No CPC in lighting circuits / Fire damage

[Andy434]

Good evening

following a visual inspection in a property that had an electrical fire in the fuse board area
obviously i could not actually test anything, but visually identified that the lighting circuits had no earth (not even cut back)
now the insurance company ideally want a new distribution board and all the circuits being cut back to where they are not damaged then extended back and re-connected

so my question is:
all the pendents and switches are plastic, but really don't think i can join on to and extend the old cable that contains no cpc

or am i wrong?

am i right in thinking they have no choice but to get the lighting re-wired

thanks guys

 

[telectrix]

rewire the lights. you can't reconnect/joint to cables that don't comply with current regs. are the insurers penny pinching?

 

[bigspark17]

rewire the lights. you can't reconnect/joint to cables that don't comply with current regs. are the insurers penny pinching?

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

 

[Pete999]

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

I seem to recall reading in the Regs that all point must have a cpc present, or words to that effect!!

 

[bigspark17]

I seem to recall reading in the Regs that all point must have a cpc present, or words to that effect!!

can you get me the reg number on that? Were not talking about installing without cpc,reconnection of existing circuits is in question..

 

[Pete999]

can you get me the reg number on that? Were not talking about installing without cpc,reconnection of existing circuits is in question..

Not got my regs with me, but common sense will, or should tell you that, part of the testing regime is to prove the cpc continuity on to on top of that how are you going to test Zs at lighting points with nil cpc that's why it shouldn't be reconnected, your name will be on the cert wont ? you will be the last person working on the installation, your responsibility, hate to be in your shoes when you are in front of his Honour if some poor person gets a belt from an unearthed lighting circuit.

 

[davesparks]

so what do you do if your on a consumer unit change and lighting circuits dont have cpc?? If there are no metal accessories or metal back boxes i dont see the problem reconecting.

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]

Good evening

following a visual inspection in a property that had an electrical fire in the fuse board area
obviously i could not actually test anything, but visually identified that the lighting circuits had no earth (not even cut back)
now the insurance company ideally want a new distribution board and all the circuits being cut back to where they are not damaged then extended back and re-connected

so my question is:
all the pendents and switches are plastic, but really don't think i can join on to and extend the old cable that contains no cpc

or am i wrong?

am i right in thinking they have no choice but to get the lighting re-wired

thanks guys

Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

 

[bigspark17]

Not got my regs with me, but common sense will, or should tell you that, part of the testing regime is to prove the cpc continuity on to on top of that how are you going to test Zs at lighting points with nil cpc that's why it shouldn't be reconnected, your name will be on the cert wont ? you will be the last person working on the installation, your responsibility, hate to be in your shoes when you are in front of his Honour if some poor person gets a belt from an unearthed lighting circuit.

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]


Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

Lighting circuits installed before 1966 did not require a circuit protective conductor (cpc) to be run to and terminated at every point and accessory of a lighting circuit, as is currently required by Regulation 411.3.1.1 of BS 7671.

It should be remembered that the Wiring Regulations are not retrospective, as is clearly mentioned in a note in the introduction to BS 7671 which states: Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.


Therefore, there is no legal requirement, and no regulation in BS 7671, requiring an existing lighting circuit to be rewired or upgraded to current standards. However, it is essential that the safety of the installation is not compromised when any alteration and/or addition is carried out.

taken from elecsa.

 

[MJPD29]

Whilst you are doing this work it's probably a good time to rewire lights or do any required remedial works before it gets redecorated

 

[gazdkw82]

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

 

[Grant1987]

In my opinion if I were in your shoes I would tell the insurance company that the lighting circuit/s need to be rewired why delay the inevitable they are going to have to be rewired in the coming years and now would be the ideal time it annoys me when people try looking for ways out of doing the sensible and right thing tell them that you are going to be the one to certify the work and don’t want any repercussions after you’ve left the job. They’ll be quick enough to point the finger at you if anyone had a belt after you’ve left.

 

[davesparks]

It should be remembered that the Wiring Regulations are not retrospective, as is clearly mentioned in a note in the introduction to BS 7671 which states: Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

This is a commonly misunderstood extract from BS7671, a lot of people don't seem to understand clear written English and much prefer to see what they think is written there.
Forget your preconceived idea of what 8s written there and re-read it. Take the time to understand exactly what is written.


"This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading"
This does not say that all work carries out to previous editions of the regulations is safe for continued use, nor does it say that it is exempt from any requirement to upgrade.
What it says is that complying with a previous edition does not necessarily make it unsafe, that means that compliance with a previous edition alone does not make something unsafe. It means that compliance with a previous edition could be safe or unsafe, it could be safe if the changes to the regulations do not reflect a safety improvement (such as changing from red/black to brown/blue) or it could be unsafe if the changes to the regulations reflect a previous method having been found to be dangerous (such as putting fuses in the neutral). Alternatively it could be that the changes in the regulations reflect an improvent in the safety of the installation, such as the case of old lighting circuits not being earthed.

Acgording to BS7671 any work carried out to an existing installation must only be carried out after confirming that the existing installation is in a safe condition, including earthing and bonding being correct, and bringing it up to current standards if necessary.

 

[bigspark17]

@davesparks so on this principle you would not give a satisfactory report if cables buried within walls are not on 30mA rcd? If upgrading a consumer unit and the lighting circuit has no earth and has no metal switchgear ect then this is perfectly acceptable with a sticker on the cu stating this. I agree the better option always would be to rewire the circuit but i dont belive you saying it has to be rewired i think you could be seen as trying to generate work.

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

if you wanted to add a socket outlet to a rfc that no had rcd protection would you rewire it? Change the cu or add some surface wiring to an rcd socket outlet? I would say the final decision is the customers.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - for me, if the 55 year old lighting circuit with no CPC is damaged by fire and requires new cable in part then I would be rewiring that circuit to current standards, including RCD.

 

[Pete999]

As far as I was aware, if you are modifying a circuit then you just make sure it now complies?

Would the same principal apply if say you were adding a spur socket onto a RFC that has no RCD protection? Would you need to protect the circuit with an RCD or just protect that outlet with an RCD?

Discuss it with the customer and if they decline to have the installation brought up to a safe standard then decline the work.

In exceptional circumstances I might consider the ESC's suggestion for what to do in exceptional circumstances, but in normal circumstances no.

The problem is quite simply that it does not comply with the current wiring regulations, nor does it comply with a fair minimum standard based on the wiring regulations. The installation of a cpc to every point of connection is a basic requirement for safety and has been for a long time.
[automerge]1579210458[/automerge]


Write a letter explaining the situation and why further work is required for the installation to comply with current regulations

Agree with Davesparks
[automerge]1579248135[/automerge]

Lighting circuits installed before 1966 did not require a circuit protective conductor (cpc) to be run to and terminated at every point and accessory of a lighting circuit, as is currently required by Regulation 411.3.1.1 of BS 7671.

It should be remembered that the Wiring Regulations are not retrospective, as is clearly mentioned in a note in the introduction to BS 7671 which states: Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.


Therefore, there is no legal requirement, and no regulation in BS 7671, requiring an existing lighting circuit to be rewired or upgraded to current standards. However, it is essential that the safety of the installation is not compromised when any alteration and/or addition is carried out.

taken from elecsa.

Think you have to understand which may conflict with your post, CU change requires an EIC can't see how you could honestly issue an EIC with a satisfactory conclusion when connecting an un earthed lighting circuit to the new CU, what are your thoughts on that???

 

[Midwest]

Lighting circuits installed before 1966 did not require a circuit protective conductor (cpc) to be run to and terminated at every point and accessory of a lighting circuit, as is currently required by Regulation 411.3.1.1 of BS 7671.

It should be remembered that the Wiring Regulations are not retrospective, as is clearly mentioned in a note in the introduction to BS 7671 which states: Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.


Therefore, there is no legal requirement, and no regulation in BS 7671, requiring an existing lighting circuit to be rewired or upgraded to current standards. However, it is essential that the safety of the installation is not compromised when any alteration and/or addition is carried out.

taken from elecsa.

I also sort guidance when trying to understand the writings of BS7671.

Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, also gives some guidance; https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

Indent 10.7, if this is in a domestic property.

 

[Andy78]

The best practice guide is clear. When changing a consumer unit and lighting circuits with no cpc exist, they should only be reconnected when all other remedial actions are refused.
Are the insurers going to refuse rewiring from a liability point of view when the electrician says this is the best and safest method, and to not do so would not be fully compliant with the wiring regulations but would just about be safe if no-one changes any accessories ?

 

[Pete999]

The best practice guide is clear. When changing a consumer unit and lighting circuits with no cpc exist, they should only be reconnected when all other remedial actions are refused.
Are the insurers going to refuse rewiring from a liability point of view when the electrician says this is the best and safest method, and to not do so would not be fully compliant with the wiring regulations but would just about be safe if no-one changes any accessories ?

Personally I think the rulings need updating: You are changing a CU in Mrs Ordinaries' House after a house fire. oh dear no cps in the lighting wiring, after explaining that some remedial wiring need doing ergo rewiring the lights before I can reconnect.
How long is it going to take the Insures to agree to that? weeks, maybe in the meantime the Home owners are without any lights The BP Guide is right in some respects, but there needs to be better guidelines in my opinion for what it's worth. on how to proceed, all very well telling Mrs Ordinary not to use any metal or conductive accessories, but you know what most homeowners are like, oh that's a nice light fitting won't that look nice in our lounge ???

 

[Andy78]

Personally I think the rulings need updating: You are changing a CU in Mrs Ordinaries' House after a house fire. oh dear no cps in the lighting wiring, after explaining that some remedial wiring need doing ergo rewiring the lights before I can reconnect.
How long is it going to take the Insures to agree to that? weeks, maybe in the meantime the Home owners are without any lights The BP Guide is right in some respects, but there needs to be better guidelines in my opinion for what it's worth. on how to proceed, all very well telling Mrs Ordinary not to use any metal or conductive accessories, but you know what most homeowners are like, oh that's a nice light fitting won't that look nice in our lounge ???

I agree that in these emergency circumstances after a fire, getting the power back on is the priority.

I don't agree with the best practice guide though that a cpc free circuit should be reconnected on a planned consumer unit change, even if the customer is fully briefed as to the safety implications.

I'd be laying it on thick to the insurance if it were me pushing for rewiring.

 

[Midwest]

I don't agree with the best practice guide though that a cpc free circuit should be reconnected on a planned consumer unit change, even if the customer is fully briefed as to the safety implications.

The ESF Best Practice Guide 1, actually states the opposite for a domestic dwelling, indent 10.7.

 

[Pete999]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

 

[Andy78]

The ESF Best Practice Guide 1, actually states the opposite for a domestic dwelling, indent 10.7.

It very much does.

This info seems to be at odds with flow chart A2 which states that in a planned CU change situation the affixing of a label to the CU telling users not to change accessories is enough to give the CU change the go ahead.
This chart appears to be for use in dwellings, as mentioned in indent 10.7, as the last step is to notify the work. This step would not be applicable to other installations apart from dwellings.

 

[Ian1981]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

That’s why it’s important to attach a warning label at the CU stating that no class 1 accessories are to be fitted to the lighting circuit with no cpc.
Don’t know who came up with such a label tho as it’s not in bs7671?

 

[Andy78]

That’s why it’s important to attach a warning label at the CU stating that no class 1 accessories are to be fitted to the lighting circuit with no cpc.
Don’t know who came up with such a label tho as it’s not in bs7671?

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

 

[Pete999]

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

Not in a Million years,

 

[bigspark17]

So looking at indent 10.7, it seems it is not permitted to reconnect a cpc free circuit when changing a CU as there is no supervision to ensure that nobody swaps accessories for conductive ones!!

Your never going to stop diy taking place, even if there is a cpc there they may not connect it, you cant stop everything, we dont put sockets in bathroom but that doesn't stop someone putting an extension lead in the bath!!?

 

[Ian1981]

Does a label class as effective supervision though ?

If the end user cannot be trusted to heed information imparted verbally and written on a certificate, what magic exists in the label to change things ?

Because the regulations assume electrical work to be carried out by competent persons electrically skilled.
a warning label clearly on view at the CU should not be missed by anyone skilled carrying out electrical work as the lighting would be isolated at the CU. However we don’t live in the fairytale that bs7671 wants us all to live in and the inevitable DIY jobs will ignore the warnings.
Like I said tho I’m not sure where this requirement for the label has gone from?
I’m assuming the ESC / best practice guide to which the likes of Napit and the Niceic seem to endorse this warning label method as a last resort.
No I don’t think a warning label will be classed as suitable supervision as it’s not under the control of skilled or instructed persons

 

[Pete999]

Because the regulations assume electrical work to be carried out by competent persons electrically skilled.
a warning label clearly on view at the CU should not be missed by anyone skilled carrying out electrical work as the lighting would be isolated at the CU. However we don’t live in the fairytale that bs7671 wants us all to live in and the inevitable DIY jobs will ignore the warnings.
Like I said tho I’m not sure where this requirement for the label has gone from?
I’m assuming the ESC / best practice guide to which the likes of Napit and the Niceic seem to endorse this warning label method as a last resort.

ELECTRIC MAGIC!!!! !!!!

 

[Ian1981]

ELECTRIC MAGIC!!!! !!!!

Eh? Come again??

 

[Pete999]

Eh? Come again??

Sorry meant for someone else ignore please, appologies

 

[Pete999]

rewire the lights. you can't reconnect/joint to cables that don't comply with current regs. are the insurers penny pinching?

With a caveat "who will be paying"?
[automerge]1579280495[/automerge]

I also sort guidance when trying to understand the writings of BS7671.

Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, also gives some guidance; https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

Indent 10.7, if this is in a domestic property.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

My thoughts:

From BPG1:

4.2. BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit.

4.3. However, circuits that are defective or non compliant with the requirements of BS 7671 in a way that would result in immediate or potential danger must not be reconnected to the consumer unit.

So don't reconnect C1s and C2s, this is clarified in the note to 6.2.3. In BPG4, it codes "Absence of circuit protective conductors in circuits having only Class II (or all-insulated) luminaires and switches" as C3. To me, this is clear - it's okay to reconnect.

If I was in the OP's situation, I'd push for the lighting circuits to be rewired. But if they refused, I'd make the repair, put a 'No Class 1s' notice on the board, and be done with it.

 

[davesparks]

So don't reconnect C1s and C2s, this is clarified in the note to 6.2.3. In BPG4, it codes "Absence of circuit protective conductors in circuits having only Class II (or all-insulated) luminaires and switches" as C3. To me, this is clear - it's okay to reconnect.

And BS7671 requires that an installation relying on double insulation as a protective measure be under the supervision of a skilled/competent person.
I'm sure BS7671 carries more weight than a BPG4, whatever that means? Is BPG4 an obscure reference to an IET guidance document?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

And BS7671 requires that an installation relying on double insulation as a protective measure be under the supervision of a skilled/competent person.
I'm sure BS7671 carries more weight than a BPG4, whatever that means? Is BPG4 an obscure reference to an IET guidance document?

Best Practice Guide 4. I assume the advice in these guides carries some weight, but please correct me if not.

When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? Or is the statement "BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be
upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit." correct?

 

[davesparks]

Best Practice Guide 4. I assume the advice in these guides carries some weight, but please correct me if not.

When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? Or is the statement "BS 7671 does not require existing circuits to be
upgraded to current standards in order for them to be connected to the outgoing ways of the replacement consumer unit." correct?

Who write this best practice guide? Unless it's an IET publication I wouldn't be inclined to rely on it for anything.

No, not everything has to be to current regulations, a non-compliance that has no safety implication can be disregarded.
For example red and black conductors do not comply with the current regulations, however they can be reconnected without any concern as this in itself does not affect safety.

That statement is incorrect because BS7671 does not make any statements about replacing consumer units, it just sets out the standards that electrical installations should comply with.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Who write this best practice guide? Unless it's an IET publication I wouldn't be inclined to rely on it for anything.

No, not everything has to be to current regulations, a non-compliance that has no safety implication can be disregarded.
For example red and black conductors do not comply with the current regulations, however they can be reconnected without any concern as this in itself does not affect safety.

That statement is incorrect because BS7671 does not make any statements about replacing consumer units, it just sets out the standards that electrical installations should comply with.

Red/black conductors, missing grommits, junction boxes under floor boards, all C3s. I'm guessing you'd reconnect circuits with these observations, if I judge you by my standards. Missing CPC on lighting circuit with only class 2s or all insulated accessories, also C3. No immediate or potential danger.

 

[westward10]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

What are the specific requirements of BS7671 for a consumer unit change?

 

[westward10]

What are the specific requirements of BS7671 for a consumer unit change?

There are none.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

There are none.

So where are you taking your guidance from for consumer unit changes?

 

[davesparks]

So where are you taking your guidance from for consumer unit changes?

BS7671, it doesn't specifically tell you what to do when changing a CU, but it does tell you what is the current standard for safety.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

BS7671, it doesn't specifically tell you what to do when changing a CU, but it does tell you what is the current standard for safety.

BS7671 18th ed is the current standard for safety. Ok, let's go circular. When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? No.

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?
C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?
Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?
[automerge]1579304761[/automerge]
Look, you guys have been around a while, and I value your opinions, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. But it seems like we're all in the dark with this one. Bs7671 gives us nothing, so we have to take our guidance where we can get it. I'm not with a scheme so I can't ask them for directions. The BPGs are the only guidance I have for CU changes.

To me, it's a code 3, and so fit for continued service. To you guys, not so, but why? You'd let other C3s pass, why not this one?

 

[M-Ty]

IMHO (as a non-electrician), a 13th edition lighting circuit fitted with only Class II accessories poses no particular danger unless someone sabotages it by replacing one with a supposedly Class 1 one and doesn't bother to find a way of earthing it, which would then be Class 01 and of an equally low standard of safety as the Class 0 accessories originally permitted.

The original installation relied on protection by non-conducting location if any Class 0 accessories were fitted.
If it is still a non-conducting location, and the accessories are all Class II that's two levels of protection (though, as already mentioned, for protection by Class II, and also by non-conductiing location, these measures are now only permitted for new installations if under control of a competent person.
Although a warning notice about not replacing Class II accessories may not strictly comply with the current edition, it is an instruction issued by a competent person to anyone working on the installation and surely better than nothing.)
Feeding this circuit from an RCD (e.g. RCBO) would provide a third level of protection.

 

[bigspark17]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

IF the worst were to happen? This thread is about cu changes incorporating a lighting circuit without a cpc conductor included not the OP. So what is the immediate danger apart from saying a diyer could put a class I light up (which they could do on any installation without conecting earth) if no accessories are damaged, no class I fittings no metal switches, no metal back boxes? Your are adding additional protection via rcd to the circuit, the main bonding & tails could well be updated during this cu change,
If it was feasible of course i would very much push for rewiring the lighting circuits but at the same time i would give the customer the opportunity if they didn't want the upheaval of rewiring and the mess and disruption that can bring.

 

[westward10]

An rcd/rcbo should not be relied upon in the absence of a circuit protective conductor.

 

[Pete999]

People seem to be placing too much faith in the Best Practice Guides. If the worst were to happen in a domestic scenario I suspect the only document which would play a part in any proceedings would be BS7671 and your interpretation of its requirements.

I take your point Westward, but I don't think the IET would allow the ESC produce a document which is essentially a guide, to print information that doesn't comply with BS 7671 or any other BS come to that.

 

[Midwest]

I also sort guidance when trying to understand the writings of BS7671.

Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, also gives some guidance; https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

Indent 10.7, if this is in a domestic property.

Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.

So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.

 

[westward10]

Employing Class II fittings or all insulated accessories to a circuit which does not incorporate a cpc does not imply the protective measure of double insulation is in force. There is a lot more to it than that.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.

So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.

Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

About Us | Electrical Safety First

We’re Electrical Safety First, the UK’s leading charity on electrical safety. We want to make sure that everyone in the UK can use electricity safely, and regul

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

Our History | Electrical Safety First

Our History Electrical Safety First (formerly the Electrical Safety Council, or ESC) is a registered UK charity working with all sectors of the electrical indus

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry

 

[Midwest]

Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

About Us | Electrical Safety First

We’re Electrical Safety First, the UK’s leading charity on electrical safety. We want to make sure that everyone in the UK can use electricity safely, and regul

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

Our History | Electrical Safety First

Our History Electrical Safety First (formerly the Electrical Safety Council, or ESC) is a registered UK charity working with all sectors of the electrical indus

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry

Bearing in mind the guide is for replacing a consumer unit in domestic properties in general, not just solely a guide about lighting circuits without cpc.

I'm fully aware of the 'charity' and its history, and indeed have used their guidance.

And in 10.7, it clearly advises that domestic properties or similar can not be deemed to be under effective supervision to allow the use of double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure.