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?

 

[Risteard]

any departures written out on the cert.

You must remember that a departure is required to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671.

 

[Leesparkykent]

You must remember that a departure is required to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671.

There are many sparks who believe the departures box is a get out of jail free card :13:

 

[Octopus]

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.

So that means you never issue a cert if there is anything wrong with a site?

 

[andyb]

I think this is being over thought, all that's being asked by the client is the replacement of 2 defective lights and a pull switch.
Advise the client of the situation, recommend that it's put right, if client declines carry out tests as outlined by Lucien, fit class 2 accessories and issue MWC.
I'd rather do this than leave them in darkness.

I would note the lack of cpc in this case not as a departure on the cert, but a comment on existing installation.

 

[Risteard]

So that means you never issue a cert if there is anything wrong with a site?

There could be plenty wrong with the site, but it cannot be related to the work I am carrying out. If, for example, there was no cpc continuity on a circuit upstream of work I had been carrying out then I couldn't certify it without first rectifying this/ensuring there was cpc continuity at the accessory I was working at.

Otherwise what would be the purpose of the certificate? I sign a declaration that the work complies with BS7671 and yet you are suggesting make comments on the cert which clearly prove that it doesn't. I believe that I'd be leaving myself wide open if I were to do that.

 

[HandySparks]

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.

The MW cert would be for the work you are doing, namely replacement of class 2 fittings. The safety of the fittings is not reliant on the presence of an earth connection (although, to comply with the regs, one is required at each point).

As others have said, I'd do the job and inform the customer of the situation in writing (cert, e-mail, whatever).

 

[Risteard]

although, to comply with the regs, one is required at each point

But that is precisely my point. How can you certify the work you have carried out as being compliant with BS7671 when you freely admit that it is non-compliant with the Standard?

 

[andyb]

But that is precisely my point. How can you certify the work you have carried out as being compliant with BS7671 when you freely admit that it is non-compliant with the Standard?

It's the work you have carried out that you are certifying Risteard, a class 2 accessory does not require an earth. The circuit installed by others should have an earth.
Like I said, note it in comments on existing.

 

[Risteard]

It's the work you have carried out that you are certifying Risteard, a class 2 accessory does not require an earth. The circuit installed by others should have an earth.
Like I said, note it in comments on existing.

But the accessory can't be considered in isolation. You are connecting it to the circuit.

Certification of accessories is not within the remit of BS7671.

 

[7029 dave]

IMO some of you are paranoid about this, at the end of the day the lighting circuit could have complied to when it was installed, prior to 14th regs edition amended in 1966 me thinks, with the introduction of cpc in lighting circuits. At the end of the day it is maintenance, are we saying if a light fitting or switch is broken we can't replace it.? Class 2 is the way forward here, of course a rewire is the best solution, but if the client says no we have to make the best of it, far better than leaving a C1 on site, tenant gets electrocuted.Well we had a sparky here a few days ago he walked away an left it dangerous state. IMO that in court would get your --- in a sling. Common sense here lads.

 

[andyb]

But the accessory can't be considered in isolation. You are connecting it to the circuit.

Certification of accessories is not within the remit of BS7671.

You don't really need to issue a MWC for a like for like replacement of an accessory to comply with 7671. A MWC is for an addition or alteration of a circuit.
There is however nothing to stop you issuing one, I always do now. And in this case a MWC certificate is perfect for noting the lack of cpc and the tests you have carried out.
You do have a point but I don't think you can demand that they have a rewire just to replace a damaged switch for example.
I'll always carry out the repair unless to do so created a danger.

 

[Risteard]

And in this case a MWC certificate is perfect for noting the lack of cpc and the tests you have carried out.

Don't agree. It (a MEIWC) is inappropriate in these circumstances as it declares compliance with BS7671 where there isn't.

 

[Risteard]

My issue isn't with like-for-like maintenance with no conductive parts (including screws) - it is with certification of this where it cannot be certified. The only paperwork which could be legitimately issued is an Electrical Danger Notification if you felt it necessary.

 

[andyb]

Don't agree. It (a MEIWC) is inappropriate in these circumstances as it declares compliance with BS7671 where there isn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, I could of rewired the circuit by now.

 

[Jurassic Sparks]

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.

if there was no cpc then its likely to be a re 1966 installation, in which case the place needs rewiring
if its being rented out then the wiring should be safe
I had one afew weeks back, I issue one of NAPITs death certificates to the client, that way its on record when something goes wrong and they tell lies
the one I issued was for a house worth around 400K but they could not afford to rewire it ??
despite renting it out for 800 pounds per month and piving in another property worth 1.75M
???
funny old world