Most significant cases are listed including appeals relating to prohibition orders and improvement notices. The hazards include excess cold, falling on stairs and procedural issues.

[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']

Upper Tribunal

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Patel [2010] UKUT 334 (LC)

This appeal was in relation to the interpretation of “imminent risk” which is a requirement of emergency remedial action or an emergency prohibition order. However, interesting comments were also made about assessments (highlights added):

It is to be noted that what the inspector was required to do was to produce an assessment of the likelihood of any one case occurring in a 12 month period and the percentage possibilities of each class of harm, not in relation to the actual occupiers but in relation to an occupier of 65 or over [excess cold]. [para 29]

The factual basis of the score for Excess Cold here was that the house was without central heating, with space heating being provided by halogen heaters.  The actual occupants of the house were not relevant to the scoring system, since the score had to be based on the likelihood of a “relevant occupier” suffering harm as the result of the hazard, and the relevant occupier for Excess Cold is a person aged 65 or more… [para 38]

The local authority had calculated excess cold hazard due to the central heating not working as a 1 in 10 chance of a 31.6 percent possibility of death or other serious harm “imminently” despite the fact that the occupiers had halogen heaters. This resulted in a score of 31600, a “remarkably high score”.

The RPT said that it was not convinced that the likelihood of serious harm from excess cold was as high as the as the council claimed.  Its reasons for saying this were that, in contrast to the council’s suggestion, the weather forecast showed that it was not unusually cold for the time of year; that in any event the occupiers were not wholly without heating; and that they had already been without heating for several months.  Those were matters that led the RPT, essentially as a matter of common sense, to question the very high hazard rating that the council’s assessment showed… [para 40]

Onto the question of “imminent risk” and “serious harm”:

Serious harm means anything contained (but not limited to) in the hierarchy of harm contained in the HHSRSR2005 excluding class 4 (moderate harm).

… As far as “serious harm” is concerned, it said that the Act did not offer any guidance as to what sort of harm constitutes “serious harm”. That is correct, but the Regulations do identify a hierarchy of harm– extreme harm (Class I), severe harm (Class II), serious harm (Class III) and moderate harm (Class IV). Thus, for the purposes of the Regulations serious harm excludes moderate harm, and, although there is no express provision requiring the Regulations to identify what harm is serious harm for the purposes of section 40, it is, I think, implicit in section 2 that the Regulations will, or at least may, include this identification. Certainly, it seems to me, an authority could not be criticised if they treated as serious harm any harm falling within Classes I, II and III (excluding, therefore, Class IV), and in my view it would be right for them to do so. [para 41]

And, “imminent risk” is essentially established from the likelihood element of the hazard calculation (highlights added):

“… The adjective “imminent” is obviously not there for the purpose of suggesting that the risk must be one that does not at present exist but is likely to arise soon. It is perhaps in the nature of a transferred epithet qualifying “serious harm” – the risk must be one of serious harm being suffered soon. The degree of risk (or the likelihood, or the chance) that a state of affairs may give rise to an incidence of harm is necessarily time-related. That is why the Regulations require an inspector to assess the likelihood of harm being suffered within a specified period. The use of “imminent” implies, in my judgment, a good chance that the harm will be suffered in the near future. …” [para 43]

Hanlet v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2010] UKUT 351 (LC)

If something complies with building regs (or could easily be made to comply) this is a “material consideration” for a tribunal:

Firstly, in paragraph 23 of the decision the RPT says that where a hazard has been identified under the provisions of the Housing Act 2004, compliance with the Building Regulations is not a material consideration.  I have no doubt that, stated thus bluntly, that is an error of law.  It must be a “material consideration” whether something that is said to be a hazard either complies with the building regulations or might, without too much trouble, be made to comply with the building regulations. It is evident from the HHSRS Operating Guidance that in many instances (hazards on stairs for example; see paragraph 21.29) the building regulations are directly relevant.  Of course, the fact that a situation that is described as a hazard nonetheless complies with the building regulations does not mean that it cannot be a hazard. It is possible for a hazard under the Housing Act and HHSRS Regulations to comply with the building regulations, yet still be a hazard … in my view, is plainly a material consideration that the Tribunal must bear in mind. [para 25]

Secondly it does not seem to me to be accurate to say that compliance with the Building Regulations in remedial work will only be material to the extent that it removes the identified hazard. (my underlining) In the case of stairs there will always be some residual hazard. Compliance with the building regulations might reduce the hazard.  In the context of this legislation the distinction is important. The reduction in hazard might mean that if the matter was recalculated it would be a hazard of a different order. It might mean that the RPT or relevant authority might take a different view of the action that is required. [para 26]

Luton Borough Council v Universal Group HA/6/2007

The landlord had disconnected the water and electricity supply to the property (it would seem on purpose for eviction purposes) and LBC carried out emergency remedial action reinstating the services. The RPT stated that an emergency prohibition order was more appropriate as submitted by the landlord (who had a vested interest in obtaining such an order because the tenants would have to vacate) and Luton appealed.

Luton produced much more evidence than they did at the RPT hearing and submitted:

… that the draconian step of an emergency prohibition order could only be justified where no other measure can reasonably be expected to enable the tenant to occupy his home in safety. Any interference with the right to occupy must be necessary, not just desirable. It is a matter of proportionality. If, as in this case, the tenant could remain in his home if works costing £215.00 were carried out it would not have been proportionate to evict him from his home, probably putting him on the street. Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights was applicable: see Cosic v Croatia: ECHR Application 28261/06 at para.22 [para 25]

The Lands Chamber agreed:

In the present case on the evidence before me (as opposed to the different evidence which was put before the RPT) there is no basis for assertion that Luton failed to carry out the necessary procedural steps in acting as it did. There were (as was common ground) category 1 hazards on the premises. Those could be dealt with, and were dealt with, at a cost of £215. No reasonable person would have considered it justifiable to deprive Mr Skepelhorn of his home in order to avoid executing work costing £215. Luton’s decision to carry out its obligation to take appropriate enforcement action by taking emergency remedial action was the correct decision. If it had decided (as Universal suggested) that an emergency prohibition order would have been the proper course, that would have been an impeachable decision because the enforcement action would not have been the appropriate enforcement action. [para 29]

Residential Property Tribunal

Procedure

Aggarwal v Leicester City Council Midland Rent Assessment Panel 4 Feb 2010

Paragraph 10(1) Housing Act 2004 provides that “the person on whom an improvement notice is served may appeal to a residential property tribunal against the notice”. The applicant in this case was one of two persons and the tribunal considered if both persons needed to make the application.

… It would be perverse if one of two persons acting alone could not appeal, if, for instance the other owner was unwilling to make an appeal, was out of the jurisdiction or lacked capacity.

Paxman v Hastings Borough Council CHI/21UD/HIN/2009/0013 9 October 2009

The landlord had basically carried out all works required by the improvement notice by the time of the hearing. Although perhaps academic, the tribunal quashed the notice because they directed themselves that they had to consider the notice at the time of the hearing and therefore had no choice to quash the notice even though it was probably correct at the time the notice was served by the local authority.

Paragraph 15(2) of the [Housing Act 2004] Schedule provides that the appeal “is to be by way of a re-hearing” and that it “may be determined having regard to matters of which the local authority was unaware.” Under paragraph 15(3) the Tribunal has the power to “confirm, quash or vary” the improvement notice. The Tribunal is directed by paragraph 15(2) … to conduct a “re-hearing” of the issue of the improvement notice. [para 19]

and continues …

The tribunal considers that paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1 to the Act plainly directs that the appeal is to be considered in the light of the circumstances which exist at the date of the hearing. We are therefore permitted to consider the condition of the property at the date of the hearing  … Furthermore, the process of rehearing means that the conduct of the local authority is not generally relevant to this appeal, save insofar as to whether it is appropriate for the tribunal to “confirm” the improvement notice. [para 21]

Authors note: There is a concession at paragraph 26 which states “Even if we are wrong about the above …” I suspect they are. It is submitted that the term “re-hearing” means a “re-hearing” as at the time the local authority made the original decision to serve notice. The hearing is not a “fresh-hearing” for example. This is confirmed by the tribunal being allowed to consider “matters of which the local authority was unaware” The term “was unaware” being in the past tense.

Ms Rani Patel (Appellant) vs London Borough of Brent (Respondent) CI/LON/00AE/HPO/2009/0004 23 November 2009

A local authority may not “withdraw” an improvement notice (or prohibition order). It must be varied or revoked (see Section 16 & 25 of Part 1, Housing Act 2004 which sets out the revocation and variation process for improvement and prohibition notices.)

Evans v LB Camden

This appeal against an improvement notice was heard on 29 August 2007 and was subsequently upheld; because no prior notice of entry had been given to the owner or occupier.

The improvement notice required works to an individual flat in a building containing ten flats. Camden had not received a complaint about this flat, although it had received a complaint about the common parts of the property. When the council officer visited to inspect the common parts following this complaint, he asked to see the flat occupied by the tenant who was showing him around. This inspection led to the service of the improvement notice on the flat, without any prior notice of entry to the flat having been given.

In the Camden RPT decision, the panel said:

“the purpose of section 239(5) is to give a mandatory warning to the occupiers and owners of the inspection and some opportunity to deal with it before the inspection and the service of a notice. Lack of warning in this instance deprived Mr. and Mrs. Evans of such an opportunity and in the Tribunal’s view has invalidated the subsequent steps taken by the respondent in serving the Notice and it cannot now be relied upon.”

However, the judgement makes no direct reference to circumstances where an authorised officer is invited into a property following a complaint from the tenant.

LB Camden was refused leave to appeal to the Lands Tribunal in respect of this decision. As a result, this judgement will set no precedence but could still be taken into account in any future RPT hearing.

Julie Moser (Appellant), Cornwall Council (Respondent) CHI/15UB/HIN/2009/009 21 October 2009

The property lacked any form of heating, the only electric lighting was from table lamps, there was no hot water, the kitchen facilities were basic, electric sockets were present which could have been used for heaters but were not, there was a broken and unstable shower. The local authority issued an improvement notice.

Section 239 Housing Act 2004 requires 24 hours notice to be given by a local authority to the occupiers and owners of the property before entry for the purpose of an inspection.

The Tribunal determined that as no proper notice had been given before the premises were entered by the Council, this entry was unlawful and the Improvement Notice was invalid and therefore quashed. [Also see Evans v LB Campden above and  Reading Borough Council (Respondent) vs Mr J Humble (Appellant) CAM/00MC/HIN/2008/0012 1 April 2009]

Similar to above, a copy of an improvement notice must be served on anybody with a charge on the property (e.g. mortgage company).

In, Weingreen Ltd. (Appellant) and Lichfield District Council (Respondent) the Tribunal  declared that the Council had made a significant omission by failing to serve a copy of the improvement notice, within 7 days, on Nationwide Building Society who have a relevant interest as mortgagee.  They therefore determined that the improvement notice was invalid and quashed it.

Miss Rosemary Lazarus vs. Babergh District Council CAM/42UB/HPO/2009/0001 30 July 2009

An emergency prohibition order was incorrectly issued against the property. The EPO was revoked from the time it was issued and so had the effect that it never existed.

[Authors note: This is particularly important wording within the Housing Act and in our view is a useful remedy because if costs were incurred during the prohibition order (e.g. re-housing) which were then found not to be needed, compensation from the local authority via normal complaints procedure may be possible.]

Burton v Cheltenham Borough Council CH1/23UB/HIN/2007/0009 27 November 2007

Although this case may be best placed under the excess cold category below, the case deals with the usual, namely, the local authority failed to consider existing heating in the property (albeit not perfect electric heating). However, in particular the tribunal pointed out:

Paragraph 4.01c of the operating guidance requires the inspector to make an assessment “for each hazard which is obviously worse than average for that age and type of property”.  The Tribunal has to ask whether the state of the Flat on 17 July was obviously worse than the average, particularly in respect of the provision of heating in the Flat.  The Tribunal has had the benefit of inspecting the Flat.  Given the Tribunal’s finding as to the work which was outstanding at the time of the inspection on 17 July and that only 3 heaters were required to bring it up to standard, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the state of the Flat was “obviously worse” than the average.  This view is reinforced by Mr. Dhalech’s evidence that most properties in the private sector would now have a heating hazard… [para 61]

Excess Cold

Mermelstein v London Borough of Camden LON/00AG/HIN/2010/0015 12 August 2010

An improvement notice was served requiring full heating system, double glazing and wall insulation “as a package” to rid the property of a category 1 excess cold hazard. Before the hearing it was agreed by the landlord that heating and secondary double glazing would be installed but wished to appeal against the wall insulation.

The tribunal found that once you take into account the new heating and secondary double glazing, there would be no category 1 hazard left and so wall insulation not required.

Aldford Two LLP v The City Council of Bristol CHI/00HB/HIN/2009/0020 14 January 2010

The property contained standard electric heaters and the local authority said they were insufficient in number and inadequate because they were expensive to run.

The tribunal found a category 1 hazard exists. However, the improvement notice requiring central heating or night storage heaters was quashed:

However and notwithstanding the above the Tribunal had noted from their inspection firstly that the tenants themselves had no complaint about the heating and were happy to control it for the time and the hours that they wanted in the respective rooms. Secondly that notwithstanding that it was a cold day outside the premises appeared to be warm and adequately heated. Thirdly and based on the Tribunal members’ own knowledge and inspection of many similar premises, that the heating system that was provided at these premises should be perfectly adequate and is not abnormal for these types of premises. [para 6.2]

Permission to appeal was refused.

[Authors note: It is submitted that despite the comment "a category 1 hazard exists" this is not likely to be correct. If the place felt warm inside when it was cold outside, how can there be a category 1 (severe likelihood and risk of serious harm) within the property due to being cold?]

Lamvale Properties Ltd v Westminster City Council LON/00BK/HIN/2008/06 18 December 2008

The local authority were “insisting” on gas central heating in a large 5 storey house. The landlord offered a Kalierel Electric System but this was refused by the local authority.

The local authority based the requirement of gas heating on internal guidance but that guidance was not “statutory guidance” and so could not be followed [see para 20 for that very important point. It is submitted that also applies to LACORS fire safety guidance for the "Fire" Hazard].

The statutory guidance requires “Heating should be controllable by the occupants, and safely and properly installed and maintained. It should be appropriate to the design, layout and construction, such that the whole of the dwelling can be adequately and efficiently heated.”

On the basis of the evidence before us the Kalirel Electric System satisfied those requirements and we considered that the Respondent’s insistence on a gas fired system was unreasonable.

Thompson (for the Irene Thompson Trust) v Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council BIR/41UE/HIN/2008/0006 15 October 2008

The local authority calculated the hazard of excess cold based on “average”, yet the property had roof insulation, double glazing and central heating. As the tribunal points out, the averages contained in the guidance are based on 65+ years where there is no heating etc.

The boiler was very old and noisy so the local authority required a new one.

… the Respondent, advised that in her judgment the property was worse than average, although she had scored it as average. She based her judgment  on the fact that the property is a Schindler construction which is known to be defective with poor thermal insulation of the structure. Mrs Fraser acknowledged in response to questions from the panel, that the property is located in an estate of similarly constructed houses, where most would not have functioning central heating with individual controls on the radiators and an additional gas fire in the living room, partial double glazing, roof space insulation of some 250 mm in depth including the roof hatch, nor cavity wall insulation, but maintained her view that the fact of the Schindler construction was sufficient to treat the property as average.

The Tribunal rejected that opinion. The Tribunal started from the position that an average house, constructed between 1946 and 1979, did not have the benefit of 250mm roof space insulation, cavity wall insulation, part double glazing and full central heating with an additional radiant gas fire. The tribunal decided that these additional features meant that this particular house was better than average. [paras 29.1.2 & 29.1.3]

Fogden v Bath & North East Somerset Council CHI/00HA/HIN/2008/0007 9 October 2008

The local authority required by the improvement notice “Install electric night storage heaters with off peak electricity in each bedsit and in the common areas. In addition, provide modern panel type heaters with timers and thermostatic controls to each bedsit.”

It is unclear if the term “in addition” was a mistake but the tribunal varied the notice to be an alternative rather than both required.

The Tribunal has underlined the words “In addition” and wonders whether this is rather excessive as a mandatory requirement of work. It quite accepts the proviso at the end of the Schedule under the section “Important Notes and Permissions” where it says “Alternative works may be acceptable through consultation with the case officer.” Much will depend on how easy it will be to achieve the heating temperature standard required. However the Tribunal takes the view that as a statutory requirement, the provision of both electric night storage heaters and panel type heaters in the bedsits is excessive and considers that they should be alternatives, rather than additional. [para 18]

[Authors note: This adds further clarity that the provision of panel heaters will normally be sufficient as long as 21 degrees is achieved inside when the temperature is 5 degrees outside (although many authorities quote -1 degrees outside as being the requirement).]

Electrical Hazards

Mr M Hanley (Appellant) vs High Peak Borough Council (Respondent) BIR/17UH/HIN/2009/0007 26 August 2009

The tribunal noted during inspection that the electrics although maybe old, seemed to be in reasonable repair, however, professional reports had indicated an earthing problem. It was clear that the electrics did not meet current regulations (because the consumer unit was wired fuses). The local authority had categorised the hazard as category 1 (the worst type).

The Tribunal particularly noted that they were not provided with any information from the council relating to the hazard score of the electrical installation which led them to determine a category 1 hazard existed. In undertaking its own calculation the tribunal determined a band E risk score which equates to a category 2 hazard. An improvement notice relating to a category 2 hazard must be served under section 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal quashed the Improvement Notice and having regard to the facts made no order for costs.

Falling on Stairs

Application by Milton Gordon Wright against a Prohibition Order served by Cannock Chase District Council 1 December 2008

The conversion had made the original staircase – which previously led into the rest of the house – an exit leading directly to the external half glass door and steps.  The Prohibition Order required remedial action including a staircase with reduced pitch and works complying with building regulations as well as proper loft insulation and heating in all rooms.

There was agreement between the appellant and respondent on the remedial action needed, but disagreement on the amount of work needed to remedy the steep staircase.  The appellant argued that other properties in the terrace had similar staircases and should therefore also be subject to a Prohibition Order.  In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the enforcement guidance and operating guidance for Housing Act 2004 and took account of the situation at the time of the hearing as well as before (as this was a rehearing).  They believed the scoring and the hazards had been correctly identified by the council, but thought the making of a Prohibition Order was disproportionate to the risk presented by the hazards.  They therefore ordered that the Prohibition Notice be revoked and replaced with an Improvement Notice effective 21 days after the date of the decision.

[/amember_protect]

A faulty 30 year old electric radiator contributed to a mother of two being electrocuted while taking a bath in her rented accommodation in Cornwall.

The property’s landlord, Hilary Thompson, aged 82, of Portscatho, was fined £5,000, the maximum for a single charge in a magistrate’s court, and ordered her to pay £1,182 costs, following her trial at Camborne Magistrates Court last week.

The magistrates were told that Mrs Thompson originally rented out Pettigrew Cottage on the Roseland peninsula as a holiday let after inheriting the property, but had later decided to rent it to the Whittall family on shorthold tenancy in March last year.

A few days after Thirza Whittall moved in with her husband and two young children she went to take a bath but tragically died when she was electrocuted after touching the taps.

During the prosecution Emma Northey, from the trading standards department, described how there was an electric, oil-filled radiator in the bathroom with the plug being run from a socket in the kitchen.

An investigation after the tragedy revealed that the radiator was more than 30 years old, had a damaged flex, and was fitted with a 13 amp rather than a three amp fuse.

A fault occurred was when the flex was pulled tight allowing the electrical current to make a connection with the water pipes and the bath taps became live. Northey further explained that although the heater faults alone would not have caused serious injury, there were other faults such as a lack of earth bonding on the water pipes.

This meant when Mrs Whittall went to use the taps while in the bath she completed the circuit and was electrocuted.

The court also heard in Thompson’s defence that she had asked a local electrician to check the house before the Whittalls moved in, but he had not had the opportunity because he had been too busy. Plus, the radiator had originally been in another part of the property and was not intended for use in the bathroom.

The magistrates were asked to take into consideration Mrs Thompson’s age, previous good conduct, role in the community, and the fact that she pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

Health effects

When electricity passes through the human body, it causes shock to the nervous system. The shock effect ranges from mild tingling sensations to disruption of the normal regular contractions of the heart or respiratory muscles, causing death.

As human tissue acts as a resistance to electricity, heat is generated which may result in burns. Such burns usually occur at the point of contact with the source of electricity. Injuries are primarily burns (53%) to the finger or thumb (58%). The mouth is the second most frequent injury site. About half of electrical accidents in the home result in burns as well as shock.

The majority of injuries are not severe. Of those attending hospital accident and emergency, 38% of victims are sent home, and 47% are referred to out-patients or a GP. Of those admitted to hospital, 71% stayed for less than 3 days.

Those under 40 have 80% of all accidents, and males have 59% of accidents. The most vulnerable group are young children, who are less likely to be aware of the risks posed by electricity. Boys between 5 and 14 are three times more likely to have accidents than girls of the same age.
Causes

By touching metal or other conducting material which is ‘live’ a person may receive an electric shock. The risk is dependent on a number of factors, the main one being[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest'] the voltage across the body. An electric shock is experienced when current passes through the body to earth.

The majority of the electric current fatalities result from deficiencies in plugs, leads, and appliances. Less than 10% of fatalities result from a deficiency in the electrical wiring and other installations. Of the fatal accidents not associated with plugs, leads and appliances, 50% involve mains wire or cables, 24% sockets, 13% light fittings and 10% a fuse or fuse board.

Where a location is known (62% of cases) most accidents occur in the living or dining room (27%), kitchen (23%), or bedroom (18%). For adults the location is most likely to be the kitchen or the living/dining room, for children the living/dining room or bedroom.

Preventive measures and the ideal

The potential danger of electrocution requires that there are adequate safety precautions, and, reflecting the high standard of electrical safety found in most UK homes, the incidence of electric shock in dwellings is relatively rare.

Protection from electric shock is provided by isolation and/or insulation. Live parts must be covered with non-conducting material to reduce the risk of electric shock. All exposed metal parts of the installation must be earthed so that in the event of a deficiency any current will flow immediately to earth rendering the system safe from electric shock. Other exposed metalwork such as gas and water pipes should also be connected to the main earth terminal.

If equipment operating at 230 volts or higher is used, a Residual Current Device (RCD) can provide additional safety. These can be incorporated in the consumer unit. An RCD is a device which detects some, but not all, deficiencies in the electrical system and rapidly switches off the supply.

As water is highly conductive, it increases the dangers from electricity. This means that additional precautions are necessary in bathrooms, kitchens and other areas where individuals could be in contact with both water and a source of electricity (e.g. electric showers). There should be no socket outlets in bathrooms other than 12 volt AC (e.g., shaver sockets).

A Lightning Protection System (LPS) may need to be present where there is an unacceptable risk of a lightning strike. This is particularly relevant to tall and isolated buildings, and is part dependent on geographical location.

For further information see – British Standard BS7671 Requirements for electrical installations, and BS6651on a procedure for calculating the overall lightning strike risk factor for a building.

Relevant matters affecting likelihood and harm outcome

Matters relevant to the likelihood of an occurrence and severity of the outcome include:

a) Electrical installation out-of-date – non-compliance with current requirements.
b) Number and siting of outlets – inadequate number of, and/or badly sited electrical socket outlets.
c) Fuses and meters – inappropriately sited fuses and meters.
d) Earthing – lack of or inadequately earthed electrical system.
e) Disrepair of installation – including to supply, meters, fuses, wiring, sockets, light fittings or switches.
f) Presence of water – electrical installations in close proximity to water, including
areas of damp.
g) Lightning protection system –lack of, or defective system to buildings at significant risk of lightning.

Hazard Assessment

A visual inspection of the electrical installation and fixed appliances to the whole dwelling may identify obvious deficiencies which contribute to the hazard. Where there is an indication that there may be an above average risk, then a full inspection and test report by a qualified electrician or electrical engineer should be commissioned.

In multi-occupied properties, the owner or manager may provide non-fixed appliances. These should also be taken into account.[/amember_protect]

Table 1

Work that need not be notified to building control bodies
[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']Work consisting of:

• Replacing any fixed electrical equipment (for example, socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses) which does not include the provision of any new fixed cabling
• Replacing the cable for a single circuit only, where damaged, for example, by fire, rodent or impact (a)
• Re-fixing or replacing the enclosures of existing installation components (b)
• Providing mechanical protection to existing fixed installations (c)
• Installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding (d)

Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve a special installation (e) and consists of:

• Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit (f)
• Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit (f)

Work not in a special location, on:

• Telephone or extra-low voltage wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information technology, signalling, control and similar purposes
• Prefabricated equipment sets and associated flexible leads with integral plug and socket connections

Notes:
(a) On condition that the replacement cable has the same current-carrying capacity and follows the same route.
(b) If the circuit’s protective measures are unaffected.
(c)  If the circuit’s protective measures and current-carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by increased thermal insulation.
(d)  Such work will need to comply with other applicable legislation, such as the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations.
(e) Special locations and installations are listed in Table 2.
(f)  Only if the existing circuit protective device is suitable and provides protection for the modified circuit, and other relevant safety provisions are satisfactory.
Table 2  Special locations and installations *

Special locations

• Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
• Swimming pools or paddling pools
• Hot air saunas
• Special installations
• Electric floor or ceiling heating systems
• Garden lighting or power installations
• Solar photovoltaic (PV) power supply systems
• Small scale generators such as microCHP units
• Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled, CE-marked lighting sets

Note:
* See IEE Guidance Note 7 which gives more guidance on achieving safe installations where risks to people are greater.[/amember_protect]

In particular [schedule 3]:[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']

1. General conditions

(a)  The essential characteristics, the recognition and observance of which will ensure that electrical equipment will be used safely and in applications for which it was made, shall be marked on the equipment,  or, if this is not possible, on an accompanying notice.

(b)  The manufacturer’s brand name or trade mark should be clearly printed on the electrical equipment or, where that is not possible, on the packaging.

(c)  The electrical equipment, together with its component parts should be made in such a way as to ensure that it can be safely and properly assembled and connected.

(d)  The electrical equipment should be so designed and manufactured as to ensure that protection against the hazards set out in points 2 and 3 of this Schedule is assured providing that the equipment is used in applications for which it was made and is adequately maintained.

2. Protection against hazards arising from the electrical equipment

(a)  Persons and domestic animals must be adequately protected against danger of physical injury or other harm which might be caused by electrical contact direct or indirect;

(b)  Temperatures, arcs or radiation which would cause a danger must not be produced;

(c)  Persons,domestic animals and property must be adequately protected against non-electrical dangers caused by the electrical equipment which are revealed by experience;

(d)  The insulation must be suitable for foreseeable conditions.

3. Protection against hazards which may be caused by external influences on the electrical equipment

(a)  The electrical equipment must meet the expected mechanical requirements in such a way that persons, domestic animals and property are not endangered;

(b)  The electrical equipment must be resistant to non-mechanical influences in expected environmental conditions, in such a way that persons, domestic animals and property are not endangered;

(c)  In foreseeable conditions of overload the electrical equipment must not endanger persons, domestic animals and property.

A landlord is therefore well advised to have a PAT test (Portable Appliance Test) carried out annually. Although for clarity, there is no actual legislation requiring a test every year. This is a Guild recommendation.[/amember_protect]

All landlords who operate as a business need to ensure that generally anything they supply is “safe”. This includes both fixed electrics and appliances supplied by a landlord.

Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act defines a defect as being present when “the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect”.

Under the General Product Safety Regulations, there is a due diligence [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']defence. This means, a fixed electrical inspection would assist with this type of defence.

Defence of due diligence

29. —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, in proceedings against a person for an offence under these Regulations it shall be a defence for that person to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

(2) Where in any proceedings against any person for such an offence the defence provided by paragraph (1) involves an allegation that the commission of the offence was due—

(a) to the act or default of another, or (b) to reliance on information given by another,

that person shall not, without the leave of the court, be entitled to rely on the defence unless, not less than seven clear days before, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the hearing of the proceedings or, in Scotland, the trial diet, he has served a notice under paragraph (3) on the person bringing the proceedings.

(3) A notice under this paragraph shall give such information identifying or assisting in the identification of the person who—

(a) committed the act or default, or (b) gave the information,

as is in the possession of the person serving the notice at the time he serves it.

(4) A person may not rely on the defence provided by paragraph (1) by reason of his reliance on information supplied by another, unless he shows that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to have relied on the information, having regard in particular—

(a) to the steps which he took, and those which might reasonably have been taken, for the purpose of verifying the information; and

(b) to whether he had any reason to disbelieve the information.

[/amember_protect]

However, please see this article in this series which relates to ALL types of property and occupants[/amember_protect]

However, please see this article in this series which relates to ALL types of property and occupants[/amember_protect]

The manager must-

(a) ensure that every fixed electrical installation is inspected and tested at intervals [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']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.

[Regulation 7(3)The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 and same for Welsh regulations][/amember_protect]

The manager must-

(a) ensure that every fixed electrical installation is inspected and tested at intervals [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']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.

[Regulation 6(3) The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 and same for The Welsh Regulations][/amember_protect]