Install downlights - No CPC

[peterhyper]

I have been asked to give a quote to install some downlights in a kitchen, but there is no cpc in the light circuit. I appreciate the response by some is the world would end if I did that, but the circuit is RCD protected and the last IR readings on the ciruit were good when the board was changed a few years back.

I am debating whether to do the job, because I would use intergrated downlights not requiring a CPC, and I would check the IR again to ensure it's still healthy before proceeding.

Any thoughts welcome.

 

[Midwest]

As well as reading reg 412.2.3.2 (BYB), have a read of the often posted Best Practise Guide 1 by ESF. Item 10, with particular noting of 10.7.

https://www.----------------------------/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

 

[suffolkspark]

If your gonna alter the wiring either use 2core flex so in future it's obvious theres no cpc, or get a cpc from somewhere mate

 

[davesparks]

Thanks again all for the replies. Providing the IR is still good on the conductors I don't consider it to be 'unsafe' to install class 2 downlights. I have often replaced rusty old metal class 1 downlights in a bathroom that weren't suitable for the area, and where no cpc was present, with intergrated downlights suitable for a bathroom (not requiring a cpc), and I will continue to do this should the situation arise as I have clearly improved the safety of the installation, but it appears some sparks would refuse to do this which frankly surprises me.

I find it slightly bizarre that it's acceptable for a circuit to borrow a cpc from a completely seperate circuit.

As already mentioned, I shall offer the particular customer I referred to, the quinetic solution.

Replacing damaged or otherwise unsuitable equipment on the circuit is different to altering and extending the circuit.

The new work you install must comply with bs7671, this is effectively made a legal requirement by part P.
Altering the circuit to install downlights without providing a suitable cpc does not comply.
It doesn't matter how much you feel it is no unsafe, makes it safer, or is making the best of a bad job, it simply does not comply. And it is not a justifiable departure from bs7671 because changing a single light for downlights is not an urgent or necessary repair.

Why do you find 'borrowing a cpc' bizarre? This has, as far as I know, been a part of the regulations for decades.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Replacing damaged or otherwise unsuitable equipment on the circuit is different to altering and extending the circuit.

The new work you install must comply with bs7671, this is effectively made a legal requirement by part P.
Altering the circuit to install downlights without providing a suitable cpc does not comply.
It doesn't matter how much you feel it is no unsafe, makes it safer, or is making the best of a bad job, it simply does not comply. And it is not a justifiable departure from bs7671 because changing a single light for downlights is not an urgent or necessary repair.

Why do you find 'borrowing a cpc' bizarre? This has, as far as I know, been a part of the regulations for decades.

I think some people consider borrowing a cpc from another circuit to be bad practice (I don't, whatever gets the job done) - if decommissioning the 'lender' circuit, you could also inadvertently lose the cpc to the 'borrower', if you weren't careful.

I was unaware there was a need to justify a reason for a departure from the regs, I can't find anything in the BBB or OSG on the matter. Is it in one of the guidance notes?

 

[westward10]

A cpc which serves more than one circuit is not a departure. This may hark back to the days when containment served multiple circuits as a cpc but nevertheless this is not stipulated.

 

[davesparks]

I think some people consider borrowing a cpc from another circuit to be bad practice (I don't, whatever gets the job done) - if decommissioning the 'lender' circuit, you could also inadvertently lose the cpc to the 'borrower', if you weren't careful.

I was unaware there was a need to justify a reason for a departure from the regs, I can't find anything in the BBB or OSG on the matter. Is it in one of the guidance notes?

I too consider cpc connections from other circuits which are not obvious or easily identifiable to be a bad idea, but that doesn't stop it being permitted.

There is an implied need for justification for a departure from the regs when they require any departure to leave the installation no less safe than if the regulations were complied with. If there was no need to justify a departure then what is the point in having regulations at all?
Although ultimately the only 'need' to justify a departure is if and when something has gone wrong as a result of that departure.

 

[davesparks]

A cpc which serves more than one circuit is not a departure. This may hark back to the days when containment served multiple circuits as a cpc but nevertheless this is not stipulated.

Hark back? Containment, armour etc still do serve multiple circuits as a cpc, whether the designer likes it or not.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

There is an implied need for justification for a departure from the regs when they require any departure to leave the installation no less safe than if the regulations were complied with. If there was no need to justify a departure then what is the point in having regulations at all?

The regs say if departing, safety must not be less, but doesn't say that it has to be in answer to essential repair work, or indeed any sort of reason at all, that I can find. It does mention new materials or inventions might be a reason to depart.