Opinions please EICR code C1 or C2?

[peterhyper]

A block of flats has various external lights not just attached to the building but around the grounds. Part of the circuit has twin and earth going underground with good readings but clearly unsuitable cable for external/underground use (not contained in any form of conduit).

The swa on the circuit is 2 core but the steel wire has been cut short on some lights at the top of brick piers with a couple of rusty strands of it attached to terminal blocks to connect to the lights earth, and not surprisingly the steel wire reading as the cpc as good as non existent with silly results (so the cpc is a 100% fail),

There are other ground lights that also have 2 core swa and the steel wire is not earthed (zero reading).

There is also no RCD protection for any external lights.

I am swaying between C1 and C2, so opinions appreciated.

 

[telectrix]

C1, IMO. no reliable earth in a usually wet/damp environment.

 

[Dillb]

Are the light fittings class 1 or class 2?

 

[telectrix]

OP mentioned steel strands connected to light's earth. i assume they have earth terminals and so would be classI.

 

[Nigel]

C2. It is not immediatly dangerous as something else has to happen to make it that way.

 

[Dillb]

The swa on the circuit is 2 core but the steel wire has been cut short on some lights at the top of brick piers with a couple of rusty strands of it attached to terminal blocks to connect to the lights earth, and not surprisingly the steel wire reading as the cpc as good as non existent with silly results (so the cpc is a 100% fail),



There is also no RCD protection for any external lights.

You got any photos of the SWA terminations you have mentioned?

Why do you think the lights require RCD/RCBO protection?

 

[Octopus]

It’s not a C1 ....

I agree with Essex

 

[Strima]

It’s not a C1 ....

I agree with Essex

I had to read that twice then...

And strangely I agree with Essex as well.

 

[peterhyper]

Thanks guys. Yes they are class 1 fittings. I have pictures on my mobile, but they will only show a couple or so strands of the swa connected into a terminal block and the lights cpc connected to the terminal blocks.

With regards the rcd, I would always fit or recommend an rcd be fitted to external lights especially when they are low level wall height and people brushing past and touching them is very likely. For the small cost involved fitting an rcd I believe it's worth it.

 

[Dillb]

So the earth is terminated externally to the light fitting via a connector block? If so how does the earth enter the light fitting?

 

[westward10]

Another example why EICRs should only be carried out by competent persons. The comment as to why you recommend rcd protection for the lights is random to say the least.

 

[Octopus]

The comment as to why you recommend rcd protection for the lights is random to say the least.

From the 1st jan 2019 it’s an automatic C3

 

[peterhyper]

Many thanks for your feedback I will go with a C2.

 

[sparkdog]

Code Red, rip it all out, in my opinion.

 

[Octopus]

Code Red, rip it all out, in my opinion.

Kerching..,,,,

 

[ipf]

Code Red, rip it all out, in my opinion.

Yellow or maybe purple for me...…..list of code 2's.

 

[Pete999]

A block of flats has various external lights not just attached to the building but around the grounds. Part of the circuit has twin and earth going underground with good readings but clearly unsuitable cable for external/underground use (not contained in any form of conduit).

The swa on the circuit is 2 core but the steel wire has been cut short on some lights at the top of brick piers with a couple of rusty strands of it attached to terminal blocks to connect to the lights earth, and not surprisingly the steel wire reading as the cpc as good as non existent with silly results (so the cpc is a 100% fail),

There are other ground lights that also have 2 core swa and the steel wire is not earthed (zero reading).

There is also no RCD protection for any external lights.

I am swaying between C1 and C2, so opinions appreciated.

Page 165 Blue OSG give a fairy comprehensive guide to EICR codes read and inwardly digest.

 

[Pete999]

A block of flats has various external lights not just attached to the building but around the grounds. Part of the circuit has twin and earth going underground with good readings but clearly unsuitable cable for external/underground use (not contained in any form of conduit).

The swa on the circuit is 2 core but the steel wire has been cut short on some lights at the top of brick piers with a couple of rusty strands of it attached to terminal blocks to connect to the lights earth, and not surprisingly the steel wire reading as the cpc as good as non existent with silly results (so the cpc is a 100% fail),

There are other ground lights that also have 2 core swa and the steel wire is not earthed (zero reading).

There is also no RCD protection for any external lights.

I am swaying between C1 and C2, so opinions appreciated.

Page 165 Blue OSG give a fairy comprehensive guide to EICR codes read and inwardly digest.

 

[baldelectrician]

I would tend to put C2, but if I tested the lights with a R2 wandering lead and found voltages on the metal casing then I would up it to a C1

 

[Nigel]

From the 1st jan 2019 it’s an automatic C3

Only in a dwelling.

 

[Octopus]

Only in a dwelling.

Really .... Reg number?

 

[Deleted account]

I was under the impression rcd protection on lighting circuit in 18th edition is not just limited to dwellings only.

I've just C3 ed a whare house lighting circuit on an EICR that has no RCD protection as I am carrying out works to the 18th now. Client doesn't have to do anything as it won't give an unsatisfactory.

I will look up reg when get a chance.

 

[Andy78]

I was also under the impression from the draft that only dwellings would require RCD protection for lighting circuits regardless of installation method.

Not yet got my book though so can't check.

 

[westward10]

I was under the impression rcd protection on lighting circuit in 18th edition is not just limited to dwellings only.

I've just C3 ed a whare house lighting circuit on an EICR that has no RCD protection as I am carrying out works to the 18th now. Client doesn't have to do anything as it won't give an unsatisfactory.

I will look up reg when get a chance.

You are carrying out EICRs to the 18th Ed?

 

[Ian1981]

Really .... Reg number?

He’s correct it’s for dwellings

 

[Ian1981]

He’s correct it’s for dwellings

Any circuit supplying luminaries in a dwelling requires additional protection via 30mA rcd

To align with the base CLC Harmonised Document, the new Regulation 411.3.4requires the provision of additional protection by RCD for AC final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises.

 

[westward10]

I was under the impression rcd protection on lighting circuit in 18th edition is not just limited to dwellings only.

I've just C3 ed a whare house lighting circuit on an EICR that has no RCD protection as I am carrying out works to the 18th now. Client doesn't have to do anything as it won't give an unsatisfactory.

I will look up reg when get a chance.

Very worrying.

 

[Deleted account]

You are carrying out EICRs to the 18th Ed?

Yes

 

[Deleted account]

Any circuit supplying luminaries in a dwelling requires additional protection via 30mA rcd

To align with the base CLC Harmonised Document, the new Regulation 411.3.4requires the provision of additional protection by RCD for AC final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises.

B*gg*r! Yep your correct.
Pleased I haven't sent the EICR yet.
Also really pleased I'm part of forum. Could of been a changer there.
I don't like giving false information to clients, not good for my reputation.

Feel a bit embarrassed now. Why did I think this!

 

[Octopus]

Any circuit supplying luminaries in a dwelling requires additional protection via 30mA rcd

To align with the base CLC Harmonised Document, the new Regulation 411.3.4requires the provision of additional protection by RCD for AC final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises.

Another stupid regulation.

Why not in commercial premises?

 

[Strima]

Yes

Why? Doesn't come into effect until 01/01/19.

 

[Deleted account]

Why? Doesn't come into effect until 01/01/19.

During transitional period we can use either. So I give the customer the option.
This customer chose 18th.

 

[Nigel]

During transitional period we can use either. So I give the customer the option.
This customer chose 18th.

Would have been bettet to have familierised yourself with it first then eh? ;-)

 

[Deleted account]

I cannot argue with that.

Tbh I feel a bit sheepish. Bahhhh.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Why not in commercial premises?

Because lamps are more likely to be changed by maintenance teams than clumsy (or infirm) householders, who are at more risk poking around in ES fittings without knowledge of safe isolation etc.

And the original fault - C2 if the fittings aren't actually live. Otherwise there's no way to indicate a higher risk scenario of the fittings being live and ready to zap someone.

 

[Octopus]

Because lamps are more likely to be changed by maintenance teams than clumsy (or infirm) householders, who are at more risk poking around in ES fittings without knowledge of safe isolation etc.

And the original fault - C2 if the fittings aren't actually live. Otherwise there's no way to indicate a higher risk scenario of the fittings being live and ready to zap someone.

I've given you a disagree, because I simply see it as another example of clutching at straws to make enough changes to justify the 18th edition plus the vested interests of manufacturers on these committees who see increased revenues AND profits.