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?

 

[paulcopeman]

I Always insist on an EICR b4 doing a DB change. Mostly because I want to find out any existing faults that are going to be picked up after fitting RCD.
I've never had a customer decline after explaining to them that RCD will trip with just a small fault (but the MCB/fuse, they currently have won't pick up these faults) making the installation much safer so I need to check for them b4 I do a DB change.
You live and learn.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Should never have swapped the board without doing proper testing before, no stickers or excuse will get you out of it, you dropped a major one and need to put it right whether it cost you or not.
The amount of people that do something as stupid as this baffles me, all about the quick buck.

Or don’t price accordingly and make the job fit the price rather than do it right. To be fair though we are all human and have made mistakes-learn from it and move on..... I’d lock the circuit off with a little cheap lock off and a tie wrap then issue an Electrical Danger Notification and keep a copy. Then if the customer were to re-energise it after you left I don’t think that would be your problem, because you did inform them of the danger in writing and gave professional advice that the circuit is not safe to use. Ball would be in their court.

 

[Norah Nabino]

This isn’t an EIC for an installation though.
It’s an EIC for a new Consumer Unit.

What is the difference? ???
When you change the CU it is mandatory to issue an EIC .
You don't just issue it but you make sure all circuits connected in that board work and comply with BS 7671.

 

[peterhyper]

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 ........



I rest my case

This is exactly how it is in reality.

Crazy that we aren't leaving the lighting circuit any less safe than when we arrived, and we have made the house owner aware of the potential dangers and made all the other circuits much safer and as a result could actually save peoples lives as you suggested, but some consider this to be the action of an unprofessional electrician.

I honestly don't believe for a second that many electricians do a full and detailed inspection of every single light switch and light fitting including the external lights and loft lights as well as every possible test on each circuit at every point along it before they quote for a C/U. Clearly some suggest that just opening the fuseboard will tell you the lighting circuits have a CPC which confirms Jack S**t, and perhaps they are also able to establish when looking inside the fuseboard if the lighting circuit has a borrowed neutral.

I apologise for so many posts on this subject, although I still haven't made as many posts since joining in December 2017 as the guy who joined just 8 days ago (lol),

 

[MFS Electrical]

The trouble with relying on an RCD to provide protection when there is no CPC is that people never test them. Just the other day I replaced a socket for a customer carried out an RCD test and got over 310ms. Customer had never tested it. Luckily after a manual test it came unstuck and was working within correct tripping times.

I’d still be replacing that RCD if I were you....

 

[Toneyz]

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

Yes, but they were nothing but you arguing and belittling people that went on and on and on.

 

[Norah Nabino]

This is exactly how it is in reality.

Crazy that we aren't leaving the lighting circuit any less safe than when we arrived, and we have made the house owner aware of the potential dangers and made all the other circuits much safer and as a result could actually save peoples lives as you suggested, but some consider this to be the action of an unprofessional electrician.

I honestly don't believe for a second that many electricians do a full and detailed inspection of every single light switch and light fitting including the external lights and loft lights as well as every possible test on each circuit at every point along it before they quote for a C/U. Clearly some suggest that just opening the fuseboard will tell you the lighting circuits have a CPC which confirms Jack S**t, and perhaps they are also able to establish when looking inside the fuseboard if the lighting circuit has a borrowed neutral.

I apologise for so many posts on this subject, although I still haven't made as many posts since joining in December 2017 as the guy who joined just 8 days ago (lol),

You are there to make the installation safer not partially safe.

 

[Norah Nabino]

Nothing can be done if the Owner will not permit it. I have had one where I saw that an RCD was required in a Special Location but not present. I had the necessary Wylex RCBO to hand and offered to "just do it" for its cost price and was refused. Still bothers me.

It is ignorance on their side they don't get it when you advise them.

 

[MFS Electrical]

I think the main issue here is if he had done a few basic tests he would have found the lighting had no doc.
At that point he should have had a conversation with the client, if they refused to have it rectified he should have walked away. Instead he as swapped the Db and then energised a dangerous circuit. And sèems to have adopted a don't care attitude.

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?
As the last electrically skilled person to touch the circuit, the blame, should anything go wrong could still be on your head....
This is purely theoretical but it makes me think maybe walking away isn’t always the best course of action.

 

[Octopus]

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?
As the last electrically skilled person to touch the circuit, the blame, should anything go wrong could still be on your head....
This is purely theoretical but it makes me think maybe walking away isn’t always the best course of action.

We, as competent sparks have no legal rights to disconnect circuits.....

 

[peterhyper]

You are there to make the installation safer not partially safe.

Sorry but that's not very sensible. We can't always completely solve every issue in life 100% and we rarely do. If a doctor could resolve the majority of a patients medical conditions, accept for just one (he wouldn't make that condition any worse) would he not bother sorting any of the other medical conditions out because he can't solve every single one. Oh I forgot the doctor doesn't come under the same criteria as an electrician, so that isn't relevant.

So if we can only make the installation 90% safer than it was, then just leave it and do nothing unless we can make it 100% safer. If you said that to an intelligent person they would think you were on a wind up.

 

[45140]

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 ........

All the defendant would need to do would be to reply to the last question along the lines that the installation was in a condition that could only be remediated by work in compliance with the 18th Edition. There is NO responsibility on the electrician to force the client. If the client decided not to pay for the work then their inevitable death was as a result of their own actions. Easy Peasy

 

[telectrix]

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 ??

you yourself should be up before the magistrate for using as font size that is dangerous to my ageing eyesight. only joking. can't insert a smiley for some reason.

 

[Wilko]

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?

Hi - If this was discovered during an EICR it would be coded and communicated. But if there was no active fault, would it be left isolated?

 

[45140]

So if we can only make the installation 90% safer than it was, then just leave it and do nothing unless we can make it 100% safer. If you said that to an intelligent person they would think you were on a wind up.

That is not how the legal mind would work. Whether or not the system was safe or not prior to working on it is completely irrelevant here.

The installer is a skilled person and thus has the responsibility to ensure that the system is safe NOT safer than it was before, but 100% safe after they have completed work on it. If you dispute this call your Insurance Company on Monday and ask them if you are still covered if you switch back into service an installation that is not compliant with BS7671.

BS7671 and the Industry best practice is absolute determination on this and it will be those documents that would be used by a Prosecution. You can only safely depart from BS7161 if in doing so you can demonstrate that what you have done achieves as a minimum the same level of safety.

Once the installer has identified the situation and the client will not pay for it to be done then you cannot issue and IEC and without an EIC you cannot re-energise.