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

 

[Grant1987]

I can't argue with that, you do see some bad work. Like you say, DIY, or kitchen fitters often too.

I’ve just read all of these messages all very smart in the way you interprete the regs. It all comes down to the simple fact the property needs to be rewired or the lights at least but may aswell do the sockets aswell. Why look for reasons to not Rewire the property, I’ve been in the industry only 14 years and been fortunate to learn from a lot of excellent sparkys over the years always had same advice don’t over complicate it. In this instance to avoid all these messages it would be to REWIRE IT simples

 

[davesparks]

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.

I doubt the IET have any control over what the ESC print, we in this country have the freedom to put whatever we like into print.

Someone could publish guidance advising people that in the absence of a cpc they should connect all exposed metalwork to neutral and the IET couldn't do a thing to stop them.
[automerge]1579561832[/automerge]

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?

You are trying to mix two different concepts here, how an item is coded on an EICR and what I would do when required to carry out an alteration to an existing installation.

On an EICR, and if everything on the circuit is designated by the manufacturer as being class 2 (I don't think I've ever seen a switch which is marked as being class 2) and is in good condition without any deterioration then I would code it C3, I may still give an overall unsatisfactory assessment (yes this is allowed, C1 and C2 are automatic unsatisfactory results, but nothing prevents you giving an unsatisfactory result without a C1 or C2 item being present)
And I would certainly give a strong recommendation to rectify this in my covering letter.

However if I was asked to carry out an alteration to the circuit, including changing the CU which feeds it, I would advise that the circuit be rewired, and if this is not agreed by the customer I would decline to do the job.

 

[pirate]

I have to agree that there are different concepts going on here, and academic as they may be, they are valid concepts for consideration. I have read every post, and find myself somewhat torn...
My mentor in life taught me a valuable lesson...well, 3 of them:
1. If it is complicated and might get you into bother, decline, walk away, sleep well
2. If you can help, do it

Still no idea what i would do in the current scenario though!
probably recommend the improvements, and walk away if not instructed to do so.
Line of least resistance and line of least liability.

My mentor also taught me the third valuable lesson:
3. Don't get caught up in a client's crusade...it will end badly, you won't get paid and you will look bad.

Here endeth tonight's lesson! LOL!

 

[Snailspark]

A great debate guys, what this forum is all about!!
If, on inspection, there are any class 1 pieces of equipment on the lighting circuit, you are not permitted to connect that circuit to the consumer unit if there are no cpcs present and the EICR would merit a C2.
If all equipment is class 2 then there are a number of tests that would need to be carried out to establish that there are no connections to earth and that the insulation resistance tests meet the regs (>1meg ohm).
putting up warning notices would also be required.
I would also document a risk assessment for the client to sign. Having said all that, I would be uneasy with leaving the circuit with no cpc - might you just tell the insurance company that the cable has also suffered from fire damage upon further inspection? Or that the insulation resistance test is coming in well under 1 meg so will need to be replaced?? Just sayin.....

 

[westward10]

Warning notices to this affect are not prescribed by BS7671.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I doubt the IET have any control over what the ESC print, we in this country have the freedom to put whatever we like into print.

Someone could publish guidance advising people that in the absence of a cpc they should connect all exposed metalwork to neutral and the IET couldn't do a thing to stop them.
[automerge]1579561832[/automerge]


You are trying to mix two different concepts here, how an item is coded on an EICR and what I would do when required to carry out an alteration to an existing installation.

On an EICR, and if everything on the circuit is designated by the manufacturer as being class 2 (I don't think I've ever seen a switch which is marked as being class 2) and is in good condition without any deterioration then I would code it C3, I may still give an overall unsatisfactory assessment (yes this is allowed, C1 and C2 are automatic unsatisfactory results, but nothing prevents you giving an unsatisfactory result without a C1 or C2 item being present)
And I would certainly give a strong recommendation to rectify this in my covering letter.

However if I was asked to carry out an alteration to the circuit, including changing the CU which feeds it, I would advise that the circuit be rewired, and if this is not agreed by the customer I would decline to do the job.

Some good points Dave, and something I hadn't considered - you could indeed give an unsatisfactory outcome in the absence of C1s or C2s. I too have never come across a class 2 switch. That said, plastic switches aren't class 2, but I never heard of anyone getting a belt from a line-to-plastic-faceplate fault, so I think they're okay from that point of view.

I appreciate you and others here err on the side of caution, but that doesn't mean my take on this is wrong. The guide is backed up by the IET and other industry bodies as per Ian's post #54, it would be a very sorry state of affairs if it was giving incorrect advice.

 

[Pete999]

Some good points Dave, and something I hadn't considered - you could indeed give an unsatisfactory outcome in the absence of C1s or C2s. I too have never come across a class 2 switch. That said, plastic switches aren't class 2, but I never heard of anyone getting a belt from a line-to-plastic-faceplate fault, so I think they're okay from that point of view.

I appreciate you and others here err on the side of caution, but that doesn't mean my take on this is wrong. The guide is backed up by the IET and other industry bodies as per Ian's post #54, it would be a very sorry state of affairs if it was giving incorrect advice.

If the ESC printed or punted duff or non compliant information in their Safety Guides it wouldn't be just the IET climbing up every orifice available ot let them know they are wrong, maybe not stop them, but pointing out the errors would be paramount in their thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[davesparks]

Some good points Dave, and something I hadn't considered - you could indeed give an unsatisfactory outcome in the absence of C1s or C2s. I too have never come across a class 2 switch. That said, plastic switches aren't class 2, but I never heard of anyone getting a belt from a line-to-plastic-faceplate fault, so I think they're okay from that point of view.

But the screws are still metal and exposed on a plastic faceplate, most likely connected to a metal back box which encloses unsheathes conductors.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

But the screws are still metal and exposed on a plastic faceplate, most likely connected to a metal back box which encloses unsheathes conductors.

Another good point. Some would say that 410.3.9 (iii) would cover that, I myself am undecided on that though

 

[Ian1981]

410.3.9 (iii) would cover such a scenario, as such a recessed fixing screw would in no way be able to be gripped and make a significant contact with anyone’s hands.
That said I think we all would like to see metal recessed back boxes earthed as I would hate to think it could be made live and just sitting there undetected.

 

[suffolkspark]

All metal back boxes I've come accross of the age where there have been no cpcs in the lighting have had plastic (or nylon?) screw lugs rather than metal, worth checking though

 

[Andy78]

All metal back boxes I've come accross of the age where there have been no cpcs in the lighting have had plastic (or nylon?) screw lugs rather than metal, worth checking though

I have also come across wooden backboxes for older cpc-free wiring, but I have also found thick walled metal boxes coupled to unearthed conduit drops carrying cpc-free circuits.

 

[Midwest]

An update.

If you recall there was some discussion with myself and others, over the guidance given in ESF BPG1, specifically indent 10.7 and the flow charts in the appendices and the apparent contradiction.

I emailed ESF and sought clarification;

Dear ESF,
'With regards consumer replacements in domestic properties, I have used the guidance in your Best Practice Guide 1, 'Replacing Consumer Units in domestic and similar premises' for advice.

In section 10, you give guidance on reconnecting lighting circuits without a cpc. In section 10.7, you state;

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).

You go onto say;
'Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision’.

However, I note the flow charts in A1 & A2, make no mention of 10.7, which suggest that following the risk assessment in section 10.5, a lighting circuit with no cpc, can be reconnected.

I was considering that the flow chart refers to non-domestic & similar properties, but the title of the guidance is for ‘Replacing Consumer Units in domestic and similar premises.

Can you clarify this contradiction?

Regards, Midwest

Responce;
Hi,
Thanks for your email. The clause 10.7 is more of a statement to highlight that under a normal domestic situation it cannot be controlled and therefore one can’t rely on class II fittings remaining. That clause doesn’t really impact on the risk assessment approach as explained in the flowcharts.

The flowcharts are for domestic installations and clause 10.7 has bearing on them.

In an ideal world we would not permit such an arrangement but instead the signatories agreed a more risk based approach.

I hope this helps.

It's a shame they couldn't include their last sentence somewhere in the guidance. But I suppose then, it might open them up to future litigation.

 

[Ian1981]

An update.

If you recall there was some discussion with myself and others, over the guidance given in ESF BPG1, specifically indent 10.7 and the flow charts in the appendices and the apparent contradiction.

I emailed ESF and sought clarification;

Dear ESF,
'With regards consumer replacements in domestic properties, I have used the guidance in your Best Practice Guide 1, 'Replacing Consumer Units in domestic and similar premises' for advice.

In section 10, you give guidance on reconnecting lighting circuits without a cpc. In section 10.7, you state;

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).

You go onto say;
'Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision’.

However, I note the flow charts in A1 & A2, make no mention of 10.7, which suggest that following the risk assessment in section 10.5, a lighting circuit with no cpc, can be reconnected.

I was considering that the flow chart refers to non-domestic & similar properties, but the title of the guidance is for ‘Replacing Consumer Units in domestic and similar premises.

Can you clarify this contradiction?

Regards, Midwest

Responce;
Hi,
Thanks for your email. The clause 10.7 is more of a statement to highlight that under a normal domestic situation it cannot be controlled and therefore one can’t rely on class II fittings remaining. That clause doesn’t really impact on the risk assessment approach as explained in the flowcharts.

The flowcharts are for domestic installations and clause 10.7 has bearing on them.

In an ideal world we would not permit such an arrangement but instead the signatories agreed a more risk based approach.

I hope this helps.

It's a shame they couldn't include their last sentence somewhere in the guidance. But I suppose then, it might open them up to future litigation.

Clear as mud then?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Good work Midwest, thanks for sharing that.