No CPC in lighting circuit

[charlie76]

Evening all. I have been asked to quote a landlord for a replacement bathroom light as the old ones bayonet fitting was broken, new pull cord as it was one from 1702 which had finally given up and replace the hallway light fitting as it was hanging off the ceiling.

On inspection there are no CPC's in the lighting circuit, it is sheathed twin 1.5mm with no earth. As I was intending to issue a minor works cert for the work, I said to the client unfortunately I cannot test the circuit with no earth and hence I cannot certify it and have walked away from the job.

I understand I could fit Class II lighting but am I right in saying this is done by risk assessment. My initial quick mental risk assessment was that if a tennant wants to fit a metal light they will regardless of a little sticker on the CU saying there is no earth present and therefore my risk assessment said it was too much of a risk.

I did say to the landlord that they should have it rewired in T+E but as expected they don't want the cost or disruption to something that has "worked fine for years".

What would you do in this situation? Was I right in turning my back on this job?

 

[telectrix]

charlie. you were spot on. you may have lost a few quid on that small job, but at least you can sleep at night. a refreshing change from someof the cowboys who would have fitted class 1 lights, taken the cash, and sod the danger to the tenants.

 

[Octopus]

You are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

I would have fitted class 2 fittings and I would have issued a mwc outlining precisely the situation. And confirming exactly why class 1 fittings must not be fitted.

Just saying.

 

[SJD]

It is true that a tenant will likely not notice a sticker on the consumer unit. I know a landlord in this situation, who has all Class II fittings in property (including some metal class II ones), who has included in the lease a clause that forbids changing any of the light fittings or switches (with the reason given), that the tenant has to agree to at the start of the tenancy.

 

[Risteard]

You are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

I would have fitted class 2 fittings and I would have issued a mwc outlining precisely the situation. And confirming exactly why class 1 fittings must not be fitted.

Just saying.

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

 

[charlie76]

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

Exactly my issue. I said to the client, I won't be able to certify the work because I can't test the circuit. If I can't certify the works then by definition I would say I can't prove it is fit for purpose. I can write whatever I want on the certificate but if I can't prove it is safe and fit for purpose I would say I am putting myself in the crosshairs should something go wrong.

I am new to this business so probably being overly cautious but I know not having a CPC in lighting circuits was common in years gone by so my question is, what are you more experienced folks doing when you come across this?

I said to the landlord have you had an EICR done on the property, Nope. Have you received a certificate for any works, Nope. Have you ever had a certificate for any works on any of your flats, Nope. Are people just carrying out these jobs and not certifying them?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This is maintenance.
Yes an MWEIC may be used for the replacement of fittings and accessories, but there is no requirement to do so.

From what I understand, the situation is now: there is no lighting and there is an exposed broken lamp holder.
Someone will provide lighting, perhaps by running an extension lead and plugging in a table lamp.
However it is more likely that someone else (perhaps the tenant or landlord) will just install a new fitting.
Who knows what fitting will be installed, or what level of workmanship?

You could have installed the fitting to your high level of workmanship, ensuring that the fitting was suitable for purpose, you may also have been able to persuade the Landlord that RCD protection is required and you could have issued a MWEIC stating that a class 1 fitting should not be installed.

 

[7029 dave]

This is maintenance.
Yes an MWEIC may be used for the replacement of fittings and accessories, but there is no requirement to do so.

From what I understand, the situation is now: there is no lighting and there is an exposed broken lamp holder.
Someone will provide lighting, perhaps by running an extension lead and plugging in a table lamp.
However it is more likely that someone else (perhaps the tenant or landlord) will just install a new fitting.
Who knows what fitting will be installed, or what level of workmanship?

You could have installed the fitting to your high level of workmanship, ensuring that the fitting was suitable for purpose, you may also have been able to persuade the Landlord that RCD protection is required and you could have issued a MWEIC stating that a class 1 fitting should not be installed.

I was going to say something along the same lines.

 

[Octopus]

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

Not sure I agree with this.

The certificate may be devoid of tests but it would detail the situation, the action taken and advice for future improvements..... whether the landlord takes this on board is up to them BUT you will have done a professional job and left a cert to CYA!

 

[David M]

As you can tell from the responses so far, one of the requirements of being a qualified professional electrician is the ability to assess what requirements are needed to make the installation as safe as possible. You have already assessed the situation and it is obvious that a rewire of that circuit would be the safest bet.
However the owner of the property makes this option impossible for you to achieve so the next move is to either walk away or, like some have said recommend a suitable class 2 accessory and then issue a report stating your findings and recommendations. If you feel that the current accessory is dangerous then at least if you improve this situation then you are reducing the likely hood of potential danger.
Its your call, personally I would advise an immediate replacement for a more suitable accessory and any other form of additional protection you can install, along with a report stating what you have done to improve the situation and what does not meet the requirements of BS7671.

 

[Octopus]

BOTTOM LINE: Customer have selective memory at the best of times.

Doing a sensible and safe replacement and leaving a MWC may well be best for all... leaving the job to some cowboy isn't a good idea.

I wonder what the schemes would suggest (other than recommend a rewire!)?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

There are certain tests you can't do, but only because those tests aren't required. You can certainly do a Zp-n to confirm the PSCC is suitable for the OCPD, and an insulation resistance test of any metal-bodied Class II fittings on the circuit. These two would find almost all likely causes of electric shock risk. You can help limit the problem of future installation of Class I fittings by giving written advice, and as mentioned avoid the immediate likelihood of intervention by a cowboy.

 

[Risteard]

you will have done a professional job and left a cert to CYA!

I don't believe the cert would cover your --- though - I believe it would actually help to hang you if something happened. It certifies that the installation work complies with BS7671 when it doesn't, which is why none of the required tests are relevant to the work done without a cpc.

 

[charlie76]

BOTTOM LINE: Customer have selective memory at the best of times.

Doing a sensible and safe replacement and leaving a MWC may well be best for all... leaving the job to some cowboy isn't a good idea.

I wonder what the schemes would suggest (other than recommend a rewire!)?

I will do just that and ask NAPIT who I am with for their advice. It seems some mixed responses on here. Some views are that by walking away I have left it to the cowboys, others are I could do it and certify it with any departures written out on the cert.

Again though, let me emphasise that in my view the departure we are talking about was too much of a risk not to be rectified. Tenants may/will always change light fitting, switches etc regardless of CU notices or clauses in contract because they can just change them back when they leave. If this was a homeowner and you notified them I would say you had a better chance of them listening but with a rented property, there is no policing and notifying every future tenant.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Is the lighting circuit on an RCD out of interest?