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

 

[telectrix]

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

 

[bigspark17]

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

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

 

[Pete999]

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

I seem to recall reading in the Regs that all point must have a cpc present, or words to that effect!!

 

[bigspark17]

I seem to recall reading in the Regs that all point must have a cpc present, or words to that effect!!

can you get me the reg number on that? Were not talking about installing without cpc,reconnection of existing circuits is in question..

 

[Pete999]

can you get me the reg number on that? Were not talking about installing without cpc,reconnection of existing circuits is in question..

Not got my regs with me, but common sense will, or should tell you that, part of the testing regime is to prove the cpc continuity on to on top of that how are you going to test Zs at lighting points with nil cpc that's why it shouldn't be reconnected, your name will be on the cert wont ? you will be the last person working on the installation, your responsibility, hate to be in your shoes when you are in front of his Honour if some poor person gets a belt from an unearthed lighting circuit.

 

[davesparks]

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]

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

Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

 

[bigspark17]

Not got my regs with me, but common sense will, or should tell you that, part of the testing regime is to prove the cpc continuity on to on top of that how are you going to test Zs at lighting points with nil cpc that's why it shouldn't be reconnected, your name will be on the cert wont ? you will be the last person working on the installation, your responsibility, hate to be in your shoes when you are in front of his Honour if some poor person gets a belt from an unearthed lighting circuit.

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]


Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

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.

 

[MJPD29]

Whilst you are doing this work it's probably a good time to rewire lights or do any required remedial works before it gets redecorated

 

[gazdkw82]

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

 

[Grant1987]

In my opinion if I were in your shoes I would tell the insurance company that the lighting circuit/s need to be rewired why delay the inevitable they are going to have to be rewired in the coming years and now would be the ideal time it annoys me when people try looking for ways out of doing the sensible and right thing tell them that you are going to be the one to certify the work and don’t want any repercussions after you’ve left the job. They’ll be quick enough to point the finger at you if anyone had a belt after you’ve left.

 

[davesparks]

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.

This is a commonly misunderstood extract from BS7671, a lot of people don't seem to understand clear written English and much prefer to see what they think is written there.
Forget your preconceived idea of what 8s written there and re-read it. Take the time to understand exactly what is written.


"This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading"
This does not say that all work carries out to previous editions of the regulations is safe for continued use, nor does it say that it is exempt from any requirement to upgrade.
What it says is that complying with a previous edition does not necessarily make it unsafe, that means that compliance with a previous edition alone does not make something unsafe. It means that compliance with a previous edition could be safe or unsafe, it could be safe if the changes to the regulations do not reflect a safety improvement (such as changing from red/black to brown/blue) or it could be unsafe if the changes to the regulations reflect a previous method having been found to be dangerous (such as putting fuses in the neutral). Alternatively it could be that the changes in the regulations reflect an improvent in the safety of the installation, such as the case of old lighting circuits not being earthed.

Acgording to BS7671 any work carried out to an existing installation must only be carried out after confirming that the existing installation is in a safe condition, including earthing and bonding being correct, and bringing it up to current standards if necessary.

 

[bigspark17]

@davesparks so on this principle you would not give a satisfactory report if cables buried within walls are not on 30mA rcd? If upgrading a consumer unit and the lighting circuit has no earth and has no metal switchgear ect then this is perfectly acceptable with a sticker on the cu stating this. I agree the better option always would be to rewire the circuit but i dont belive you saying it has to be rewired i think you could be seen as trying to generate work.

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

if you wanted to add a socket outlet to a rfc that no had rcd protection would you rewire it? Change the cu or add some surface wiring to an rcd socket outlet? I would say the final decision is the customers.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - for me, if the 55 year old lighting circuit with no CPC is damaged by fire and requires new cable in part then I would be rewiring that circuit to current standards, including RCD.

 

[Pete999]

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]


Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

Agree with Davesparks
[automerge]1579248135[/automerge]

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.

Think you have to understand which may conflict with your post, CU change requires an EIC can't see how you could honestly issue an EIC with a satisfactory conclusion when connecting an un earthed lighting circuit to the new CU, what are your thoughts on that???