Electrical Wiring Query

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    There are unfortunately other issues beyond the cooker that factor into this matter. This is not simply compensation for what might have been.

    In correspondence, the LA has referred to a "defect" to the property that has caused other issues. The LL is denying any liability for any issues at the property. We are of the belief that they have breached electrical safety regulations. We would be exceedingly unhappy if we were to walk away from this situation without the practices of the LA and LL brought into question.

    Although we do not deem the offer of compensation adequate, it is more a matter of principle. We did not know how much information the LA has given to the LL. We would not wish for something like this to happen again as the result of not only negligence, but also miscommuncation or even misleading practices. We feel that the LA has misled a first-time LL who is not fully aware of their obligations.

    If there is a valid EICR, the LA neglected to provide us with one. If one exists, the LL would have brought an unsafe appliance into the property after it was carried out. Without an EICR, we do not have the satisfaction of knowing the property is safe to live in.

    When the cooker failed, the first person to be notified would have been the LA. They would have had to explain to the LL that what they had done was deemed unsafe. We are uncertain as to whether the LL knows about the cooker or not at this time.

    We raised concerns with the LA regarding the cooker as soon as we moved into the property. We did not specify the wiring, but asked if the LL was aware of the liability if it proves to be dangerous. We recived no answer. We followed this up. We were evetually told the LL did not want to carry out a PAT. It is not acceptable to wait nearly two weeks for a response to a question raising safety concerns.

    Comment

    Latest Activity

    Collapse

    Working...
    X