No CPC in lighting circuit

[HandySparks]

I don't believe the cert would cover your --- though - I believe it would actually help to hang you if something happened. It certifies that the installation work complies with BS7671 when it doesn't, which is why none of the required tests are relevant to the work done without a cpc.

The MW cert would be for the work you are doing, namely replacement of class 2 fittings. The safety of the fittings is not reliant on the presence of an earth connection (although, to comply with the regs, one is required at each point).

As others have said, I'd do the job and inform the customer of the situation in writing (cert, e-mail, whatever).

 

[Risteard]

although, to comply with the regs, one is required at each point

But that is precisely my point. How can you certify the work you have carried out as being compliant with BS7671 when you freely admit that it is non-compliant with the Standard?

 

[andyb]

But that is precisely my point. How can you certify the work you have carried out as being compliant with BS7671 when you freely admit that it is non-compliant with the Standard?

It's the work you have carried out that you are certifying Risteard, a class 2 accessory does not require an earth. The circuit installed by others should have an earth.
Like I said, note it in comments on existing.

 

[Risteard]

It's the work you have carried out that you are certifying Risteard, a class 2 accessory does not require an earth. The circuit installed by others should have an earth.
Like I said, note it in comments on existing.

But the accessory can't be considered in isolation. You are connecting it to the circuit.

Certification of accessories is not within the remit of BS7671.

 

[7029 dave]

IMO some of you are paranoid about this, at the end of the day the lighting circuit could have complied to when it was installed, prior to 14th regs edition amended in 1966 me thinks, with the introduction of cpc in lighting circuits. At the end of the day it is maintenance, are we saying if a light fitting or switch is broken we can't replace it.? Class 2 is the way forward here, of course a rewire is the best solution, but if the client says no we have to make the best of it, far better than leaving a C1 on site, tenant gets electrocuted.Well we had a sparky here a few days ago he walked away an left it dangerous state. IMO that in court would get your --- in a sling. Common sense here lads.

 

[andyb]

But the accessory can't be considered in isolation. You are connecting it to the circuit.

Certification of accessories is not within the remit of BS7671.

You don't really need to issue a MWC for a like for like replacement of an accessory to comply with 7671. A MWC is for an addition or alteration of a circuit.
There is however nothing to stop you issuing one, I always do now. And in this case a MWC certificate is perfect for noting the lack of cpc and the tests you have carried out.
You do have a point but I don't think you can demand that they have a rewire just to replace a damaged switch for example.
I'll always carry out the repair unless to do so created a danger.

 

[Risteard]

And in this case a MWC certificate is perfect for noting the lack of cpc and the tests you have carried out.

Don't agree. It (a MEIWC) is inappropriate in these circumstances as it declares compliance with BS7671 where there isn't.

 

[Risteard]

My issue isn't with like-for-like maintenance with no conductive parts (including screws) - it is with certification of this where it cannot be certified. The only paperwork which could be legitimately issued is an Electrical Danger Notification if you felt it necessary.

 

[andyb]

Don't agree. It (a MEIWC) is inappropriate in these circumstances as it declares compliance with BS7671 where there isn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, I could of rewired the circuit by now.

 

[Jurassic Sparks]

I will do just that and ask NAPIT who I am with for their advice. It seems some mixed responses on here. Some views are that by walking away I have left it to the cowboys, others are I could do it and certify it with any departures written out on the cert.

Again though, let me emphasise that in my view the departure we are talking about was too much of a risk not to be rectified. Tenants may/will always change light fitting, switches etc regardless of CU notices or clauses in contract because they can just change them back when they leave. If this was a homeowner and you notified them I would say you had a better chance of them listening but with a rented property, there is no policing and notifying every future tenant.

if there was no cpc then its likely to be a re 1966 installation, in which case the place needs rewiring
if its being rented out then the wiring should be safe
I had one afew weeks back, I issue one of NAPITs death certificates to the client, that way its on record when something goes wrong and they tell lies
the one I issued was for a house worth around 400K but they could not afford to rewire it ??
despite renting it out for 800 pounds per month and piving in another property worth 1.75M
???
funny old world

 

[Octopus]

But that is precisely my point. How can you certify the work you have carried out as being compliant with BS7671 when you freely admit that it is non-compliant with the Standard?

The certificate , in fact ANY certificate may have "things" that don't comply......

The certificate is a statement of works and comments..... as usual the muppets at the IET simply don't have a clue what is goin on at the coal face.

As for MWC saying it complies with BC 7671 - no it doesn't if completed correctly...

EG:

The ones I use INCLUDES this statement on it:

"complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above"

And part 1 is where you detail the scope of works and any observations/ comments / etc

 

[Risteard]

The certificate , in fact ANY certificate may have "things" that don't comply......

The certificate is a statement of works and comments..... as usual the muppets at the IET simply don't have a clue what is goin on at the coal face.

As for MWC saying it complies with BC 7671 - no it doesn't if completed correctly...

EG:

The ones I use INCLUDES this statement on it:

"complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above"

And part 1 is where you detail the scope of works and any observations/ comments / etc

Part 1 details Departures. As I have pointed out elsewhere, BS7671 requires Departures to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671. It is essentially there for new innovations which were not known about when the Regs were published. It is not permitted to be used as a means of avoiding compliance with BS7671. So unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Octopus]

Part 1 details Departures. As I have pointed out elsewhere, BS7671 requires Departures to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671. It is essentially there for new innovations which were not known about when the Regs were published. It is not permitted to be used as a means of avoiding compliance with BS7671. So unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water.

Part 1: Description of minor works

 

[Risteard]

Part 1: Description of minor works

That won't get you out of complying with BS7671 though.

 

[Octopus]

That won't get you out of complying with BS7671 though.

I refer you back to post 31.

 

[Risteard]

I refer you back to post 31.

And I refer you to post #32 which is what the declaration is referencing.

 

[dnjr]

BOTTOM LINE: Customer have selective memory at the best of times.

Doing a sensible and safe replacement and leaving a MWC may well be best for all... leaving the job to some cowboy isn't a good idea.

I wonder what the schemes would suggest (other than recommend a rewire!)?

Hi Murdoch. I had one very similar a couple of weeks ago and NICEIC went along same lines as you. Install a plastic fitting, Issue cert , sticker the board stating which circuit is involved and back it up with a covering letter. Arse covered.
You can't second guess everyone all the time. Installation is safer than it was and landlord is made aware of issue

Dnjr


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Octopus]

And I refer you to post #32 which is what the declaration is referencing.

TBH I don't give a ---- what others or you say. I will when necessary do as I have done before and used the MWC to confirm and document the issue as I see out.

It's that or pocket the cash and join then cowboys.

 

[sparksburnout]

Given the very sensible scenario given above by DNJR, Murdoch and also Andy, could the panic merchants who are talking about being in court please explain how that might happen, and what the possible outcome might be even if it did???

 

[djelectric]

This guide refers to changing a CU where there is a lighting circuit with no CPC but may help the debate: http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100126675/Best-Practice-Guide-1.pdf