No CPC in lighting circuits / Fire damage

[Andy434]

Good evening

following a visual inspection in a property that had an electrical fire in the fuse board area
obviously i could not actually test anything, but visually identified that the lighting circuits had no earth (not even cut back)
now the insurance company ideally want a new distribution board and all the circuits being cut back to where they are not damaged then extended back and re-connected

so my question is:
all the pendents and switches are plastic, but really don't think i can join on to and extend the old cable that contains no cpc

or am i wrong?

am i right in thinking they have no choice but to get the lighting re-wired

thanks guys

 

[Midwest]

Lighting circuits installed before 1966 did not require a circuit protective conductor (cpc) to be run to and terminated at every point and accessory of a lighting circuit, as is currently required by Regulation 411.3.1.1 of BS 7671.

It should be remembered that the Wiring Regulations are not retrospective, as is clearly mentioned in a note in the introduction to BS 7671 which states: Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.


Therefore, there is no legal requirement, and no regulation in BS 7671, requiring an existing lighting circuit to be rewired or upgraded to current standards. However, it is essential that the safety of the installation is not compromised when any alteration and/or addition is carried out.

taken from elecsa.

I also sort guidance when trying to understand the writings of BS7671.

Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, also gives some guidance; https://www.----------------------------/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

Indent 10.7, if this is in a domestic property.

 

[Andy78]

The best practice guide is clear. When changing a consumer unit and lighting circuits with no cpc exist, they should only be reconnected when all other remedial actions are refused.
Are the insurers going to refuse rewiring from a liability point of view when the electrician says this is the best and safest method, and to not do so would not be fully compliant with the wiring regulations but would just about be safe if no-one changes any accessories ?

 

[Pete999]

The best practice guide is clear. When changing a consumer unit and lighting circuits with no cpc exist, they should only be reconnected when all other remedial actions are refused.
Are the insurers going to refuse rewiring from a liability point of view when the electrician says this is the best and safest method, and to not do so would not be fully compliant with the wiring regulations but would just about be safe if no-one changes any accessories ?

Personally I think the rulings need updating: You are changing a CU in Mrs Ordinaries' House after a house fire. oh dear no cps in the lighting wiring, after explaining that some remedial wiring need doing ergo rewiring the lights before I can reconnect.
How long is it going to take the Insures to agree to that? weeks, maybe in the meantime the Home owners are without any lights The BP Guide is right in some respects, but there needs to be better guidelines in my opinion for what it's worth. on how to proceed, all very well telling Mrs Ordinary not to use any metal or conductive accessories, but you know what most homeowners are like, oh that's a nice light fitting won't that look nice in our lounge ???

 

[Andy78]

Personally I think the rulings need updating: You are changing a CU in Mrs Ordinaries' House after a house fire. oh dear no cps in the lighting wiring, after explaining that some remedial wiring need doing ergo rewiring the lights before I can reconnect.
How long is it going to take the Insures to agree to that? weeks, maybe in the meantime the Home owners are without any lights The BP Guide is right in some respects, but there needs to be better guidelines in my opinion for what it's worth. on how to proceed, all very well telling Mrs Ordinary not to use any metal or conductive accessories, but you know what most homeowners are like, oh that's a nice light fitting won't that look nice in our lounge ???

I agree that in these emergency circumstances after a fire, getting the power back on is the priority.

I don't agree with the best practice guide though that a cpc free circuit should be reconnected on a planned consumer unit change, even if the customer is fully briefed as to the safety implications.

I'd be laying it on thick to the insurance if it were me pushing for rewiring.

 

[Midwest]

I don't agree with the best practice guide though that a cpc free circuit should be reconnected on a planned consumer unit change, even if the customer is fully briefed as to the safety implications.

The ESF Best Practice Guide 1, actually states the opposite for a domestic dwelling, indent 10.7.

 

[Pete999]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

 

[Andy78]

The ESF Best Practice Guide 1, actually states the opposite for a domestic dwelling, indent 10.7.

It very much does.

This info seems to be at odds with flow chart A2 which states that in a planned CU change situation the affixing of a label to the CU telling users not to change accessories is enough to give the CU change the go ahead.
This chart appears to be for use in dwellings, as mentioned in indent 10.7, as the last step is to notify the work. This step would not be applicable to other installations apart from dwellings.

 

[Ian1981]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

That’s why it’s important to attach a warning label at the CU stating that no class 1 accessories are to be fitted to the lighting circuit with no cpc.
Don’t know who came up with such a label tho as it’s not in bs7671?

 

[Andy78]

That’s why it’s important to attach a warning label at the CU stating that no class 1 accessories are to be fitted to the lighting circuit with no cpc.
Don’t know who came up with such a label tho as it’s not in bs7671?

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

 

[Pete999]

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

Not in a Million years,

 

[bigspark17]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

Your never going to stop diy taking place, even if there is a cpc there they may not connect it, you cant stop everything, we dont put sockets in bathroom but that doesn't stop someone putting an extension lead in the bath!!?

 

[Ian1981]

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

Because the regulations assume electrical work to be carried out by competent persons electrically skilled.
a warning label clearly on view at the CU should not be missed by anyone skilled carrying out electrical work as the lighting would be isolated at the CU. However we don’t live in the fairytale that bs7671 wants us all to live in and the inevitable DIY jobs will ignore the warnings.
Like I said tho I’m not sure where this requirement for the label has gone from?
I’m assuming the ESC / best practice guide to which the likes of Napit and the Niceic seem to endorse this warning label method as a last resort.
No I don’t think a warning label will be classed as suitable supervision as it’s not under the control of skilled or instructed persons

 

[Pete999]

Because the regulations assume electrical work to be carried out by competent persons electrically skilled.
a warning label clearly on view at the CU should not be missed by anyone skilled carrying out electrical work as the lighting would be isolated at the CU. However we don’t live in the fairytale that bs7671 wants us all to live in and the inevitable DIY jobs will ignore the warnings.
Like I said tho I’m not sure where this requirement for the label has gone from?
I’m assuming the ESC / best practice guide to which the likes of Napit and the Niceic seem to endorse this warning label method as a last resort.

ELECTRIC MAGIC!!!! !!!!

 

[Ian1981]

ELECTRIC MAGIC!!!! !!!!

Eh? Come again??

 

[Pete999]

Eh? Come again??

Sorry meant for someone else ignore please, appologies