No earth in lighting circuit what next?

[Andy78]

The point Im making is.
Is it safer ?
I know its wrong but is it safer on a mcb with RCD protection or a BS3036 with no RCD protection ?

You still have the problem of not being able to issue a cert as it doesn't comply with BS7671, would constitute a C2 in the case described, and is not a permitted departure. Regulation 132.16 could be demonstrated to not have been followed too.

 

[Octopus]

You still have the problem of not being able to issue a cert as it doesn't comply with BS7671, would constitute a C2 in the case described, and is not a permitted departure. Regulation 132.16 could be demonstrated to not have been followed too.

Rubbish.

BS 7671 is being written by vested interests to sell products and make profits.

Replacing a BS 3036 board with a twin RCD board or RCBO board WILL make the installation safer. A label stating the lighting circuit had no CPC and an EIC stating rewire of the circuit is enough imho

Not issuing an EIC is madness, issuing an EIC stating what is recommended is the way to deal with it

Or walking away, leaves the customer open to a cowboy changing the board, not issuing paperwork or highlighting the issues

I know what I would do (and have done)

Our responsibility is to make installations safer ....

Many customers don’t have the resources to rewire......

The current authors of BS 7671 are so far removed from the coal face, they are probably on the moon ........

 

[Octopus]

Rubbish.

BS 7671 is being written by vested interests to sell products and make profits.

Replacing a BS 3036 board with a twin RCD board or RCBO board WILL make the installation safer. A label stating the lighting circuit had no CPC and an EIC stating rewire of the circuit is enough imho

Not issuing an EIC is madness, issuing an EIC stating what is recommended is the way to deal with it

Or walking away, leaves the customer open to a cowboy changing the board, not issuing paperwork or highlighting the issues

I know what I would do (and have done)

Our responsibility is to make installations safer ....

Many customers don’t have the resources to rewire......

The current authors of BS 7671 are so far removed from the coal face, they are probably on the moon ........

So @westwood10

You would walk away ...... or what?

Please explain your disagree .....

 

[Andy78]

Rubbish.

BS 7671 is being written by vested interests to sell products and make profits.

Replacing a BS 3036 board with a twin RCD board or RCBO board WILL make the installation safer. A label stating the lighting circuit had no CPC and an EIC stating rewire of the circuit is enough imho

Not issuing an EIC is madness, issuing an EIC stating what is recommended is the way to deal with it

Or walking away, leaves the customer open to a cowboy changing the board, not issuing paperwork or highlighting the issues

I know what I would do (and have done)

Our responsibility is to make installations safer ....

Many customers don’t have the resources to rewire......

The current authors of BS 7671 are so far removed from the coal face, they are probably on the moon ........

Fair enough you have your feelings about the regs, as do we all, but my statement was one of fact. A certificate issued based on the model forms of BS7671 is a certificate to say that the installation complies with BS7671 or that any departures offer at least the same degree of safety.
I don't have any certs that state "I connected up a load of crap but at least it's better than it was to some extent", so I stick to the rules laid out in that there book.

 

[westward10]

Rubbish.

BS 7671 is being written by vested interests to sell products and make profits.

Replacing a BS 3036 board with a twin RCD board or RCBO board WILL make the installation safer. A label stating the lighting circuit had no CPC and an EIC stating rewire of the circuit is enough imho

Not issuing an EIC is madness, issuing an EIC stating what is recommended is the way to deal with it

Or walking away, leaves the customer open to a cowboy changing the board, not issuing paperwork or highlighting the issues

I know what I would do (and have done)

Our responsibility is to make installations safer ....

Many customers don’t have the resources to rewire......

The current authors of BS 7671 are so far removed from the coal face, they are probably on the moon ........

With class I fittings as in the case in question. Yes we would refuse the job but we all work to different standards.

 

[Nebu1a]

But you may highlight the problems to the client, they nod their head in agreement not understanding what you are saying, then there is some kind of incident, you end up in court and they say will I didnt really understand and he did the work and took my money.......

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Fair enough you have your feelings about the regs, as do we all, but my statement was one of fact. A certificate issued based on the model forms of BS7671 is a certificate to say that the installation complies with BS7671 or that any departures offer at least the same degree of safety.
I don't have any certs that state "I connected up a load of crap but at least it's better than it was to some extent", so I stick to the rules laid out in that there book.

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

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You still have the problem of not being able to issue a cert as it doesn't comply with BS7671, would constitute a C2 in the case described, and is not a permitted departure. Regulation 132.16 could be demonstrated to not have been followed too.

Of course you can issue a cert.
The cert covers the work conducted.
The lack of CPC warrants a comment on the existing installation.
It’s not a departure, because it was already there.

 

[davesparks]

So what do you guys do after you replace the consumer unit and then discover that there is no cpc continuity on one metal light switch, but the customer refuses to pay to have the issue resolved.

Carry out the dead tests before removing the old fuseboard, the fault will be found before going past the point of no return

 

[Midwest]

Section 10;

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

I've not been in this position, but I have been asked to carry out 'alterations/additions' to an existing lighting circuit with no cpc. I declined & informed my client, and only replaced the existing light fitting with Class2. My client subsequently had his property rewired.

I've found the BPG linked by snowhead quite useful in the past, as guidance on what to do in such situations.

If section 10 is read, the guidance is clear, that a circuit without a cpc, can only be re-energised after testing (10.5.5 & 10.5.4) confirms there would be no risk of electric shock.

The guide suggests the use of Class2 fittings cannot be used in domestic premises (10.7), although the reg no. referred to needs updating.

Therefore, what I did in my first paragraph was against this guidance; however I left it in no worse in terms of compliance (Building Regs).

@Elliott96 perhaps will change his strategy in the future, but tend to agree with those, that he has made the overall install safer than it was. Its whats he to do with the offending lighting circuit? I wouldn't be altering it to comply, free of charge.

 

[Gareth Brookes]

Just replace the fitting at your expense or lock off and wait for a call

 

[GMES]

So @westwood10

You would walk away ...... or what?

Please explain your disagree .....

Do not start the silly ratings war again, people can give whatever rating they like and don't have to explain themselves to you.
This was one of the reason for your last Ban , let's not go there again.
In the name of fairness , can @UNG give me another dislike as i have somehow deleted the 1st one you have me.

 

[Andy78]

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

I tend to test all circuits and record the results. Are you saying I should leave the results schedule blank as the cert doesn't extend past the CU ?

 

[GMES]

I think the main issue here is if he had done a few basic tests he would have found the lighting had no cpc.
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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

Agree with your first point, perhaps the OP has learned something new, like we all do every day.

Disagree with your last point, otherwise he wouldn't of posted the thread in the first place.

 

[GMES]

Agree with your first point, perhaps the OP has learned something new, like we all do every day.

Disagree with your last point, otherwise he wouldn't of posted the thread in the first place.

I'm not going to agree or disagree mate until I go back and 're read it, as he energised it or not, if he has then that is my argument, I fully appreciate we can all drop clangers, and anyone who's says they are are lying but a couple of dead tests beforehand would have highlighted this.

 

[Elliott96]

On the initial site visit for the estimate drop off one switch, check for bonding etc.. On the day carry out your tests before removing the old fuse-box and probe all metal fittings with the wander lead. If you get any dubious readings or low IRs bring to the customer's attention before commencing. Have a separate price for the testing on the estimate and if necessary walk.

So charge them for taking a few R2’s and if there not happy then dont do the job? How much are you charging for the “pre fuseboard” checks?

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.

I havent adopted a dont care attitude at all I realise i should of tested before the db was changed but it has been done now and this is the situation i am in. Which i why i am looking for advice.... if i didnt care i wouldn't of spoke to the customer about changing the accessories or rewiring.

 

[magnoliafan89]

So charge them for taking a few R2’s and if there not happy then dont do the job? How much are you charging for the “pre fuseboard” checks?

If you do a couple of dead tests which lets face it dont take long and find a fault, you inform the client who in most cases would be happy to have it rectified for a small fee but if they said no just do what they asked its one of them things youd just have to take on the chin and walk away knowing you dont have to have that hassle

 

[GMES]

So charge them for taking a few R2’s and if there not happy then dont do the job? How much are you charging for the “pre fuseboard” checks?

I havent adopted a dont care attitude at all I realise i should of tested before the db was changed but it has been done now and this is the situation i am in. Which i why i am looking for advice.... if i didnt care i wouldn't of spoke to the customer about changing the accessories or rewiring.

Elliot firstly this is not personal I am not trying to attack your character , you are probably a decent guy, but when you say you haven't adopted a don't care attitude, didn't you say a few posts back you were going to take your cash and a bad review.
It is only my opinion but I think you are at fault for doing the job without relevant pre-checks and should now put it right at your own expense.
I would much rather take a financial hit but receive a great review, but that's me, we are all different.

 

[peterhyper]

I have to agree with Murdoch, we have turned up to an old 3036 board often with no gas or water bond, undersized tails, undersized main earth conductor, and often connections not great. We have replaced the board with a C/U with RCDs, sorted all the other issues out and improved its safety. But some of the lights don't have a cpc, so we've highlighted this verbally to the customer, also in writing and put a warning sign on the C/U regards the danger etc.

The likelyhood of this ever ending up in court is very very very slim, but if it did I am confident that I left the customer's installation far safer than how I found it and I have clearly highlighted the issue with the light circuit having no cpc and I can't physically do anymore. The lighting circuit was there before I arrived, I didn't cause the lack of cpc problem n the lights, but I have definitely improved the safety of the customer's installation.

When I put my car in for a service and the mechanic tells me my brakes are dangerous and I refuse to pay him to fix them, is he then responsible if I have an accident due to my brakes failing. Of course he's not responsible, he can't force me to pay him to fix my brakes just I can't force the customer to pay to have their light circuit sorted.