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]

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.

I take your point Westward, but I don't think the IET would allow the ESC produce a document which is essentially a guide, to print information that doesn't comply with BS 7671 or any other BS come to that.

 

[Midwest]

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.

Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.

So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.

 

[westward10]

Employing Class II fittings or all insulated accessories to a circuit which does not incorporate a cpc does not imply the protective measure of double insulation is in force. There is a lot more to it than that.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.

So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.

Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

https://www.----------------------------/about-us/

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

https://www.----------------------------/about-us/our-history/

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry

 

[Midwest]

Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

https://www.----------------------------/about-us/

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

https://www.----------------------------/about-us/our-history/

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry

Bearing in mind the guide is for replacing a consumer unit in domestic properties in general, not just solely a guide about lighting circuits without cpc.

I'm fully aware of the 'charity' and its history, and indeed have used their guidance.

And in 10.7, it clearly advises that domestic properties or similar can not be deemed to be under effective supervision to allow the use of double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

And in 10.7, it clearly advises that domestic properties or similar can not be deemed to be under effective supervision to allow the use of double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure.

By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.

 

[Midwest]

By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations
[automerge]1579359003[/automerge]
Would someone please answer my earlier questions:

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?

 

[Ian1981]

It should be appreciated that many bodies contribute and lend support to the BPG’s including the IET
They are produced to help guide electrician but yes they are a guide only

 

[Midwest]

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations

I can’t be bothered arguing anymore.

 

[Midwest]

PS @Pretty Mouth have you ever installed a new CU in such circumstances?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I can’t be bothered arguing anymore.

Would you like to answer my above questions before you leave the discussion?

 

[Midwest]

[/QUOTE]

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations

Would you like to answer my above questions before you leave the discussion?

Very kind of you to ask

10.7 is refering to effective supervision, not whether a circuit complies with BS7671.

And have you?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

You answer mine, I'll answer yours

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?

 

[Midwest]

You answer mine, I'll answer yours

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?

Aha, gotcha there. I’ve freely always stated, never did EICR’s as having returned to the industry in the last few years, I didn’t have the necessary experience IMO, as it’s so subjective.

But I do have experience in reading and absorbing regulations & laws etc.

Anyway, why should I answer your question before you answer mine. I sense a trap.