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?

 

[Wilko]

No, because during an EICR you are only reporting on the installation. It's a different kettle of fish when you've been working on an installation where to reconnect a potentially dangerous circuit could result in someones death. Notwithstanding the fact that it was like that before, it's only luck that no-one to that point had been killed, but once you've worked on it, especially as a skilled, competent person, then you should know better and would be fully liable.

Hi - yes, fully understood the report is just a report, but the action by the Electrician on that circuit means both have been de-energised. So, my observation is how we discover "no CPC from origin" shouldnt change what action is necessary to make it safe. If the "no CPC" circuit needs to be left de-energised following a CU change, then that should apply to any work where the circuit has been de-energised by an Electrician ...

 

[magnoliafan89]

What he meant was, Nan gave him an apple pie and a nice bottle of homemade wine.

Nope...cold hard cash...pay up nan or i lock off your electrics and send the heavies

 

[peterhyper]

I've seen this stated many times, and I can understand the case for doing an EICR before work commences, on a large property for example.

However, on a 'standard' domestic property I can't understand how this can be achieved when competing for work. Never done an EICR for payment, but I've heard of prices between £150-250ish (not the ones from the bloke down the pub for £10).

How does that combine with say a CU replacement for say £350ish. No one round my parts would pay £600. Not aimed directly at you, just interested on how these quotes work out?

I am also keen to learn how sparks in your average house get away with charging so much extra. My customers usually work and some work at home and if I told them that before I quoted them to replace their consumer unit they have to pay me £200 for a detailed report with my quote and their power with be on/off most of the day and I won't be doing any work to improve things, they would go with the other quotes who haven't insisted on a ful EICR.

Frankly I don't believe most sparks conduct a full and detailed EICR checking every single light switch and fitting as well as checking every point at every circuit.

 

[magnoliafan89]

At my company if we do a board change we go up the day before and fully test the installation. Thus ensuring that when we change the cu and energise it that the rcd doesnt trip at like 3 in the afternoon meaning that you then have to stay there to find said fault instead of just walking away muttering "well ive made the install safer, its not my responsibility now" to a client who now has no power to one side of their board, whilst they mutter...it worked fine before you came and changed it.

 

[Midwest]

At my company if we do a board change we go up the day before and fully test the installation. Thus ensuring that when we change the cu and energise it that the rcd doesnt trip at like 3 in the afternoon meaning that you then have to stay there to find said fault instead of just walking away muttering "well ive made the install safer, its not my responsibility now" to a client who now has no power to one side of their board, whilst they mutter...it worked fine before you came and changed it.

Think thats what most of us do, me certainly. Its just thats all part of the price I've quoted for. I'm interested in how some charge for an EICR & then for the actual CU change.

 

[peterhyper]

No, because during an EICR you are only reporting on the installation. It's a different kettle of fish when you've been working on an installation where to reconnect a potentially dangerous circuit could result in someones death. Notwithstanding the fact that it was like that before, it's only luck that no-one to that point had been killed, but once you've worked on it, especially as a skilled, competent person, then you should know better and would be fully liable.

Do you not disconnect circuits from the fuseboard when conducting an EICR to report the condition?

Normally when a spark carries out an EICR circuits are disconnected from the board. Many light circuits show a cpc in the board, but there isn't always a earth continuity throughout that circuit. So when they discover the lack of cpc on a lighting circuit are you saying it's only a EICR so they can reconnect the circuit to the board because they aren't working on it.

Replacing a fuseboard by your definition means 'working on the circuit,' when in fact you are doing the same as an EICR by removing the circuit to test it, but with a C/U change you are putting it back into a safer board and that appears to mean you have been working on it.

So if I remove a shower, cooker or ring circuit to test during an EICR and I discover a dangerous fault on one of those circuits, it's fine for me to reenergise the circuit because I'm not working on it, but if I remove it to test before fitting to a safer board I'm not allowed to reconnect it?

 

[sparksburnout]

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 are missing the point that the installation was, and probably had been in that condition (no CPC) for many years before our lad came on site, so how is that his fault? At the end of the day, even though he might have demonstrated some lack of foresight and knowledge, he has made the installation safer. He has certainly not caused any accident that might happen in the future. As long as he has informed the client of the situation, then that is up to them, it's their house. I often wonder when courts are mentioned how many times this actually happens?? Bet the poor devil hasn't slept for a week.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Please remember ... we have no legal rights to lock off or disconnect ...... to believe anything else is wrong

Ask for permission to isolate anytime I’ve ever come across anything and explained to the customer that to cover myself I need to isolate it they have been absolutely fine with it. Of course whatever they choose to do next is completely up to them.....

 

[Shoei]

Busy thread, a few thoughts,

• The op isn't obliged to correct a defect not known when the job was taken, for free. There is an obligation not to energize a circuit that is dangerous.
• The 'electricalsafetyfirst' guidance linked by @snowhead sets out what should be done to confirm that the circuit is nominally safe, even if not strictly compliant.
• While the guidance isn't mandatory, deviating from it will likely invalidate any PI insurance. In my view not worth the risk, I'd follow the guidance, to the letter.

 

[peterhyper]

when the customer is informed that their lighting circuit has no cpc and they refuse to have it rewired or the metal fittings replaced with plastic etc, at what point would the customer take the electrician to court and on what grounds. As already mentioned (many times) their installation has been left safer by the electrician than it was beforehand and the risks were highlighted to the customer who failed to take corrective action. Had the electrician been negligent in their work which resulted in someone being suffering a shock (or worse) or even a fire etc, then they would likley have some success pursuing a claim, but again as mentioned many times, in the scenario given the customer never had cpc in their circuit to start with so the spark isn't to blame for this.

I would be interested to learn of how many electricians have been successfully prosecuted in court in the situation described above (I would imagine it would be zero)?

I honestly wouldn't lose a moments sleep in this situation as my rear is covered. What I am more concerned with is the unsafe installations I see on an almost weekly basis done by builders, bathroom, kitchen fitters (or anyone taking payment from the house owner), who aren't registered (and subsequently haven't issued a cert) and left a potentially unsafe installation. Sadly I have also seen too many installations done by registered sparks that were far from the required standard. We hear of the occasional person being prosecuted, which I would guess doesn't realistically even account for as many as 0.001% of the offenders.

 

[Bait Account]

Evening Flick - pretty sure Doc means "without owner's permission"

Afternoon Wilko perhaps Doc (like that name by the way) does mean that. In that scenario you have the permission to disconnect circuits but it would be your choice whether or not to reconnect and re-energise. Nothing stopping you from leaving cables disconnected as in that scenario you have definitely left the installation safer than it was before you started. Can the customer then demand you connect and energise a dangerous circuit?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Wow this thread has caused some discussion.

Respected members on both sides of the argument, which makes you think which answer is actually right.

Many years ago I would have agreed with the argument that 'adding an RCD' has made things safer, but I think that is too simplistic. Just because something aids in getting to the end product does not make it right.

I'm struggling to think of good examples, perhaps....

You insist on driving at 120mph everywhere without a seat belt. Someone fits a seat belt, you are now safer. Does that make it ok to drive at 120mph? You simple shouldn't be driving at that speed, i.e you simply shouldn't have a class one fittings without an earth.

Also, perhaps the driver now feels safer wearing a seatbelt and drives even faster?

Perhaps the homeowner now feels safer with a lovely new RCD box and will fit more metal fittings and be less careful than before with any electrical faults on the lights as they 'feel safer', so the situation 'may' even be less safe having fitted the RCD CU.

Having said that, I did the same the other day!
Luckily they agreed to have the lights rewired

 

[l4urence]

Always do an EICR before changing the CU. Highlights lots of issues and gives a baseline - you then know what to quote for. If they choose not to go ahead - the EICR stands with the codes / observations explaining the issues ahead.

 

[Midwest]

Always do an EICR before changing the CU. Highlights lots of issues and gives a baseline - you then know what to quote for. If they choose not to go ahead - the EICR stands with the codes / observations explaining the issues ahead.

In that case, can you answer my question in #167?

 

[Wilko]

I've never had the joy of a domestic EICR prior to CU upgrade. I suspect I wouldn't get any work if I insisted.