Bedroom lights without earths

[Car123]

Double insulated would imply no cpc at that point in the circuit, there is no way if you have circuits without cpc that the issue of rcd protection hasn’t been raised on the EICR.....even if it’s only graded as a c3 which I doubt considering how vigorous they were over the trunking issue, if it’s not mentioned at all I’d be very sceptical over the validity of it, and I wouldn’t panic to much either as your 28 days won’t start until you have the report ?

Thanks for this. I am pleased that the 28 days does not start until I get. To be honest I could do with a bit more time to work out what I am going to do.. Half of what they have said makes no sense and they are not answering my question about it. In the past I thought they were good electricians but I am really having reservations now. They have contradicted themselves during the process and are very expensive.

 

[dodger421]

Ah yes. I don't know how they graded it. But the light is not over the bath or shower. It's in the vicinity of the loo. Either way I was told it needed a doubly insulated light

Again it’s difficult to be certain without seeing both the report and the property, but the reason I think it’s an IP issue in the bathroom is because it’s been listed separately.

I’m assuming that the bathroom light and the lighting circuit which needs investigation are in fact the same circuit? As in they’re both supplied from the same MCB (and both upstairs presumably)?

 

[Baddegg]

Thanks for this. I am pleased that the 28 days does not start until I get. To be honest I could do with a bit more time to work out what I am going to do.. Half of what they have said makes no sense and they are not answering my question about it. In the past I thought they were good electricians but I am really having reservations now. They have contradicted themselves during the process and are very expensive.

Get the report and post it up here, less any names addresses business details etc that ain’t fair and it’s illegal ?

 

[Car123]

Again it’s difficult to be certain without seeing both the report and the property, but the reason I think it’s an IP issue in the bathroom is because it’s been listed separately.

I’m assuming that the bathroom light and the lighting circuit which needs investigation are in fact the same circuit? As in they’re both supplied from the same MCB (and both upstairs presumably)?

The bathroom is downstairs.

 

[dodger421]

The bathroom is downstairs.

Fair enough. In that case I’m surprised they haven’t mentioned the downstairs lighting circuit not having a CPC present. Unless it has one but the light wasn’t rated for Zone 2 (basically that’s within an arms length of the shower enclosure and/or bath. Within 60cm horizontally and up to 2.25m vertically are the actual measurements).

Ultimately the upstairs circuit seems to have one light with a CPC and the remainder without. That’s unusual, and is why the inspector has said it needs further investigation. If all of the lights didn’t have a CPC because of their age and installation method that’s easy enough to explain and code. The fact one fitting has a CPC and not the others is the justifiable cause for concern and warrants further investigation to find out what’s happened.

 

[loz2754]

You can change em to class 2 same as the bathroom although it won’t make any difference as you need the earth for the rcd to work so it still leaves you the issue of not having rcd protection on the lighting circuit which you’ll need for a satisfactory certificate.....I would say this is already highlighted on the cert you havnt seen....

RCDs do not require an earth to function.

 

[Car123]

Fair enough. In that case I’m surprised they haven’t mentioned the downstairs lighting circuit not having a CPC present. Unless it has one but the light wasn’t rated for Zone 2 (basically that’s within an arms length of the shower enclosure and/or bath. Within 60cm horizontally and up to 2.25m vertically are the actual measurements).

Ultimately the upstairs circuit seems to have one light with a CPC and the remainder without. That’s unusual, and is why the inspector has said it needs further investigation. If all of the lights didn’t have a CPC because of their age and installation method that’s easy enough to explain and code. The fact one fitting has a CPC and not the others is the justifiable cause for concern and warrants further investigation to find out what’s happened.

Thank you for this. Everything else down stairs is earthed apart from the bathroom. It's an old Victorian terrace in a popular area. The lights in the sitting room diner were done by another company about two years ago. My memory is vaguely, and I might be wrong, that during this work they went in to the loft and that as a result of this they earthed the light in the front bedroom. I am now presuming to bring the earth down. The company who did this managed to leave/put the wrong fuse in the consumer unit now picked up on this EICR. When I spoke to them I really did not anywhere. They said "Well why would we go in the loft" I feel pretty dismayed that some money things seem to have c $$c $ed up. I have said various times that I could always rely on electricians. How the kitchen light got earthed is a mystery. I have spent quite a bit of money and as I said I have put in an electric WiFi fire alarm system which I did not need to do.

 

[Baddegg]

RCDs do not require an earth to function.

True but it is preferable to a human for a path ?

 

[Car123]

RCDs do not require an earth to function.

I am getting confused again. Who said this? If this is the case why do I need an earth?

 

[dodger421]

I am getting confused again. Who said this? If this is the case why do I need an earth?

The earth return path is a vital part of how the circuit breakers (MCB‘s) or fuses in the consumer unit (CU) work to disconnect the supply in the event of a fault. This is known as protection by automatic disconnection of supply, or ADS. The CPC (earth) provides a low resistance path back to the CU for any potential fault current, hopefully preventing that harmful current from flowing through a person in the worst case scenario. That’s why a CPC should be present at all points of the fixed wiring and should ideally run alongside the live conductors of each circuit.

ADS is like the bare minimum requirement for protection from electric shock and RCD’s provide an additional layer of protection on top of that.

Some faults don’t create enough current to allow the MCB’s or fuses to operate, or they allow more current than is typically survivable to flow through a person before they do disconnect the supply. Residual Current Devices (RCD’s) provide additional protection against these by being more sensitive to smaller current imbalances in the circuits they protect. They monitor the outgoing and return current on the line and neutral conductors of a circuit or group of circuits and trip if the imbalance is more than 30mA (other ratings are available, but 30mA is required for additional protection). They don’t need a CPC to operate but having one provides that low resistance path back to the CU for the fault current, causing the RCD to see the imbalance in the live conductors (L + N) quickly and trip accordingly.

Electricity is sort of like water in that it usually follows the path of least resistance. In the event of a fault with a CPC present, the electricity will flow down that and should trip either the RCD or MCB/fuse before anyone gets hurt. Without a CPC it’ll flow through the next path of least resistance which might well be the unfortunate human being who’s just stuck a nail through a cable above a light switch.

Hypothetically (really don’t try this at home), grabbing the end of a single line conductor (usually brown or red in the UK) won’t cause an MCB or fuse to trip or rupture before you’ve had a very nasty, possibly fatal, shock. They might not even operate at all in some circumstances. If we fit a 30mA RCD as well it will trip quickly enough to prevent that same shock being fatal in most cases.

 

[Wilko]

For what it’s worth, my thought is :

- the report from 2014 was in error to conclude no CPC present at the light was ok. So the C2 of the recent report doesn’t indicate a change in regulations, in my view. If there was an earth present at the lighting point but it had been cut somewhere, that would be seen as potentially dangerous and require fixing. So I see the “no earth at light” in the same way.

- the loose trunking, well I haven’t seen it so I can’t judge whether it’s potentially dangerous, but it’s certainly poor workmanship and would now require some metal clips to prevent premature collapse in the event of a fire. If it’s in a trafficable location where it may be grabbed and pulled then I would think that’s potentially dangerous. In any case it should be fixed as they can further deteriorate and become unsafe between inspections.

 

[Car123]

The earth return path is a vital part of how the circuit breakers (MCB‘s) or fuses in the consumer unit (CU) work to disconnect the supply in the event of a fault. This is known as protection by automatic disconnection of supply, or ADS. The CPC (earth) provides a low resistance path back to the CU for any potential fault current, hopefully preventing that harmful current from flowing through a person in the worst case scenario. That’s why a CPC should be present at all points of the fixed wiring and should ideally run alongside the live conductors of each circuit.

ADS is like the bare minimum requirement for protection from electric shock and RCD’s provide an additional layer of protection on top of that.

Some faults don’t create enough current to allow the MCB’s or fuses to operate, or they allow more current than is typically survivable to flow through a person before they do disconnect the supply. Residual Current Devices (RCD’s) provide additional protection against these by being more sensitive to smaller current imbalances in the circuits they protect. They monitor the outgoing and return current on the line and neutral conductors of a circuit or group of circuits and trip if the imbalance is more than 30mA (other ratings are available, but 30mA is required for additional protection). They don’t need a CPC to operate but having one provides that low resistance path back to the CU for the fault current, causing the RCD to see the imbalance in the live conductors (L + N) quickly and trip accordingly.

Electricity is sort of like water in that it usually follows the path of least resistance. In the event of a fault with a CPC present, the electricity will flow down that and should trip either the RCD or MCB/fuse before anyone gets hurt. Without a CPC it’ll flow through the next path of least resistance which might well be the unfortunate human being who’s just stuck a nail through a cable above a light switch.

Hypothetically (really don’t try this at home), grabbing the end of a single line conductor (usually brown or red in the UK) won’t cause an MCB or fuse to trip or rupture before you’ve had a very nasty, possibly fatal, shock. They might not even operate at all in some circumstances. If we fit a 30mA RCD as well it will trip quickly enough to prevent that same shock being fatal in most cases.

Thank you for this. Is it that the regs since 2014 have made the earth mandatory. As the EICR done then was passed. Intact since then there is more things earthed in the house

 

[dodger421]

Thank you for this. Is it that the regs since 2014 have made the earth mandatory. As the EICR done then was passed. Intact since then there is more things earthed in the house

No, the regulation applied to all circuits from the early 1970’s I think. Prior to that lighting circuits could be wired in 2-core cable without a CPC.

As @Wilko says it sounds like the 2014 report was incorrect, but again it’s very difficult to comment on either report with certainty without seeing them or the property in question. It sounds like the concern of the recent inspector is that a CPC is present at some fittings but not all of them. I’d certainly see that as a potentially dangerous situation and would want to investigate it.

 

[Car123]

For what it’s worth, my thought is :

- the report from 2014 was in error to conclude no CPC present at the light was ok. So the C2 of the recent report doesn’t indicate a change in regulations, in my view. If there was an earth present at the lighting point but it had been cut somewhere, that would be seen as potentially dangerous and require fixing. So I see the “no earth at light” in the same way.

- the loose trunking, well I haven’t seen it so I can’t judge whether it’s potentially dangerous, but it’s certainly poor workmanship and would now require some metal clips to prevent premature collapse in the event of a fire. If it’s in a trafficable location where it may be grabbed and pulled then I would think that’s potentially dangerous. In any case it should be fixed as they can further deteriorate and become unsafe between inspections.

Perhaps I am wrong about the 2014 saying there was no earth. I have this EICR and can post it online. Well hopefully as I am crap at putting things online. Prob is I need to doctor it as well to get rid of who did it as well the address. I am getting more and more confused not less. Actually I don't think there was an earth in 2014. Pretty certain there wasnt

 

[Wilko]

I need to doctor it as well to get rid of who did it as well the address

Hi - not meaning to teach you how to suck eggs or to say you have to post a doc, but I put a post-it-note across stuff and take a pic. Very low tech .

 

[Car123]

Perhaps I am wrong about the 2014 saying there was no earth. I have this EICR and can post it online. Well hopefully as I am crap at putting things online. Prob is I need to doctor it as well to get rid of who did it as well the address. I am getting more and more confused not less. Actually I don't think there was an earth in 2014. Pretty certain there wasnt

Perhaps I am wrong about the 2014 saying there was no earth. I have this EICR and can post it online. Well hopefully as I am crap at putting things online. Prob is I need to doctor it as well to get rid of who did it as well the address. I am getting more and more confused not less. Actually I don't think there was an earth in 2014. Pretty certain there wasnt

Hi - not meaning to teach you how to suck eggs or to say you have to post a doc, but I put a post-it-note across stuff and take a pic. Very low tech .

Only will be how to attach said photos on here. I guess there must be some place to do this. Ahh may be it's that symbol

Hi - not meaning to teach you how to suck eggs or to say you have to post a doc, but I put a post-it-note across stuff and take a pic. Very low tech .

I guess it's that symbol up the top to attach it.

 

[Burtones]

Any guidance I've seen (from schemes and the best practice guide from electrical safety first) have no RCD on domestic lighting circuits as C3, they also have no cpc on lighting circuit with class 2 fittings and plastic switches as C3 (if they are wired in a 2 core cable without an earth- this might not be the case here as 1 light has a cpc, hence the FI code).

I know neither is ideal and a strong recommendation for improvement would be given (I'm sure most people would happily pay to improve safety in both of these situations), but a lot of you seem to give C2 for both of these making the report unsatisfactory and therefore forcing the improvements.

 

[Car123]

Any guidance I've seen (from schemes and the best practice guide from electrical safety first) have no RCD on domestic lighting circuits as C3, they also have no cpc on lighting circuit with class 2 fittings and plastic switches as C3 (if they are wired in a 2 core cable without an earth- this might not be the case here as 1 light has a cpc, hence the FI code).

I know neither is ideal and a strong recommendation for improvement would be given (I'm sure most people would happily pay to improve safety in both of these situations), but a lot of you seem to give C2 for both of these making the report unsatisfactory and therefore forcing the improvements.

If it were not for the problem with accessing the loft I would not be hesitating. What difference does it make that one light has a CPC? This what I have wondered about? Would it be better if there were none?

 

[DPG]

If it were not for the problem with accessing the loft I would not be hesitating. What difference does it make that one light has a CPC? This what I have wondered about? Would it be better if there were none?

It would not be better no. Removing a CPC is never an improvement!

 

[Burtones]

Removing one no, but if it never had one in the first place because it was wired in twin that doesn't have a cpc, then the class 2 fittings and C3 would apply- doesn't seem to be the case with yours though as one fitting has a cpc so likely to be wired in t&e