and also the Director of Social Housing within the Council. The Council Member may not ultimately attend the meeting (too busy etc etc) .. but he will get you access to the head man at the Council. Involve Environmental Health as well. Invite the Housing Association to the meeting as well.

At the meeting you want an explanation on why the Housing Association (utilised by the Council) endangered the life f your daughter .... and you want to understand what safeguards have been put in place to stop this from ever happening again.

Hope some of those ideas help ...... I have no time for dodgy landlords that endanger their tenants lives ... and even less time for badly run Housing Associations who take advantage of vulnerable people .....

Hi Trenners

thanks for your input...

If it were myself in this situation I would be outside my MP's door 24/7 with a huge placard quoting what a s**t HA we are dealing with...BUT....I have to be wary.

My daughter loves the house...she has fantastic neighbours....it is just out of town so no drunks p***ing over her car at 3 in the morning.

It has a nice garden.

So I have to watch what I do and say.

She has been in the house up to 17th December for 5 years.

She had improved it...new kitchen units...new floor tiles..new 5 metre wooden fence erected at side of house to make more private...decorated through out .

We indeed have a stage 3 meeting next week with senior memebers of this outfit. I'm looking forward to it.

Basically my daughter wants the HA to compensate her for new beds, bedding sheets pillows etc etc and I want them to give her a months free rent when she able to move back in.

The whole house is filthy, covered in grime, plaster dust, soot debris the free rent will go towards the electricity and hot water she will need to clean the house from top to bottom.

So far this bunch of shisters is refusing everything.

But now that we have this forensic report, which they did not want to disclose, I think I can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Thanks again for your thoughts and I will get back with a final result whatever the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this normal electrical safety check you speak of? how and when is that carried out?

I'm referring to the 5 year inspection that you say should have been carried out in 2007 for the HA.

So a LL having a house on their 'books' for 21 years, knowing that storage heaters were insatlled in 2002 because they ordered same, were not aware that they and the wiring should have been inspected again in 2007 but failed to inspect them.

I believe the inspection for 2007 was a recommendation not a mandatory requirement, a recommendation makes it optional.

Do you think that they should at least carry a large proportion of blame or not?

I don't know, I'd need to see all of the information before I could make that judgement. My opinion is not really important here as you have already made up your mind and I won't be in court.

...or should we just shrug our shoulders and say.." hey thats life ".....

I don't think anyone on this forum is suggesting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this normal electrical safety check you speak of? how and when is that carried out?

I'm referring to the 5 year inspection that you say should have been carried out in 2007 for the HA.

So a LL having a house on their 'books' for 21 years, knowing that storage heaters were insatlled in 2002 because they ordered same, were not aware that they and the wiring should have been inspected again in 2007 but failed to inspect them.

I believe the inspection for 2007 was a recommendation not a mandatory requirement, a recommendation makes it optional.

Do you think that they should at least carry a large proportion of blame or not?

I don't know, I'd need to see all of the information before I could make that judgement. My opinion is not really important here as you have already made up your mind and I won't be in court.

...or should we just shrug our shoulders and say.." hey thats life ".....

I don't think anyone on this forum is suggesting that.

Richlist for give me if I seem to be repeating myself but if a certificate authorised by the IEE and British Standard is completed by an electrician when he installs electrical equipment in a dwelling owned by a LL with a recommendation that the installation

is inspected AND tested not MORE than 5 years later AND it is not inspected and tested for more than 9 years AND then a fire occcurs which causes injury and loss to the tenant AND the cause of that fire is deemed to be that equipment which was never tested or inspected as required by that certificate

who do YOU think a Judge would conclude was at fault.....never mind any legislation...just on the facts I have outlined.

It seems to me that most of the comments on here seem to be saying...hey it's not law so give LL's some slack they have enough worries with out complying with non mandatory things.

As an aside....the fire at the house was on the 17th December 2011......I started to ask questions about PIR's and safety checks...on the 2nd March 2012 my daughter receives a letter from the HA stating thet her house would soon be the subject of a Periodic Inspection for safety reasons....!! as the man in the Daily Mail would say

" you couldn't make it up ". Bearing in mind that the house was empty ( it still is ) and she was staying at ours...' caring for tenants'...yeah right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the sticker that is completed and applied by the installer where is the recommendation that inspections should not be more than 5 years ?

There is already contradiction in that the IEE 17th Edition Regulations do recommend inspections at 10years, or at change of occupancy.

It could be argued, and I have, that the IEE lose credibility with their "at change of occupancy" recommendation as this would often mean each 6 months for a LL. While the lovely ideal world may see the LL sticking to this as being reasonable not many LL's would.

You argue negligence. While the fault would reasonably have been picked up at inspection there was no reason to expect such. If they were aware and ignored I could see possible negligence.

They neglected to cause an inspection as suggested in the latest IEE regulations. Using the word 'regulations' might help your case but 'as suggested' doesn't help much. As these regulations apply to all, if they are applicable to LL's then we are all accountable and most would be remiss.

The event wasn't foreseeable, in hindsight yes.

Insuring ones own belongings, you chose not to answer this question (as with other questions), is a personal choice. Where a person chooses not to insure I would view that they have accepted the risk of loss.

I hope you are able to read our comments clearly as I'm concerned that the steam from your ears may be clouding your vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the sticker that is completed and applied by the installer where is the recommendation that inspections should not be more than 5 years ?

There is already contradiction in that the IEE 17th Edition Regulations do recommend inspections at 10years, or at change of occupancy.

It could be argued, and I have, that the IEE lose credibility with their "at change of occupancy" recommendation as this would often mean each 6 months for a LL. While the lovely ideal world may see the LL sticking to this as being reasonable not many LL's would.

You argue negligence. While the fault would reasonably have been picked up at inspection there was no reason to expect such. If they were aware and ignored I could see possible negligence.

They neglected to cause an inspection as suggested in the latest IEE regulations. Using the word 'regulations' might help your case but 'as suggested' doesn't help much. As these regulations apply to all, if they are applicable to LL's then we are all accountable and most would be remiss.

The event wasn't foreseeable, in hindsight yes.

Insuring ones own belongings, you chose not to answer this question (as with other questions), is a personal choice. Where a person chooses not to insure I would view that they have accepted the risk of loss.

I hope you are able to read our comments clearly as I'm concerned that the steam from your ears may be clouding your vision.

Cor what is this sticker you speak of??

' The next testing and inspection of not more than '....is printed on any Electrical Installation certificate...required by BS 7671....page one.

It is then filled out but the certifying competent person. I suggest you get hold of one and examine it.

What are these questions I have failed to answer?

Inspections done on a change of occupancy. Discretion must be applied here, I agree if tenants are changing regulary...BUT what if the house has never any inspection in 21 years???? and HA has admitted that???

I love the....' While the fault would reasonably have been picked up at inspection there was no reason to expect such. If they were aware and ignored I could see possible negligence. '

If it were up to you there never ever would be any inspections....'cause it 'aint mandatory.

You can agrue till your blue in the face but if a safety inspection and testing is recommended and a LL chooses to ignore the advice because it is not mandatory then in my very humble opinion that LL is treading on thin ice.

You provide a service.... it comes with strings.....it's called duty of care.

Got to go because I can't see through the steam...and my ears are on fire...blast they were meant to be inspected last week.....never mind who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to the IEE Electrical Regulations, the 17th Edition, this being the latest edition.

You refer to BS 7671.

I won't argue about the difference as they are the same- BS 7671 is the 17th Edition of the wiring regulations.

Within that set of regulations under Inspection and Testing there is a table detailing the maximum frequency of inspection, for domestic this is the 10 years I speak of.

I am fully aware of the many contracting companies that have taken the inspection period for commercial premises such as shops and corrupted that to include domestic and say to the naive that 5 years is the max. I can't imagine that that would be to promote an increase in revenue.

You cite the regulations as being some thing set in stone, even when those regulations are mis quoted. And yet you are happy for a LL to use his discretion for a part of the regulation mmmmm. That actually helps demonstrate my point that the regulations losing their credibility also goes toward them not being respected.

I do not say they should be ignored and I do appreciate the value of periodic inspection even though I feel picking on LL's to be responsible where most other mere mortals can't be bothered gets me some.

Adhering to the regulations is a good way for a LL to demonstrate an attempt to comply with the requirement for electrical safety in the home, absolutely no argument. This should go a fair way to cover his ass in the event. Even then there are no guarantees, in your case the same fire could have been caused by a faulty breaker or contact of a fuse blade. Not apparent at testing but the fault developing later.

So we fall back on insurances. I enquired as to if the AST infers responsibility to the T for the T's own belongings, did I miss the answer ?

I recall from our previous discussion your Daughter couldn't afford such, I think this was when you suggested that I have been given financial advantage in some way. Not true BTW I've worked hard for what I don't have.

Had your Daughter been covered for her belongings there would be no need to claim. Is there possibility a County Court Judge might think similar ?

I think we are similar in some ways as my ears have been burning this afternoon also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to the IEE Electrical Regulations, the 17th Edition, this being the latest edition.

You refer to BS 7671.

I won't argue about the difference as they are the same- BS 7671 is the 17th Edition of the wiring regulations.

Within that set of regulations under Inspection and Testing there is a table detailing the maximum frequency of inspection, for domestic this is the 10 years I speak of.

I am fully aware of the many contracting companies that have taken the inspection period for commercial premises such as shops and corrupted that to include domestic and say to the naive that 5 years is the max. I can't imagine that that would be to promote an increase in revenue.

You cite the regulations as being some thing set in stone, even when those regulations are mis quoted. And yet you are happy for a LL to use his discretion for a part of the regulation mmmmm. That actually helps demonstrate my point that the regulations losing their credibility also goes toward them not being respected.

I do not say they should be ignored and I do appreciate the value of periodic inspection even though I feel picking on LL's to be responsible where most other mere mortals can't be bothered gets me some.

Adhering to the regulations is a good way for a LL to demonstrate an attempt to comply with the requirement for electrical safety in the home, absolutely no argument. This should go a fair way to cover his ass in the event. Even then there are no guarantees, in your case the same fire could have been caused by a faulty breaker or contact of a fuse blade. Not apparent at testing but the fault developing later.

So we fall back on insurances. I enquired as to if the AST infers responsibility to the T for the T's own belongings, did I miss the answer ?

I recall from our previous discussion your Daughter couldn't afford such, I think this was when you suggested that I have been given financial advantage in some way. Not true BTW I've worked hard for what I don't have.

Had your Daughter been covered for her belongings there would be no need to claim. Is there possibility a County Court Judge might think similar ?

I think we are similar in some ways as my ears have been burning this afternoon also.

Hey COR....Lets settle this toing and froing................if a LL can prove to any investigation that he/ she/they have to the best of their ability ensured that they have complied with current regulations and recommendations and carried out their duties as a business with due care and diligence and have

complied with those regulations and recommendations as best they could then ANY court/panel/heaven would I'm sure acquit him/her/them of any offence that had been implied.

BUT if you argue that a HA who has had this house on their books for 21 years and in that time has not carried out ANY safety inspections as regards electricity safety and the equipment it owns which is installed in the house, is not cupable then I'm a monkeys uncle.

We have it in black and white that this HA only started carrying out EICR's in 2011.

You are correct in assuming that my daughter had no contents insurance. If she had installed any equipment of an electrical nature that required any thing other than plugging it in to a 3 pin socket and a fire had started and that equipment was the cause she would not have a leg to stand on.

Had she fallen asleep with a fag on and that had caused the fire she would not have a leg to stand on. She would have to find a way of paying for two new beds, bedding, window blinds, clothes, shoes, wardrobes....BUT it was not her fault that the house caught fire. It was a poorly maintained

piece of equipment that was owned / belonged to the HA. That piece of equipment had not been maintained in a proper manner as set out on the installation certifcate it quite clearly states on the certificate that this equipment ( consumer unit and wiring and heaters ) needs to be TESTED AND INSPECTED NOT LATER THAN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. You the tenant can categorically state that from when you took the tenancy in 2005 up to the night of the fire that NO ELECTRICIANS OF ANY DESCRIPTION HAD CARRIED OUT ANY WORK IN THAT HOUSE THIS BEING 9 YEARS AFTER THE INSTALLATION 4 YEARS BEYOND WHAT THE CERTIFICATE INSTRUCTED.....Do you think a judge would say...' I find that the HA has no case to answer '? Nah neither do I.

Of course you have to use discretion. Never mind mmmm....if a LL can show that the house has had it's proper safety inspections..ie can produce Inspection certificates then if the house changes hands 3 times in 2 two years then he/she/they will be shown to have complied with the ' due care ' aspect.

You can argue all day about an act of god and no one knows what's round the corner it could be this it could be that...The fact is the HA failed my daughter. It failed in it's duty of care to her. Instead of pontification on it's website that it has ' over 21,000 houses in it's portfolio ' it should in my opinion sell off

10 or 15 thousand and maintain to a proper level of safety the ones they have left.

I'm off to prepare for the fight.....I need to investigate the Consumer Protection Act and Section 11 (1) b of the landlord and Tenant Act....bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a certificate, it's says I've learnt to ski but I can only ski a little.

I can provide you with a certificate that says you are right in all you say, but your not.

You are claiming the LL failed to inspect as per the regulations, but it seems that these are the regulations of your choice, not legislation.

9 Years isn't 10 years, they had a year to go to comply with the suggested max inspection period of the faulty component.

You can claim they are remiss in not inspecting the installation otherwise for 21 years, but there wasn't a fault there so lack of inspection of that part wasn't the cause of the event.

You can claim the inconvenience of this happening at Christmas, but it is a family time.

Any one can claim anything and sue for it in our lovely cuntry and I'm not the only one here that believes our County Court is a lottery, so you always have a chance.

Good look and let us know how you get on.

Tatty bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a certificate, it's says I've learnt to ski but I can only ski a little.

I can provide you with a certificate that says you are right in all you say, but your not.

You are claiming the LL failed to inspect as per the regulations, but it seems that these are the regulations of your choice, not legislation.

9 Years isn't 10 years, they had a year to go to comply with the suggested max inspection period of the faulty component.

You can claim they are remiss in not inspecting the installation otherwise for 21 years, but there wasn't a fault there so lack of inspection of that part wasn't the cause of the event.

You can claim the inconvenience of this happening at Christmas, but it is a family time.

Any one can claim anything and sue for it in our lovely cuntry and I'm not the only one here that believes our County Court is a lottery, so you always have a chance.

Good look and let us know how you get on.

Tatty bye

Wrong on that Timing thing COR.....

Your assuming the 9 years is in relation to PIR / EICR........I will explain in laymans terms..............the Consumer Unit that was deemed to be the the cause of the fire ( look up Burgoynes Consulting Scientists and Martin Pope under people. He's the bloke who did the investigation etc. Better man than me gungadin)

The consumer Unit was INSTALLED in 2002. On that Installation Certificate it states by the installer ( presumably a competent electrician badged by the NICEIC ) that this installation ( the consumer unit that caught fire due to a loose screw, you know the one) should be further tested and inspected after an interval of NOT more than and he has written in the appropriate box..5 years. Now bearing in mind this installer is competent and has passed all the the bits required to allow him to do this stuff why has he put 5 years? Your guess is as good as mine. So my mathmatics assumes that 5 + 2 = 7=2007. that informs me and the person who retains the certificate ( the HA

provided us with a copy so it should have been aware of the date ?) So the unit catches fire on the 17th December 2011. 2002 to 2011 = 9 years...4 years past the recommended testing and inspection date. Perhaps the 5 year period was because the Installation was for 5 storage heaters...more current being drawn more heat being generated more movement perhaps with terminal screws being heated up then cooling then heated up then cooling, you get the picture.

Are you being cantankerous on purpose? I ask because if you are as you say a Landlord I can not believe your stance. What on earth do you mean by...You can claim they are remiss in not inspecting the installation otherwise for 21 years, but there wasn't a fault there so lack of inspection of that part wasn't the cause of the event...??? of course there was a fault there and it's been diagnosed. The forensic report says it was faulty. It says it could have been that way since it's installation...so if the inspection that was recommended for 2007 was indeed acted on there

may well have been no fire at all!! The ski bit is and certificate bit is silly. County court...lottery...been there? I have and got an order put on a man's house who tried to diddle my Mother in Law out of £5000....he was buggered when he went to sell it and eventually had to bung us £7000 with added interest. I honestly don't think it will go that far. I think the HA will surrender. It knows it is in the poop. Which is a shame really I love a battle. bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall try again.

The consumer unit that caught fire, I assume I am correct that this is the one, was installed in 2002. Please answer yes or no, and only yes or no.

The IEE 17th Edition Wiring Regulations (2008) this being BS 7671 suggest the inspection period for Domestic installations to be 10 years. This was the same period as suggested in the 16th Edition (1994), so long enough for contractors to be familiar.

The fact that the installer detailed 5 years has no relevance aside from demonstrating his lack of knowledge as to the regulation in question.

I know you don't trust me so won't ask you to, but I could list many common practiced procedures carried out in the industry that do not comply with the regs. The reason they are practiced is because they've seen it done before.

For example ask a contractor why he is running a spur off a ring in 6242y (T&E) 2.5mm sq that is only rated at 27amp (before correction factors are applied) and protecting the circuit with a 32amp breaker. He will answer that it's always done that way. But it's not right.

Now the Cunty Court Judge won't be aware of the correct inspection period, and the HA probably isn't so you can blag it and hope, but you 'aint right.

An inspection on the whole property obviously would have encompassed the 2002 consumer unit and should have picked up the fault. An inspection on the 2002 consumer unit is about due, but not much point if it's being dissected in a Lab.

What I'm saying is that if the HA defend by saying an inspection on the 2002 consumer unit wasn't due they are correct. They do of course have a responsibility for their installation, inspected or not.

Not insuring ones own belongings is a personal choice. You may remember I considered that the AST may have a clause inferring such responsibility to the T, effectively disclaiming. I know mine has such, if T's don't have care to protect their own belongings I don't feel I should have responsibility.

This clause being a fair clause or not is beyond my legal knowledge, but it sounds right and it is moral IMVHO.

Cantankerous me, nah I couldn't even spell it. Enjoying a healthy debate, well yes I don't get much opportunity these days, you see when my silly T's aren't happy they generally can't put a good argument forward. With the more intelligent T's we discuss a mutual resolution, if there is a problem.

Enjoy your fight, everyone to their own is what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall try again.

The consumer unit that caught fire, I assume I am correct that this is the one, was installed in 2002. Please answer yes or no and only yes or no.

The IEE 17th Edition Wiring Regulations (2008) this being BS 7671 suggest the inspection period for Domestic installations to be 10 years. This was the same period as suggested in the 16th Edition (1994), so long enough for contractors to be familiar.

The fact that the installer detailed 5 years has no relevance aside from demonstrating his lack of knowledge as to the regulation in question.

I know you don't trust me so won't ask you to, but I could list many common practiced procedures carried out in the industry that do not comply with the regs. The reason they are practiced is because they've seen it done before.

For example ask a contractor why he is running a spur off a ring in 6242y 2.5mm sq that is only rated at 27amp (before correction factors are applied) and protecting the circuit with a 32amp breaker. He will answer that it's always done that way. But it's not right.

Now the Cunty Court Judge won't be aware of the correct inspection period, and the HA probably doesn't so you can blag it and hope, but you 'aint right.

An inspection on the whole property obviously would have encompassed the 2002 consumer unit and should have picked up the fault. An inspection on the 2002 consumer unit is about due, but not much point if it's being dissected in a Lab.

What I'm saying is that if the HA defend by saying an inspection on the 2002 consumer unit wasn't due they are correct. They do of course have a responsibility for their installation, inspected or not.

Not insuring ones own belongings is a personal choice. You may remember I considered that the AST may have a clause inferring such responsibility to the T, effectively disclaiming. I know mine has such, if T's don't have care to protect their own belongings I don't feel I should have responsibility.

This clause being a fair clause or not is beyond my legal knowledge, but it sounds right and it is moral IMVHO.

Cantankerous me, nah I couldn't even spell it. Enjoying a healthy debate, well yes I don't get much opportunity these days, you see when my silly T's aren't happy they generally can't put a good argument forward. With the more intelligent T's we discuss a mutual resolution, if there is a problem.

Enjoy your fight, everyone to their own is what I say.

YES.

COR....listen you are talking nonsense.

Examine a Cerificate..plenty of them on line...Page one....right hand side...it's got nothing at all to do with 10 year inspections...that's ECIR's and the 10 year time thingy what we argued about.

An installation certificate allows the installer to recommend a next inspection time frame that he in his estimation is the correct time limit before an inspection is carried out depending on what type of installation he/she has just carried out. I think you need to take a steady pill. A quailified Electrican would take umbridge with your demeaning attitude towards their profession. The spur thing...right over my head. That's twice now you have referred to the CUNTY court is that because you have been dragged there by not adhering to some recommendation that you considered bollocks? Did you win or lose...lost probably ?

Right..this EICR business......the HA took possession of this house in1991...in it at the time was an old fella...he was moved out to a home in 2004.....the house was void up to early 2005..... then offered to young woman in May who after two weeks gave it up because it was sub standard in her opinion.

It was offered to my daughter in August and after we had done some internal alterations...we had new ceilings and replastered through out...because it was a dump..but it was out in the sticks and my daughter could see that with a bit of care and attention it would become a nice home for her and the boy.

She moved in in September 2005

She fitted new kitchen units...new ceramic floor tiles to replace cracked plastic crap...had a large wooden fence erected to give her garden a bit of security...and has decorated through out and up to the 17th December 2011 any one would have been proud to call it their home.

So COR listen up...........The HA took possession of the house in 1991.....the Storage heaters and bits were installed in 2002....apart from that there HAS BEEN NO INSPECTIONS OF THE HOUSE REGARDING ELECTRICS.....so at no time has there ever been safety inspections done because there are no

PIR's in exsistence...do I make my self clear? You are talking rubbish when you say that the inspection is now due....the 2002 installation was for storage heaters and consumer unit and wiring..NOTHING ELSE. So in 21 years , I'm getting sick and tired of repeating this there HAS BEEN NO ELECTRICANS IN THIS HOUSE TO CARRY OUT ANY INSPECTIONS OK... The bloke or blokes who installed the Storage heaters and other bits...did just that then went of their way..never to return...unfortunately!!!

You surprise me not with that clause in your agreement.

I'll get back after it's all sorted...my heads getting sore from me banging it against this bloody brick wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a now-retired managing director of an electrical installation company & one who has installed electrical systems in the petro-chemical industry I have to agree with a lot of what COR says. The periodic inspection & domestic appliance testing for domestic properties is advisory, not compulsory.

The cause of the fire, i.e. the loose screw in the neutral terminal block is not guaranteed to be picked up during a periodic inspection. It was only picked up after a full forensic examination & the examiner would not be able to state why the screw was found to be loose or how long it had been loose.

It's quite rare, in my personal experience, for an electrician not to fully tighten terminal block screws, in fact they get overtightened if anything.

The most likely cause of the screw becoming loose will be due to electrical resonance in the affected circuit & the screw could well come loose an hour after a periodic inspection, just as a wheel can fall off your car as you drive away from an MOT station.

<br><br>Don't know what's wrong with the page layout!!<br>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done many electrical jobs around properties I have owned and I have come across many fittings where the screws are loose and the wire can be pulled out.. Was it because of the the person who originally fitted it? I dont know.

Is the landlord reponsible for the electrical safety of the property the answer is YES.

Has the landlord done something wrong by not doing something that is only advisory. NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES.

COR....listen you are talking nonsense.

Examine a Cerificate..plenty of them on line...Page one....right hand side...it's got nothing at all to do with 10 year inspections...that's ECIR's and the 10 year time thingy what we argued about.

**European Conference on Information Retrieval, Equine Cushings and Insulin Resistance, Explorations in Cyber International Relations - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, I'm failing to find anything electrical perhaps you might provide a link. As said I am keen to learn.**

An installation certificate allows the installer to recommend a next inspection time frame that he in his estimation is the correct time limit before an inspection is carried out depending on what type of installation he/she has just carried out.

**Since we have regulations designed to guide us it would be surprising that the estimate, another word 'the opinion' of an installer would carry weight in a court. If I find a certificate that the installer has entered 50 years onto would you be happy take that as definitive ?**

I think you need to take a steady pill.

**I thank you for your caring, that's nice.**

A quailified Electrican would take umbridge with your demeaning attitude towards their profession. The spur thing...right over my head. That's twice now you have referred to the CUNTY court is that because you have been dragged there by not adhering to some recommendation that you considered bollocks? Did you win or lose...lost probably ?

**The only time I was taken to CC was when a T informed the Water Board I was responsible for the utility. She received the summons, I learned later. All happily resolved (for me) at no cost (to me) when the WB were given sight of the AST, Tenants eh! I've sued in the CC a couple of times and am always interested to learn from others experiences, so please go for it.**

Right..this EICR business......the HA took possession of this house in1991...in it at the time was an old fella...he was moved out to a home in 2004.....the house was void up to early 2005..... then offered to young woman in May who after two weeks gave it up because it was sub standard in her opinion.

It was offered to my daughter in August and after we had done some internal alterations...we had new ceilings and replastered through out...because it was a dump..but it was out in the sticks and my daughter could see that with a bit of care and attention it would become a nice home for her and the boy.

She moved in in September 2005

She fitted new kitchen units...new ceramic floor tiles to replace cracked plastic crap...had a large wooden fence erected to give her garden a bit of security...and has decorated through out and up to the 17th December 2011 any one would have been proud to call it their home.

So COR listen up...........The HA took possession of the house in 1991.....the Storage heaters and bits were installed in 2002....apart from that there HAS BEEN NO INSPECTIONS OF THE HOUSE REGARDING ELECTRICS.....so at no time has there ever been safety inspections done because there are no

PIR's in exsistence...do I make my self clear? You are talking rubbish when you say that the inspection is now due....the 2002 installation was for storage heaters and consumer unit and wiring..NOTHING ELSE. So in 21 years , I'm getting sick and tired of repeating this there HAS BEEN NO ELECTRICANS IN THIS HOUSE TO CARRY OUT ANY INSPECTIONS OK... The bloke or blokes who installed the Storage heaters and other bits...did just that then went of their way..never to return...unfortunately!!!

You surprise me not with that clause in your agreement.

I'll get back after it's all sorted...my heads getting sore from me banging it against this bloody brick wall.

**We've been through that lot and are just going round in circles, like a puppy after its tail.

To show my concern for your welfare you might consider that if going to Court there may be a downside to explaining how all these works have been carried out.

New fencing, kitchen, floors, extensive decorating, a Judge may see the likelihood of electrical works being carried out here also. This would raise obvious questions.

I am assuming that permission to carry out these works was sought prior. Most would realise the risks of doing such to someone else's property without approval.

Please excuse my lack of multi quote skills being a mere electrical technician offshore (maintenance and installation) for so many years technical stuff evades me some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a now-retired managing director of an electrical installation company & one who has installed electrical systems in the petro-chemical industry I have to agree with a lot of what COR says. The periodic inspection & domestic appliance testing. for domestic properties is advisory, not compulsory.

The cause of the fire, i.e. the loose screw in the neutral terminal block is not guaranteed to be picked up during a periodic inspection. It was only picked up after a full forensic examination & the examiner would not be able to state why the screw was found to be loose or how long it had been loose.

It's quite rare, in my personal experience, for an electrician not to fully tighten terminal block screws, in fact they get overtightened if anything.

The most likely cause of the screw becoming loose will be due to electrical resonance in the affected circuit & the screw could well come loose an hour after a periodic inspection, just as a wheel can fall off your car as you drive away from an MOT station.

Here we go again..............I KNOW IT'S ONLY ADVISORY and NOT MANDATORY.........the fire started because the screw was loose... wether it was left loose at installation..became loose with the heating and cooling...but it was loose...and in this investigators opinion was the cause of the fire...who am I or you to say different?

His conclusion was this....' The fire was caused by an insecure connection at the neutral block within the consumer unit which gave rise to resistive heating. '

If between 2002 and December 2011 some one had bothered to inspect as....ADVISED....that consumer unit... then I say the fault would have been found.....PLUS....please take this in.....The technical man from the NICECI...AND AN INDEPENDANT ELECTRICIAN WHO I HAVE PAID TO GIVE ME A FOOLS BREAKDOWN OF WHAT AN EICR ENTAILS...BOTH....have said, that it is part of the EICR....to remove consumer unit facias and examine and test all that is in them by various means.....also...it is required that ALL terminations are CHECKED FOR TIGHTNESS.

You can follow my mate COR down this road.... no one's to blame it was an act of god nobody could see it coming it's not law so we don't care..blah blah blah............BUT...please don't get me to repeat this..........IF THE HA HAD BOTHERED TO HAVE A EICR PERFORMED WHEN THE OLD MAN MOVED OUT AND MY DAUGHTER MOVED IN ( as advised by the ESC ) AND THERE WERE NO FAULTS DISCOVERED....THE HA WOULD BE IN THE CLEAR AND HEADING FOR HOME............BUT IT DIDN'T...it has not ever inspected the electrics of the house ever in 21 that's 21 years.........SO THEY FAILED IN THEIR DUTY OF CARE AS REGARDS THE SAFETY OF MY DAUGHTER BY NOT ENSURING THEIR INSTALLED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WAS FIT FOR PURPOSE.....IT WAS IDENTIFIED BY A FORENSIC EXAMINER AS THE REASON THE FIRE OCCURRED.

IF a LL or HA says at an inquest or court that they did not bother to inspect their electrical equipment for 21 years because it is only advisable and not compulsory that they do so, and a death occurs or like my daughter an injury occurs I personally think that a Coroner / Judge would hang them.

Those are the facts your honour. I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EasyCert Electrical Software, Test & Inspection, Electrical Certificates

Mr Waspie, maybe this was the sort of thing you hoped for me to find ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...