The Complaint After a Periodic Inspection
A landlord commissions a periodic inspection report on a 1970s block of six flats. The inspector, working alone, spends four hours on site, tests the common areas thoroughly and samples three flats. He records the installation as 'satisfactory' with two C3 observations. Three weeks later a tenant receives a shock from a faulty immersion heater circuit in one of the unsampled flats. The heater circuit has no RCD, deteriorated insulation and a borrowed neutral. The landlord's insurer demands the inspector's file. The inspector's notes show he assumed the flats were 'similar' and did not enter three of them because tenants were out.
1. Assess whether the 'satisfactory' overall assessment was defensible and identify the sampling failures.
Read the worked answer
The overall assessment was not defensible. A periodic inspection report is an opinion on the condition of the installation as inspected, and the inspector must state the extent and limitations clearly. Here:
- Sampling was inadequate and undocumented as a limitation. Three of six flats were not entered. The inspector assumed similarity - an assumption, not evidence. Flats in a 1970s block frequently differ because of decades of DIY alterations.
- A 'satisfactory' overall assessment requires that no C1 or C2 observations were found in the parts inspected and that the extent of inspection is sufficient to support the opinion. With half the flats unexamined, the inspector could not honestly reach that conclusion for the block as a whole.
- The two C3 observations were recorded, but the report should have stated the limitations prominently - 'three flats not accessed; assessment limited to common areas and three flats' - and the overall assessment should have been qualified accordingly, not a flat 'satisfactory'.
The immersion heater defects (no RCD, deteriorated insulation, borrowed neutral) would have been C2 had they been seen. The failure is one of scope and honesty about scope, not of testing technique.
2. The insurer asks what the inspector should have done differently and what his exposure is. Advise.
Read the worked answer
What should have been done:
- Agree access in advance with the landlord and tenants; schedule return visits for unaccessed flats.
- Record every limitation in the report - which flats were entered, which were not, and why.
- Qualify the overall assessment where coverage is partial. Use wording such as 'satisfactory in the areas inspected, subject to the limitations stated' rather than an unqualified 'satisfactory'.
- Do not infer condition from similar-looking flats. Test and inspect, or exclude and say so.
- Where a landlord refuses access, put the refusal in writing and reflect it in the report.
Exposure:
- The report is relied on by the landlord, tenants and insurers. An unqualified 'satisfactory' that conceals limited coverage is a misrepresentation.
- The inspector's own notes ('assumed similar') are the damaging evidence - they show a known limitation was not disclosed.
- Consequences may include a complaint to the registration authority going to fitness to practise, civil liability to the injured tenant, and professional reputational damage. Voluntary, prompt disclosure and a re-inspection of the unaccessed flats mitigate but do not erase the failure.
The lesson: the certificate or report is only as good as the honesty of its stated scope.