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?

 

[45140]

The Health and Safety at Work Act does not apply to domestic installations.

HSWA section 3 places general duties on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than themselves or their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety.

For section 3 to apply:
there must be a duty-holder - either an employer or a self-employed person, and

• there must be a risk to the health or safety of a person who is not the employee of the duty holder or the self-employed duty holder themselves, and
• that risk must arise from the conduct of the duty holder's undertaking. An 'undertaking' means 'enterprise' or 'business'.

 

[dksanders]

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.

Hi Peter, when I imagine it going to court if it did, I'm thinking of the circumstance where someone has been killed or injured (like the owner) and it's the HSE who are taking the electrician to court.

 

[45140]

You stated:
“Under various elements of Legislation the installer now has to make the installation safe.”

Yes quite correct, make safe being the operative emphasis. BS7671 is quite clear on this surely ?

 

[dksanders]

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?

Of course I disconnect for an EICR, the point I was making is that the reason for disconnecting the circuit is to report on it, there is no obligation to remedy any defects there and then but record them with the appropriate coding.

If (as has happened a few times) I find a situation like this (had one a few weeks ago earthed T&E at the light fittings but the T&E back to the CU had no CPCs, the earths had no continuity to earth anywhere), then I issue a Dangerous Situation Report, inform the client that I'm not allowed to reconnect the circuit. I also inform them that with if this circuit was reconnected, in all likelihood their house insurance would be null and void.

However, I do not leave them as in that case, with no light. I make sure they've got, or will get, table lamps they can use plugged into sockets.

 

[45140]

And that is probably the simplest and clearest answer to the question ?

 

[Midwest]

I don’t always agree with spinlondon , but I’m also not sure HaSaW Act applies in domestic properties, think you’ll have better luck with CDM regs, if appropriate?

 

[peterhyper]

Very interesting thread, if not a little concerning that there are so many differing opinions on something as basic as no cpc on a lighting circuit.

So to summarise, what have we learned:

Some apparently do an extensive EICR on every light switch and light fitting as well as well as every other circuit prior to quoting for a C/U change (aren't they lucky to find all their customers willing to pay for this inconvenience to them just to get a quote). Some open the fuseboard and that tells them everything they need to know (I wonder if they know Wednesday's lotto numbers). Some charge for an hour's check before quoting (not sure how much they can check in an hour - unless it's a shed), and some don't do any checks prior to installing a C/U.

Some would not reconnect a light circuit that doesn't have a cpc unless the customer crosses their palm with silver and pays them to make it good. But if they discovered a dangerous circuit during an EICR, it's okay to reconnect it because it's just an EICR and they aren't working on the circuit?

Some suggest we should rewire a light circuit with no cpc for free if we didn't check it before replacing the C/U.

Some think we could be prosecuted if we connect an existing lighting circuit with no cpc to a new improved C/U with RCDs and other safety improvements.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The only time you can apply HASWA and EAWR to a domestic installation, is when work is being conducted.
Once the work has been completed, they no longer apply.
As long as the person conducting the work conducts it in a safe manner and does not endanger anyone else, there is no breach.

With respect to BS7671, there is no requirement to upgrade any part of an installation.
There is no requirement to rectify faults found in an existing installation.
There is no requirement to refuse work on a part of an installation, because another part does not comply.

There is however a requirement not to do any work that will leave an installation less safe.
There is also a requirement to comment on unsafe conditions in an existing installation (where reasonably practicable).

 

[sparksburnout]

"What needs to happen is what applies in Ireland. It is a criminal offence for an unregistered person to work on any electrical equipment. Any instances found are required to be notified by the electrician to the local Council who will investigate and prosecute in almost every case." So how would you define that then? Putting a plug on?

 

[magnoliafan89]

God..this post has been done to death now hasnt it? We seem to be running around in circles.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Problem I have with licensing systems, is that they are more to do with protecting electrician’s income than to do with safety.

 

[45140]

Copy of guidance for clarification
Controlled Electrical Works3, as currently defined, in a domestic setting can only be carried out by a REC. There will be no legal exemption for the owner/occupier. However, minor electrical work will remain outside the scope of Restricted Electrical Works.
Restricted Electrical Works will cover:
1. the installation, commissioning, inspection and testing of a new Electrical Installation which is fixed, fastened or mounted or otherwise secured so that its position does not change and requires connection or re-connection to the distribution network or the transmission network, as the case may be;
2. the modification, installation or replacement of a Distribution Board including customer tails on either side of the Main Protective Device or of an Electrical Installation in any of the special locations listed in Part 7 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations, as the case may be;
3. the installation or replacement of one or more circuits in an Electrical Installation, including the installation of one or more additional protective devices for such circuits on a Distribution Board; or
4. the inspection, testing or certification of, or reporting on, existing Electrical Installations covered by Chapter 62 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations;
in a Domestic Property.
Minor electrical works including the replacement of an electrical accessory such as a light switch, the replacement or relocation of light fitting where the existing circuit is retained, the provision of an additional socket to an existing radial circuit, or electrical works which do not require the issuance of a completion certificate under Section 9D of the Act.

 

[Midwest]

^^^Isn't that legislation for Ireland?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

^^^Isn't that legislation for Ireland?

Eire.

 

[Midwest]

Eire.

You mean Éire