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?

 

[Octopus]

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?

The certificate , in fact ANY certificate may have "things" that don't comply......

The certificate is a statement of works and comments..... as usual the muppets at the IET simply don't have a clue what is goin on at the coal face.

As for MWC saying it complies with BC 7671 - no it doesn't if completed correctly...

EG:

The ones I use INCLUDES this statement on it:

"complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above"

And part 1 is where you detail the scope of works and any observations/ comments / etc

 

[Risteard]

The certificate , in fact ANY certificate may have "things" that don't comply......

The certificate is a statement of works and comments..... as usual the muppets at the IET simply don't have a clue what is goin on at the coal face.

As for MWC saying it complies with BC 7671 - no it doesn't if completed correctly...

EG:

The ones I use INCLUDES this statement on it:

"complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above"

And part 1 is where you detail the scope of works and any observations/ comments / etc

Part 1 details Departures. As I have pointed out elsewhere, BS7671 requires Departures to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671. It is essentially there for new innovations which were not known about when the Regs were published. It is not permitted to be used as a means of avoiding compliance with BS7671. So unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Octopus]

Part 1 details Departures. As I have pointed out elsewhere, BS7671 requires Departures to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671. It is essentially there for new innovations which were not known about when the Regs were published. It is not permitted to be used as a means of avoiding compliance with BS7671. So unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water.

Part 1: Description of minor works

 

[Risteard]

Part 1: Description of minor works

That won't get you out of complying with BS7671 though.

 

[Octopus]

That won't get you out of complying with BS7671 though.

I refer you back to post 31.

 

[Risteard]

I refer you back to post 31.

And I refer you to post #32 which is what the declaration is referencing.

 

[dnjr]

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!)?

Hi Murdoch. I had one very similar a couple of weeks ago and NICEIC went along same lines as you. Install a plastic fitting, Issue cert , sticker the board stating which circuit is involved and back it up with a covering letter. Arse covered.
You can't second guess everyone all the time. Installation is safer than it was and landlord is made aware of issue

Dnjr


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Octopus]

And I refer you to post #32 which is what the declaration is referencing.

TBH I don't give a ---- what others or you say. I will when necessary do as I have done before and used the MWC to confirm and document the issue as I see out.

It's that or pocket the cash and join then cowboys.

 

[sparksburnout]

Given the very sensible scenario given above by DNJR, Murdoch and also Andy, could the panic merchants who are talking about being in court please explain how that might happen, and what the possible outcome might be even if it did???

 

[djelectric]

This guide refers to changing a CU where there is a lighting circuit with no CPC but may help the debate: http://www.----------------------------/mediafile/100126675/Best-Practice-Guide-1.pdf

 

[7029 dave]

TBH ffs why fill out a MWC to change a light fitting. OTT in my book

 

[djelectric]

That guide states that only Class I fittings & accessories simultaneously accessible with earthed metalwork or extraneousconductive-parts are a danger, or where they are fitted in rooms with an earthed floor, special locations (RCD required) and portable applications.

If there is no risk of someone coming in contact with the fitting simultaneously with anything earthed then its fine, just label the board, note it on the cert and make the client aware.

There is always the risk of some cowboy coming in and changing something that could make that circuit dangerous, but the same goes with anything.. Someone could come along and extend your ring circuit to the garden using indoor accessories to power a load of heaters! But you complied at the time of your cert, what happens after is someone elses problem.

 

[djelectric]

That guide states that only Class I fittings & accessories simultaneously accessible with earthed metalwork or extraneousconductive-parts are a danger, or where they are fitted in rooms with an earthed floor, special locations (RCD required) and portable applications.

If there is no risk of someone coming in contact with the fitting simultaneously with anything earthed then its fine, just label the board, note it on the cert and make the client aware.

There is always the risk of some cowboy coming in and changing something that could make that circuit dangerous, but the same goes with anything.. Someone could come along and extend your ring circuit to the garden using indoor accessories to power a load of heaters! But you complied at the time of your cert, what happens after is someone elses problem.

That said, I suppose there is the risk of someone wielding a pair of metal steps that manages to touch the radiator and faulty (live) light fitting at the same time.. Or scaffolders carrying their poles through the window because its the easier route.. Loads of potential risks..