No earth in lighting circuit what next?

[Elliott96]

Im sure this has probably been asked before in this forum but ive just upgraded a fuseboard today and found no earth in the lighting (two core). Obviously the next thing to do would be to tell the customer either rewire or change everything on that circuit to class 2 fittings and accessories, but in this case the customer didnt want to go ahead with either.... what should i do? Cutting the circuit out would be abit extreme?

 

[dksanders]

I have to agree with Murdoch, we have turned up to an old 3036 board often with no gas or water bond, undersized tails, undersized main earth conductor, and often connections not great. We have replaced the board with a C/U with RCDs, sorted all the other issues out and improved its safety. But some of the lights don't have a cpc, so we've highlighted this verbally to the customer, also in writing and put a warning sign on the C/U regards the danger etc.

The likelyhood of this ever ending up in court is very very very slim, but if it did I am confident that I left the customer's installation far safer than how I found it and I have clearly highlighted the issue with the light circuit having no cpc and I can't physically do anymore. The lighting circuit was there before I arrived, I didn't cause the lack of cpc problem n the lights, but I have definitely improved the safety of the customer's installation.

When I put my car in for a service and the mechanic tells me my brakes are dangerous and I refuse to pay him to fix them, is he then responsible if I have an accident due to my brakes failing. Of course he's not responsible, he can't force me to pay him to fix my brakes just I can't force the customer to pay to have their light circuit sorted.

The analogy is flawed, telling you the brakes are dangerous is the same as telling the client there are no CPCs. Changing the CU and re-energising the circuit without CPCs is analogous to the mechanic taking the brakes out then putting them back in, knowing they are dangerous.

Also I don't know what legal obligations mechanics have but we as electricians have quite a few to ensure that what we do is safe.

 

[peterhyper]

The analogy is flawed, telling you the brakes are dangerous is the same as telling the client there are no CPCs. Changing the CU and re-energising the circuit without CPCs is analogous to the mechanic taking the brakes out then putting them back in, knowing they are dangerous.

Also I don't know what legal obligations mechanics have but we as electricians have quite a few to ensure that what we do is safe.

If the mechanic had to get the brakes off to get to another component, should he leave the car without any brakes at all because you won't pay him to replace them?

If a mechanic forgot to put the brakes back on the car, he is clearly negligent just as I would be negligent if I forgot to reconnect the cpc I removed. The light circuit didn't have a cpc when I arrived, so what I have done to make the circuit any less safe (absolutely nothing) In fact as previously mentioned, I have vastly improved the safety of the customer's installation by not only highlighting the danger of not having a cpc, but fitting RCDs, water/gas bond, upgrading tails and main earth and conducting a full test and inspection of all circuits.

So mylord, my client Peter Hyper left Mr Smith's overall installation in a much safer condition than when he arrived. He stressed to Mr Smith verbally, in writing and by a notice on the consumer the potential danger of not having a CPC on his lighting circuit. Mr Hyper did not remove the said earth conductor from Mr Smith's lighting circuit as one was never present to start with. Mr Hyper doesn't have the authority to force Mr Smith to have his lighting circuit rewired. Those mylord are the facts in this case.

 

[dksanders]

If the mechanic had to get the brakes off to get to another component, should he leave the car without any brakes at all because you won't pay him to replace them?

If a mechanic forgot to put the brakes back on the car, he is clearly negligent just as I would be negligent if I forgot to reconnect the cpc I removed. The light circuit didn't have a cpc when I arrived, so what I have done to make the circuit any less safe (absolutely nothing) In fact as previously mentioned, I have vastly improved the safety of the customer's installation by not only highlighting the danger of not having a cpc, but fitting RCDs, water/gas bond, upgrading tails and main earth and conducting a full test and inspection of all circuits.

So mylord, my client Peter Hyper left Mr Smith's overall installation in a much safer condition than when he arrived. He stressed to Mr Smith verbally, in writing and by a notice on the consumer the potential danger of not having a CPC on his lighting circuit. Mr Hyper did not remove the said earth conductor from Mr Smith's lighting circuit as one was never present to start with. Mr Hyper doesn't have the authority to force Mr Smith to have his lighting circuit rewired. Those mylord are the facts in this case.

Lol.
The prosecution puts to your client that safer or not, he did not comply with current legislation, guidance, and good practise and is therefore not compliant with the relevant standards and Best Practise Guides and so is liable as charged. The prosecution rests its case.

I sympathise, I really do, but it is what it is. Knowing there were metal fittings without a CPC I could not in good conscience energise that circuit and walk away no matter what labels etc. I fitted. In my Terms & Conditions I have that clause about situations that become apparent after the work has started etc.

If he is not prepared/able to pay for the required remedial actions then I would give the client two options and tell him that you are legally bound to do one or the other, you have no choice in it. The options would be, 1) as a minimum replace metal fittings and accessories with plastic, with him paying but at worst case scenario, at my cost and 2) leave the circuit disconnected (presumably he can use table lamps plugged in the sockets for lighting.

If presented with an 'either or' situation, in life I've found most people, reluctantly or not, choose one of them.

 

[peterhyper]

Lol.
The prosecution puts to your client that safer or not, he did not comply with current legislation, guidance, and good practise and is therefore not compliant with the relevant standards and Best Practise Guides and so is liable as charged. The prosecution rests its case.

I
I sympathise, I really do, but it is what it is. Knowing there were metal fittings without a CPC I could not in good conscience energise that circuit and walk away no matter what labels etc. I fitted. In my Terms & Conditions I have that clause about situations that become apparent after the work has started etc.

If he is not prepared/able to pay for the required remedial actions then I would give the client two options and tell him that you are legally bound to do one or the other, you have no choice in it. The options would be, 1) as a minimum replace metal fittings and accessories with plastic, with him paying but at worst case scenario, at my cost and 2) leave the circuit disconnected (presumably he can use table lamps plugged in the sockets for lighting.

If presented with an 'either or' situation, in life I've found most people, reluctantly or not, choose one of them.

For clarification: I am the defence lawyer's client

When you conduct an EICR and establish that the lighting circuit has no CPC do you also disconnect the lighting circuit until the owner either has a rewire or replaces all the metal light fittings and switches for plastic?

Where does it actually say you are 'legally bound' to disconnect the lighting circuit if it doesn't have a cpc and the owner won't replace the metal fittings with plastic?

Finally, if you quoted a customer to install a couple of sockets and when you turned up to do the socket job and opened the C/U you then noticed that the lighting circuit had no cpc, do you also disconnect the circuit if the customer refuses to replace the metal light fittings for plastic?

 

[Starjack]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

 

[chris gray]

Tbh it’s good to see different people views on the question

 

[peterhyper]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

Lol, but lots of people have responded, whereas you have singularly made over 200 posts in just 8 days and even had a ban, which has to be a record on any forum

 

[Silly Sausage]

When you conduct an EICR and establish that the lighting circuit has no CPC do you also disconnect the lighting circuit until the owner either has a rewire or replaces all the metal light fittings and switches for plastic?

EICR: the clue's in the name.
It's a report, no action required. It's down to the customer whether they want to take further action.

Where does it actually say you are 'legally bound' to disconnect the lighting circuit if it doesn't have a cpc and the owner won't replace the metal fittings with plastic?

I don't know if you can, but the problem the OP has, as already pointed out, he's worked on the CPCless circuits and has now left Exposed Conductive Parts un-Earthed, hence the thread!

Finally, if you quoted a customer to install a couple of sockets and when you turned up to do the socket job and opened the C/U you then noticed that the lighting circuit had no cpc, do you also disconnect the circuit if the customer refuses to replace the metal light fittings for plastic?

Report the fact. You would be working on a different circuit.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

Geez, I nearly had a heart attack there, thinking you were going to post a technical response.

 

[peterhyper]

Geez, I

lol

 

[Starjack]

My input for what it's worth, the op should not have swapped the Db without knowing if all circuits were safe, bonding up to scratch etc, a few dead tests would have revealed the problem thus allowing the conversation to take place with the customer before ripping it out and then finding the problem.
The whole crux of it is he should not have energised the lighting circuit , forget about having the power to disconnect it, it should never have gone back on.

 

[45140]

My thoughts for what they are worth. No offence intended to anyone but based on experience.

1 : The principle issue here is does the work undertaken comply with the Regulations or failing that any subordinate guidance ?

2 : Failing 1 above if there is no guidance or Industry best practice, has the installation been left in a safe state

Given my understanding and what I have read the answer to both is No, and can only be NO because there are both BS7161 requirements as well as Industry best practice that set out clearly and unambiguously what should be done.

The answer to both of the questions above would be used in Court by the Prosecution in the event of an accident or injury/loss, and any defence would need to demonstrate without question that the installation was safe and without danger. The legal eagles deal only in facts and would not even entertain a "in my opinion" argument unless it was given by an expert witness. What would an expert witness say in these circumstances ? I think we all know.

It would be for the Installer to demonstrate that through his actions he has not left the installation in a unsafe condition and frankly I do not think he has. Once having started the installer has both the legal and moral responsibility to do the work to the correct standards Departures from Standards, etc are fine as long as you can demonstrate that they improve or are at least no more dangerous than the solutions in BS7161 or Industry best practice.

If the installer has "ended up" in this situation because they have not assessed the condition of the installation and obtained adequate information prior to the work starting then sorry but the problem is down to them to resolve through agreement with the client unless contractually the installer has have covered this eventuality in the Contract or Quotation, in which case they can rely on this to disconnect and leave disconnected any affected ccts - with suitable warning notices documented to the client.

The problem then becomes the client's not the installers.

Unfortunately the Installer has met someone who for whatever reason is holding out against paying anymore money for the work and further the installer appears to have no Contractual basis upon which to claim for additional unforeseen work.

Now the Installer could disconnect the cct but were the client to put litigation in place, it could be argued by an adept Barrister, that the work should not have commenced and that it was actually now in a less safe condition because it does not meet the current Regulations and best practice has not been followed. This would leave the installer to carry out remedial work at their expense and no doubt pay substantial compensation to the client. Then of course there is the debate about whether the installer's Insurance Company would be happy that the installer has acted with due diligence.

Even thinking of going into a legal situation on the basis of some of the justifications put here would be suicidal as any competent Barrister would tear them to pieces. Basically once your mouth was opened with one of those the only debate would be how many zeros were to go on the cheque

FWIW I think the only option now left is for the installer to formally notify the client that during the course of the work, unforeseen conditions have been discovered that require the cct to be left disconnected or for the client to pay for the necessary remedial work to bring the system into compliance with BS716 or industry best practice. The client should be reminded that they have a legal obligation not to endanger any person in their property as well as a contractual obligation to the Insurance Company to maintain the property in a safe condition.

One possible alternative to disconnect would be to through-wire any metallic fittings thus leaving the cct intact but the affected equipment in situ. The client could be asked to check to see if the remedial work is covered under their insurance as this may be a means of unlocking the deadlock.

Out of interest is there no standard form of contract for small companies/sole traders that can be followed, something which would deal with such eventualities and disputes ??

 

[peterhyper]

EICR: the clue's in the name.
It's a report, no action required. It's down to the customer whether they want to take further action.



I don't know if you can, but the problem the OP has, as already pointed out, he's worked on the CPCless circuits and has now left Exposed Conductive Parts un-Earthed, hence the thread!



Report the fact. You would be working on a different circuit.

With regards the EICR, he has removed the lighting circuit and then establishes that it doesn't have earth continuity throughout, and the customer won't replace the metal light fittings. Or are you saying that because it's just an EICR then it's fine for him to then knowingly reconnect the unsafe circuit back into the consumer unit?

 

[Octopus]

The case for the prosecution:

The you the electrician did refuse to change a BS3036 board because the lightening circuit didn’t have a CPC. The net result is that my client is now dead, the result of a fatal shock from the socket circuit.

How do you plead?

Defendant: Not guilty!

Prosecution: So why is your plead not guilty?

Defendant: Because of the wording of BS 7671, I wasn’t permitted to upgrade the fuseboard, because the client couldn’t afford a partial rewire...

Prosecution: so you wouldn’t improve most of the installation which would have almost certainly prevented the death of my client

Defendent: yes sir

Prosecution: so you are saying BS 7671 prevents you making an installation safer

Defendent : er ........

 

[Norah Nabino]

So what do you guys do after you replace the consumer unit and then discover that there is no cpc continuity on one metal light switch, but the customer refuses to pay to have the issue resolved. Let's assume that you didn't check every single light switch and every single light fitting before replacing the consumer unit (as some of you definitely appear to do prior to a C/U change), do you then remove the consumer unit and reinstall the one you took out?

As a matter of principle you have to do the cpc continuity test to be absolutely clear of what you need to do.
As an Electrician you should know the importance of a cpc (SAFETY)