No cpc on lighting and no neutral continuity on kitchen ring

[Muzza115]

Hi All,
I recently replaced an old rewirable fuse board for metal split load rcd board. However on testing prior to replacement I noted that one of the lighting circuits doesn’t have a cpc. I’ve put this in the EIC for the new board that no cpc for lights, advised client that needs rewiring and advise against metal fittings accessories etc,is this the right course of action to take? They do already have metal fittings on this circuit, Is rcd protection enough to cover this? Also the kitchen ring has no continuity on the neutral conductor, I’ve had all the accessories off to find it but can’t, I’m assuming the break maybe in a buried joint box as the kitchen is an old extension. What’s the best course of action to take regarding this please?
Thanks

 

[sham]

That just says recommended so not an absolute. Also that link is to a private company so has as much weight as helium...

IET Forums - Fuseboard Change with no cpc in lighting - https://www.------.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=64580

 

[Deleted member 9648]

No need for insults, the tester is connected to an appropriate part of the circuit protected by RCD under test.

Usually the tester is connected to the load terminal of the RCD with the circuit conductors disconnected.
Your method may result in false readings due to connected loads.

 

[Octopus]

Looks like this argument will have to wait until 1st July to be sorted...

This link is from the horses mouth

18th edition changes - IET Electrical - https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/18th-edition-changes/

The only thing that jumps out to me about lighting circuits is the requirements for RCD's protecting circuits with luminaries.

 

[Octopus]

IET Forums - Fuseboard Change with no cpc in lighting - https://www.------.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=64580

And in summary what does this conclude?

 

[123]

IET Forums - Fuseboard Change with no cpc in lighting - https://www.------.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=64580

That's from 2016, and if anything it backs up what others have said about using class 2 fittings.

 

[Toneyz]

This link is from the horses mouth

18th edition changes - IET Electrical - https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/18th-edition-changes/

The only thing that jumps out to me about lighting circuits is the requirements for RCD's protecting circuits with luminaries.

I just had a look at that the only thing I could see on Chapter 54 was regarding earth electrodes and protective conductor when more than one source,so I don't know where this so-called new reg comes from

 

[sham]

That just says recommended so not an absolute. Also that link is to a private company so has as much weight as helium...

IET Forums - Fuseboard Change with no cpc in lighting - https://www.------.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=64580

This link is from the horses mouth

18th edition changes - IET Electrical - https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/18th-edition-changes/

The only thing that jumps out to me about lighting circuits is the requirements for RCD's protecting circuits with luminaries.

The impact of the 18th Edition (BS 7671:2018) – Chapters 41, 46, 53 and Regulation 542.2.2 - https://electrical.------.org/wiring-matters/issues/66/the-impact-of-the-18th-edition-bs-76712018-chapters-41-46-53-and-regulation-54222/

 

[Octopus]

IET Forums - Fuseboard Change with no cpc in lighting - https://www.------.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=64580

The impact of the 18th Edition (BS 7671:2018) – Chapters 41, 46, 53 and Regulation 542.2.2 - https://electrical.------.org/wiring-matters/issues/66/the-impact-of-the-18th-edition-bs-76712018-chapters-41-46-53-and-regulation-54222/

The second link is from last year and the proposed changes .

My link above is a summary of what made it into the 18th edition

 

[Strima]

I must be going blind as I can't see anywhere it stating I have to rewire a circuit because of no CPC???

 

[Toneyz]

Well, I still can't see it.

 

[Darkwood]

@sham

Please do not mix up offended with insulted, been offended because a member has stated a valid point is not reason to call it an insult, I prefer you would respond in a more appreciative manner when you are been corrected or if you disagree then show why you consider your stance to be correct.

 

[alasdairp]

Reading much IET literature and all the above comments, I am still convinced that as long as all the switches and luminaires are plastic there is no need for a CPC on existing old lighting circuits. After all, that effectively makes it a simple "double insulated" circuit, no different from all the hand-held(!) tools and appliances that are sold now for kitchens, gardens and DIY tools (e.g.) which only have a two-core phase and neutral lead. It would be a nonsense to allow (indeed require!) them to be used, and hand-held when in use, and not allow the same electrical situation when the wiring is hidden and out of reach of the person using it. That would be a complete contradiction in safety.

 

[Pete999]

Reading much IET literature and all the above comments, I am still convinced that as long as all the switches and luminaires are plastic there is no need for a CPC on existing old lighting circuits. After all, that effectively makes it a simple "double insulated" circuit, no different from all the hand-held(!) tools and appliances that are sold now for kitchens, gardens and DIY tools (e.g.) which only have a two-core phase and neutral lead. It would be a nonsense to allow (indeed require!) them to be used, and hand-held when in use, and not allow the same electrical situation when the wiring is hidden and out of reach of the person using it. That would be a complete contradiction in safety.

Appreciate your hypothesis Mate but it only needs one home owner to start sticking Metal decorative switches and fittings up, on a circuit without a cpc, and that blows your thoughts out of the water.
I don't think or believe that a circuit without a cpc, with plastic switches etc, is the same as a Double insulated hand tool, nice idea, but not for me I'm afraid.

 

[telectrix]

Reading much IET literature and all the above comments, I am still convinced that as long as all the switches and luminaires are plastic there is no need for a CPC on existing old lighting circuits. After all, that effectively makes it a simple "double insulated" circuit, no different from all the hand-held(!) tools and appliances that are sold now for kitchens, gardens and DIY tools (e.g.) which only have a two-core phase and neutral lead. It would be a nonsense to allow (indeed require!) them to be used, and hand-held when in use, and not allow the same electrical situation when the wiring is hidden and out of reach of the person using it. That would be a complete contradiction in safety.

the only caveat to that would be to ensure that the faceplate screws did not make contact with metal back boxes. back in the 60's this was achieved by the use of nylon lugs.where a metal back box has been replaced by one with metal lugs, then you have unearthed exposed metal parts.

 

[Pete999]

the only caveat to that would be to ensure that the faceplate screws did not make contact with metal back boxes. back in the 60's this was achieved by the use of nylon lugs.where a metal back box has been replaced by one with metal lugs, then you have unearthed exposed metal parts.

Remember the wooden switch back boxes Tel?