Eicr no CPC on lighting circuit

[westward10]

Best Practice Guides are not something I use and Class II protection cannot be used in a dwelling.

 

[loz2754]

Best Practice Guides are not something I use and Class II protection cannot be used in a dwelling.

Fair comment. As I said it's up to the person signing the EICR to decide.
Interestingly, when I joined the NICEIC EICR register, I had to agree to use the electrical safety first best practice guide 4 when assessing what code to give.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

RCBOs do not need a CPC to operate effectively.

Your assessor is disagreeing with the Electrical Safety First best practice guides. The guide on EICR reporting recommends a C3 where there is a lack of CPC in a circuit supplying items of all insulated all class 2 equipment.
He is of course entitled to his own opinion, but it is up to the inspector to decide whether it's C3 or C2.

NAPIT (and therefore STROMA) have put their name to that guide, so he's disagreeing with his own scheme's guidance

 

[loz2754]

Just one further point of clarification:
I have come across this situation (no CPCs to lighting circuits) several times over the last few years.
In each and every case my EICR code given was a C2.
Also, in each and every case, I did my utmost to convince the client that the first and best option is to rewire the circuits.
Then the 2nd best option would be to run a separate CPC to all the points of the circuit (which is probably more problematic than to rewire the circuit).
Then, as an absolute last resort (maybe lack of finances or only just decorated), to change all accessories and lights to all insulated, with a warning notice on the consumer unit. And with a view to having the circuits rewired in the near future.
To be fair, all but one of the clients agreed to the rewiring of the circuits.

Which raises the question, if the client genuinely cannot afford the cost of rewiring the circuit at this time, do you leave them with a potentially dangerous C2 situation? Or do you offer them the last resort suggested by Electrical Safety First? (Whose board members include IET directors and NICEIC technical directors).
Or do you have any other alternative solutions?

 

[pc1966]

Which raises the question, if the client genuinely cannot afford the cost of rewiring the circuit at this time, do you leave them with a potentially dangerous C2 situation?

Other than metallic switches, or possibly light fittings above a bath or similar, where it is possible to touch the fitting while being in contact with something at earth potential (radiator, taps, etc) it is hard to see how it would be a C2, which is basically what BPG4 says (quoted below is for C2 rating):

• Absence of a circuit protective conductor for a lighting circuit supplying items of Class I equipment, or connected to switches having metallic face plates

So I would go with BPG1 and verify there is no current issue with insulation and change the light switch plates to basic plastic ones. But only if it was the only realistic option.

Edited to add: While not directly related, 410.3.9 (iii) has provision for reduced protection for small parts that present a low risk of significant contact or the ability to be gripped, so things like the face plate screws don't really need covering as they are unlikely to allow enough shock current to be dangerous (assume the person is not soaking wet, of course).

 

[Ian1981]

Other than metallic switches, or possibly light fittings above a bath or similar, where it is possible to touch the fitting while being in contact with something at earth potential (radiator, taps, etc) it is hard to see how it would be a C2, which is basically what BPG4 says (quoted below is for C2 rating):

• Absence of a circuit protective conductor for a lighting circuit supplying items of Class I equipment, or connected to switches having metallic face plates

So I would go with BPG1 and verify there is no current issue with insulation and change the light switch plates to basic plastic ones. But only if it was the only realistic option.

Edited to add: While not directly related, 410.3.9 (iii) has provision for reduced protection for small parts that present a low risk of significant contact or the ability to be gripped, so things like the face plate screws don't really need covering as they are unlikely to allow enough shock current to be dangerous (assume the person is not soaking wet, of course).

I’m glad you brought the regulation up because people are convinced in changing the fixing screws to nylon or putting caps over the heads, which is a ridiculously waste of time.