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

 

[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.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

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.

By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.

 

[Midwest]

By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations
[automerge]1579359003[/automerge]
Would someone please answer my earlier questions:

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?

 

[Ian1981]

It should be appreciated that many bodies contribute and lend support to the BPG’s including the IET
They are produced to help guide electrician but yes they are a guide only

 

[Midwest]

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations

I can’t be bothered arguing anymore.

 

[Midwest]

PS @Pretty Mouth have you ever installed a new CU in such circumstances?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I can’t be bothered arguing anymore.

Would you like to answer my above questions before you leave the discussion?

 

[Midwest]

[/QUOTE]

So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?

That the circuit does not comply with current regulations

Would you like to answer my above questions before you leave the discussion?

Very kind of you to ask

10.7 is refering to effective supervision, not whether a circuit complies with BS7671.

And have you?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

You answer mine, I'll answer yours

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?

 

[Midwest]

You answer mine, I'll answer yours

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?

Aha, gotcha there. I’ve freely always stated, never did EICR’s as having returned to the industry in the last few years, I didn’t have the necessary experience IMO, as it’s so subjective.

But I do have experience in reading and absorbing regulations & laws etc.

Anyway, why should I answer your question before you answer mine. I sense a trap.