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

 

[Pete999]

rewire the lights. you can't reconnect/joint to cables that don't comply with current regs. are the insurers penny pinching?

With a caveat "who will be paying"?
[automerge]1579280495[/automerge]

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.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

My thoughts:

From BPG1:

4.2. BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit.

4.3. However, circuits that are defective or non compliant with the requirements of BS 7671 in a way that would result in immediate or potential danger must not be reconnected to the consumer unit.

So don't reconnect C1s and C2s, this is clarified in the note to 6.2.3. In BPG4, it codes "Absence of circuit protective conductors in circuits having only Class II (or all-insulated) luminaires and switches" as C3. To me, this is clear - it's okay to reconnect.

If I was in the OP's situation, I'd push for the lighting circuits to be rewired. But if they refused, I'd make the repair, put a 'No Class 1s' notice on the board, and be done with it.

 

[davesparks]

So don't reconnect C1s and C2s, this is clarified in the note to 6.2.3. In BPG4, it codes "Absence of circuit protective conductors in circuits having only Class II (or all-insulated) luminaires and switches" as C3. To me, this is clear - it's okay to reconnect.

And BS7671 requires that an installation relying on double insulation as a protective measure be under the supervision of a skilled/competent person.
I'm sure BS7671 carries more weight than a BPG4, whatever that means? Is BPG4 an obscure reference to an IET guidance document?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

And BS7671 requires that an installation relying on double insulation as a protective measure be under the supervision of a skilled/competent person.
I'm sure BS7671 carries more weight than a BPG4, whatever that means? Is BPG4 an obscure reference to an IET guidance document?

Best Practice Guide 4. I assume the advice in these guides carries some weight, but please correct me if not.

When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? Or is the statement "BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be
upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit." correct?

 

[davesparks]

Best Practice Guide 4. I assume the advice in these guides carries some weight, but please correct me if not.

When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? Or is the statement "BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be
upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit." correct?

Who write this best practice guide? Unless it's an IET publication I wouldn't be inclined to rely on it for anything.

No, not everything has to be to current regulations, a non-compliance that has no safety implication can be disregarded.
For example red and black conductors do not comply with the current regulations, however they can be reconnected without any concern as this in itself does not affect safety.

That statement is incorrect because BS7671 does not make any statements about replacing consumer units, it just sets out the standards that electrical installations should comply with.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Who write this best practice guide? Unless it's an IET publication I wouldn't be inclined to rely on it for anything.

No, not everything has to be to current regulations, a non-compliance that has no safety implication can be disregarded.
For example red and black conductors do not comply with the current regulations, however they can be reconnected without any concern as this in itself does not affect safety.

That statement is incorrect because BS7671 does not make any statements about replacing consumer units, it just sets out the standards that electrical installations should comply with.

Red/black conductors, missing grommits, junction boxes under floor boards, all C3s. I'm guessing you'd reconnect circuits with these observations, if I judge you by my standards. Missing CPC on lighting circuit with only class 2s or all insulated accessories, also C3. No immediate or potential danger.

 

[westward10]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

What are the specific requirements of BS7671 for a consumer unit change?

 

[westward10]

What are the specific requirements of BS7671 for a consumer unit change?

There are none.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

There are none.

So where are you taking your guidance from for consumer unit changes?

 

[davesparks]

So where are you taking your guidance from for consumer unit changes?

BS7671, it doesn't specifically tell you what to do when changing a CU, but it does tell you what is the current standard for safety.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

BS7671, it doesn't specifically tell you what to do when changing a CU, but it does tell you what is the current standard for safety.

BS7671 18th ed is the current standard for safety. Ok, let's go circular. When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? No.

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?
C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?
Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?
[automerge]1579304761[/automerge]
Look, you guys have been around a while, and I value your opinions, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. But it seems like we're all in the dark with this one. Bs7671 gives us nothing, so we have to take our guidance where we can get it. I'm not with a scheme so I can't ask them for directions. The BPGs are the only guidance I have for CU changes.

To me, it's a code 3, and so fit for continued service. To you guys, not so, but why? You'd let other C3s pass, why not this one?

 

[M-Ty]

IMHO (as a non-electrician), a 13th edition lighting circuit fitted with only Class II accessories poses no particular danger unless someone sabotages it by replacing one with a supposedly Class 1 one and doesn't bother to find a way of earthing it, which would then be Class 01 and of an equally low standard of safety as the Class 0 accessories originally permitted.

The original installation relied on protection by non-conducting location if any Class 0 accessories were fitted.
If it is still a non-conducting location, and the accessories are all Class II that's two levels of protection (though, as already mentioned, for protection by Class II, and also by non-conductiing location, these measures are now only permitted for new installations if under control of a competent person.
Although a warning notice about not replacing Class II accessories may not strictly comply with the current edition, it is an instruction issued by a competent person to anyone working on the installation and surely better than nothing.)
Feeding this circuit from an RCD (e.g. RCBO) would provide a third level of protection.

 

[bigspark17]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

IF the worst were to happen? This thread is about cu changes incorporating a lighting circuit without a cpc conductor included not the OP. So what is the immediate danger apart from saying a diyer could put a class I light up (which they could do on any installation without conecting earth) if no accessories are damaged, no class I fittings no metal switches, no metal back boxes? Your are adding additional protection via rcd to the circuit, the main bonding & tails could well be updated during this cu change,
If it was feasible of course i would very much push for rewiring the lighting circuits but at the same time i would give the customer the opportunity if they didn't want the upheaval of rewiring and the mess and disruption that can bring.

 

[westward10]

An rcd/rcbo should not be relied upon in the absence of a circuit protective conductor.