No CPC in lighting circuits / Fire damage

[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.----------------------------/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?