Borrowed earth

[SGG123]

I have found that the garage light is on some original 2 wire from the 1970s. I could change the fitting to a class 2 but would like to know why I cannot borrow an earth from the nearby ringmain with 4mm. All domestic earths are bonded together independent of MCBs or RCBOs, so there cannot be any potential difference in the earth circuitry should anything fail.

 

[westward10]

Nothing wrong with doing this.

 

[Tom256]

I have found that the garage light is on some original 2 wire from the 1970s. I could change the fitting to a class 2 but would like to know why I cannot borrow an earth from the nearby ringmain with 4mm. All domestic earths are bonded together independent of MCBs or RCBOs, so there cannot be any potential difference in the earth circuitry should anything fail.

First thing this is all offered towards full scope of discussion - that is all!

The questions that relate (for me) would be:
1. Is it compliant with BS 7671 if not can I be happy noting the departure
2. Is it potentially dangerous and (3) as an inspector...
3. What is my engineering judgement during an EICR set against the guidance that is BS7671

BS7671 and the regulation that relates is 543.6.1. :
'Where overcurrent devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate proximity'

A twin and earth cable is as it is 'a wiring system' by definition.
Singles in containment is a wiring system.
A shared CPC within containment or indeed the containment itself can be the shared cpc for multiple circuits - Regulation 543.1.2 . The singles and the containment becoming 'the wiring system'.

With T & E (wiring system) in this example the earth is separate (It might be proposed) to the wiring system so is it in 'the immediate vicinity' of throughout (?)
Interesting of note from 543.6.1 - if Fault protection by over current devices.

Your 4mm sizing is noted - 543.1.1

Case by example: I picked up on a similar situation on an Industrial inspection and under the circumstances present I considered it was C2 'potentially dangerous'.

Two separate DB's (for simplicity = DB1 & DB2) within the building, each just meters apart in a large workshop.
DB1: From DB1 a final circuit to a small goods lift. Wired in 3 core SWA (3 phase load) to a (way too small - picture) plastic isolator within a packaging area some distance away and in a separate area - this final circuit came off DB1. The swa armours were earthed just fine at DB1

DB2: From DB2 a small 6 way consumer unit had been wired on a SWA from DB2 - picture. This consumer unit was in the same packaging area and what-you-know just meters away from the isolator on that lift circuit on DB1.

Anyway, who ever wired the isolator may well have done so on a Friday afternoon. They could not get a cpc connection to the swa gland for the outgoing circuit from the isolator, no room - a right bodge then an idea...
I can imagine the moment and they thought F*** it. They ran a 2.5mm single to the consumer unit fed from DB2 - conveniently only a few meters from the isolator you may recall. Genius let's go home it's 1pm and Friday.

This lift circuit was fed from DB1 but its earth via the consumer unti was from DB2. With the Protective Earth removed at the consumer unit there is no earth (confirmed) for the lift motor / outgoing side of the isolator.

Now what is a realistic situation: Someone working on DB2 and removing the Earth would take the earth from the lift circuit on DB1 - and have no way have knowing this had happened or could expect for such. This removed protective earth could be off for unknown length of time.
Would notices clear and permanent at DB1 and DB2 have changed this position ?

Question: Would it have been better had this been well documented and labelled to the degree required?
CDM Regulations are statutory and Regulation 9 sets out the duty to eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person maintaining the installation.
Could the person defend the install as is (?) - not for me to answer.

Which takes me to point 3. In my case using my engineering judgment (and that is the essence of inspections) I C2 the issue and the duty holder discussed and we agreed. The isolator was replaced and an earth nut fitted to the gland for the cpc.
My observations from the report (for sake of thread) read:
1. 2.5mm Protective Conductor taken from DB 15/17/03/01Y to lift Isolator on circuit 15/17/02/RYB15 to provide the means of Earthing for the lift (Isolator for lift below 15/17/03/01Y). Regulation 543.6.1 = C2
2. 2.5mm Protective Conductor taken from DB 15/17/03/01Y to lift Isolator on circuit 15/17/02/RYB15 to provide the means of Earthing is without mechanical protection and as such is undersized. Regulation 543.1.1 , 543.3.1 = C3

Dependent on circumstances I could see the case for a C2 or a C3 or indeed No code at all. Could easily make a case for each subject to circumstances.
Why this trade is a skilled trade and an inspection becomes the engineering judgment of the inspector that they must, as required, be able to justify. Regulation and pictures greatly assist to this end.

The example the OP posts is different circumstances to the industrial example I have outlined. I think I would note such at the consumer unit but as for any more... (?)

To end and I repeat: all offered towards full scope of discussion.

 

[DefyG]

I have found that the garage light is on some original 2 wire from the 1970s.

Would it not be just as easy to replace that 2 wire with T&E cable? Or is it a case that the whole lighting installation is wired in twin without a cpc and not just the garage light?

4mm seems unlikely for a cpc in a 'ring main'!

 

[westward10]

The cpc from the ring final would be 4.0mm².

 

[DefyG]

The cpc from the ring final would be 4.0mm².

Not sure how you determined that from info provided and unless wired in singles in conduit, or 10mm T&E (or maybe 6.00mm T&E - I think there was an option of a 6mm T&E with a 4mm cpc) but I would think unlikely! and even singles in conduit I would nearly always use a reduced size cpc.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Nothing wrong with doing this.

First thing this is all offered towards full scope of discussion - that is all!

The questions that relate (for me) would be:
1. Is it compliant with BS 7671 if not can I be happy noting the departure
2. Is it potentially dangerous and (3) as an inspector...
3. What is my engineering judgement during an EICR set against the guidance that is BS7671

BS7671 and the regulation that relates is 543.6.1. :
'Where overcurrent devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate proximity'

A twin and earth cable is as it is 'a wiring system' by definition.
Singles in containment is a wiring system.
A shared CPC within containment or indeed the containment itself can be the shared cpc for multiple circuits - Regulation 543.1.2 . The singles and the containment becoming 'the wiring system'.

With T & E (wiring system) in this example the earth is separate (It might be proposed) to the wiring system so is it in 'the immediate vicinity' of throughout (?)
Interesting of note from 543.6.1 - if Fault protection by over current devices.

Your 4mm sizing is noted - 543.1.1

Case by example: I picked up on a similar situation on an Industrial inspection and under the circumstances present I considered it was C2 'potentially dangerous'.

Two separate DB's (for simplicity = DB1 & DB2) within the building, each just meters apart in a large workshop.
DB1: From DB1 a final circuit to a small goods lift. Wired in 3 core SWA (3 phase load) to a (way too small - picture) plastic isolator within a packaging area some distance away and in a separate area - this final circuit came off DB1. The swa armours were earthed just fine at DB1

DB2: From DB2 a small 6 way consumer unit had been wired on a SWA from DB2 - picture. This consumer unit was in the same packaging area and what-you-know just meters away from the isolator on that lift circuit on DB1.

Anyway, who ever wired the isolator may well have done so on a Friday afternoon. They could not get a cpc connection to the swa gland for the outgoing circuit from the isolator, no room - a right bodge then an idea...
I can imagine the moment and they thought F*** it. They ran a 2.5mm single to the consumer unit fed from DB2 - conveniently only a few meters from the isolator you may recall. Genius let's go home it's 1pm and Friday.

This lift circuit was fed from DB1 but its earth via the consumer unti was from DB2. With the Protective Earth removed at the consumer unit there is no earth (confirmed) for the lift motor / outgoing side of the isolator.

Now what is a realistic situation: Someone working on DB2 and removing the Earth would take the earth from the lift circuit on DB1 - and have no way have knowing this had happened or could expect for such. This removed protective earth could be off for unknown length of time.
Would notices clear and permanent at DB1 and DB2 have changed this position ?

Question: Would it have been better had this been well documented and labelled to the degree required?
CDM Regulations are statutory and Regulation 9 sets out the duty to eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person maintaining the installation.
Could the person defend the install as is (?) - not for me to answer.

Which takes me to point 3. In my case using my engineering judgment (and that is the essence of inspections) I C2 the issue and the duty holder discussed and we agreed. The isolator was replaced and an earth nut fitted to the gland for the cpc.
My observations from the report (for sake of thread) read:
1. 2.5mm Protective Conductor taken from DB 15/17/03/01Y to lift Isolator on circuit 15/17/02/RYB15 to provide the means of Earthing for the lift (Isolator for lift below 15/17/03/01Y). Regulation 543.6.1 = C2
2. 2.5mm Protective Conductor taken from DB 15/17/03/01Y to lift Isolator on circuit 15/17/02/RYB15 to provide the means of Earthing is without mechanical protection and as such is undersized. Regulation 543.1.1 , 543.3.1 = C3

Dependent on circumstances I could see the case for a C2 or a C3 or indeed No code at all. Could easily make a case for each subject to circumstances.
Why this trade is a skilled trade and an inspection becomes the engineering judgment of the inspector that they must, as required, be able to justify. Regulation and pictures greatly assist to this end.

The example the OP posts is different circumstances to the industrial example I have outlined. I think I would note such at the consumer unit but as for any more... (?)

To end and I repeat: all offered towards full scope of discussion.

View attachment 118883View attachment 118884

Both replies have basically said the same thing

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Not sure how you determined that from info provided and unless wired in singles in conduit, or 10mm T&E (or maybe 6.00mm T&E - I think there was an option of a 6mm T&E with a 4mm cpc) but I would think unlikely! and even singles in conduit I would nearly always use a reduced size cpc.

I don't think Westward is suggesting the existing cpc is 4mm. He is saying the new earth pinched from the ring will need to be 4mm.

 

[Jock from the north]

I don't think Westward is suggesting the existing cpc is 4mm. He is saying the new earth pinched from the ring will need to be 4mm.

If mechanily protected would a 2.5 not suffice.you could manufacture metal conduit just to get to light saving yourself 4 pound in cable and costing you an extra 3 hours in labour plus conduit

I don't think Westward is suggesting the existing cpc is 4mm. He is saying the new earth pinched from the ring will need to be 4mm.

 

[SGG123]

Thanks for you replies. It sounds like this is not a 18th Edition issue. So I've attached photos. The ringmain is cct 2 on the CU and lighting is on cct 4 of the same CU. The rest of the house wiring is on T&E, it is only the garage light (now class 2) and the outside metal flood light that is on a two wire circuit that comes from the main house and is impossible to access without taking up the bedroom flooring.

The light switch is 1.2m from the ringmain. So I've put a 4mm earth wire between the two. This is where I have found differences of opinion. Logically, they can only ever be the same potential in any scenario, as all household earths are bonded after the MCBs / RCBOs.

 

[Teddy Lop]

I must admit I've pinched an earth on a rare occasion to ground a metallic lighting part from a nearby socket, but it's the spacesaver of electrical fixes. Accompanied with obvious murderdeathkill warning sticker to the consumer unit.

Could you not disconnect the old wiring and refeed the light via a spur from the ring?

 

[SGG123]

I must admit I've pinched an earth on a rare occasion to ground a metallic lighting part from a nearby socket, but it's the spacesaver of electrical fixes. Accompanied with obvious murderdeathkill warning sticker to the consumer unit.

Could you not disconnect the old wiring and refeed the light via a spur from the ring?

Thanks
I did think a spur from the ring was the ideal solution as it only affects one outside flood light.

As it is from yesterday, the active electrician has passed it with a warning in the EIC on 'removing the cpc from the garage ring that would leave the class 1 flood light unearthed'. I retired from the industry 30 years ago, but for neatness and simplicity, I would probably have done the same.

 

[brianmoooore]

Did this many times back in the 70s and 80s. You'd be faced with extending or modifying sometimes nearly new wiring in twin without earth, and with this no longer available, T&E had to be used. Many would just chop back the cpc at each end of each cable, but I always connected them as you do now, and 'fed' an earth into the new wiring from somewhere convenient.