No CPC in lighting circuit

[charlie76]

Evening all. I have been asked to quote a landlord for a replacement bathroom light as the old ones bayonet fitting was broken, new pull cord as it was one from 1702 which had finally given up and replace the hallway light fitting as it was hanging off the ceiling.

On inspection there are no CPC's in the lighting circuit, it is sheathed twin 1.5mm with no earth. As I was intending to issue a minor works cert for the work, I said to the client unfortunately I cannot test the circuit with no earth and hence I cannot certify it and have walked away from the job.

I understand I could fit Class II lighting but am I right in saying this is done by risk assessment. My initial quick mental risk assessment was that if a tennant wants to fit a metal light they will regardless of a little sticker on the CU saying there is no earth present and therefore my risk assessment said it was too much of a risk.

I did say to the landlord that they should have it rewired in T+E but as expected they don't want the cost or disruption to something that has "worked fine for years".

What would you do in this situation? Was I right in turning my back on this job?

 

[telectrix]

charlie. you were spot on. you may have lost a few quid on that small job, but at least you can sleep at night. a refreshing change from someof the cowboys who would have fitted class 1 lights, taken the cash, and sod the danger to the tenants.

 

[Octopus]

You are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

I would have fitted class 2 fittings and I would have issued a mwc outlining precisely the situation. And confirming exactly why class 1 fittings must not be fitted.

Just saying.

 

[SJD]

It is true that a tenant will likely not notice a sticker on the consumer unit. I know a landlord in this situation, who has all Class II fittings in property (including some metal class II ones), who has included in the lease a clause that forbids changing any of the light fittings or switches (with the reason given), that the tenant has to agree to at the start of the tenancy.

 

[Risteard]

You are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

I would have fitted class 2 fittings and I would have issued a mwc outlining precisely the situation. And confirming exactly why class 1 fittings must not be fitted.

Just saying.

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

 

[charlie76]

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

Exactly my issue. I said to the client, I won't be able to certify the work because I can't test the circuit. If I can't certify the works then by definition I would say I can't prove it is fit for purpose. I can write whatever I want on the certificate but if I can't prove it is safe and fit for purpose I would say I am putting myself in the crosshairs should something go wrong.

I am new to this business so probably being overly cautious but I know not having a CPC in lighting circuits was common in years gone by so my question is, what are you more experienced folks doing when you come across this?

I said to the landlord have you had an EICR done on the property, Nope. Have you received a certificate for any works, Nope. Have you ever had a certificate for any works on any of your flats, Nope. Are people just carrying out these jobs and not certifying them?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This is maintenance.
Yes an MWEIC may be used for the replacement of fittings and accessories, but there is no requirement to do so.

From what I understand, the situation is now: there is no lighting and there is an exposed broken lamp holder.
Someone will provide lighting, perhaps by running an extension lead and plugging in a table lamp.
However it is more likely that someone else (perhaps the tenant or landlord) will just install a new fitting.
Who knows what fitting will be installed, or what level of workmanship?

You could have installed the fitting to your high level of workmanship, ensuring that the fitting was suitable for purpose, you may also have been able to persuade the Landlord that RCD protection is required and you could have issued a MWEIC stating that a class 1 fitting should not be installed.

 

[7029 dave]

This is maintenance.
Yes an MWEIC may be used for the replacement of fittings and accessories, but there is no requirement to do so.

From what I understand, the situation is now: there is no lighting and there is an exposed broken lamp holder.
Someone will provide lighting, perhaps by running an extension lead and plugging in a table lamp.
However it is more likely that someone else (perhaps the tenant or landlord) will just install a new fitting.
Who knows what fitting will be installed, or what level of workmanship?

You could have installed the fitting to your high level of workmanship, ensuring that the fitting was suitable for purpose, you may also have been able to persuade the Landlord that RCD protection is required and you could have issued a MWEIC stating that a class 1 fitting should not be installed.

I was going to say something along the same lines.

 

[Octopus]

The problem there is that the Cert would be meaningless. For example, "Earth continuity satisfactory" would not apply - nor would insulation resistance between live conductors and Earth, or earth fault loop impedance. Furthermore the certificate states that the installation work complies with BS7671, which clearly it does not.

Not sure I agree with this.

The certificate may be devoid of tests but it would detail the situation, the action taken and advice for future improvements..... whether the landlord takes this on board is up to them BUT you will have done a professional job and left a cert to CYA!

 

[David M]

As you can tell from the responses so far, one of the requirements of being a qualified professional electrician is the ability to assess what requirements are needed to make the installation as safe as possible. You have already assessed the situation and it is obvious that a rewire of that circuit would be the safest bet.
However the owner of the property makes this option impossible for you to achieve so the next move is to either walk away or, like some have said recommend a suitable class 2 accessory and then issue a report stating your findings and recommendations. If you feel that the current accessory is dangerous then at least if you improve this situation then you are reducing the likely hood of potential danger.
Its your call, personally I would advise an immediate replacement for a more suitable accessory and any other form of additional protection you can install, along with a report stating what you have done to improve the situation and what does not meet the requirements of BS7671.

 

[Octopus]

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!)?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

There are certain tests you can't do, but only because those tests aren't required. You can certainly do a Zp-n to confirm the PSCC is suitable for the OCPD, and an insulation resistance test of any metal-bodied Class II fittings on the circuit. These two would find almost all likely causes of electric shock risk. You can help limit the problem of future installation of Class I fittings by giving written advice, and as mentioned avoid the immediate likelihood of intervention by a cowboy.

 

[Risteard]

you will have done a professional job and left a cert to CYA!

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.

 

[charlie76]

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!)?

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.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Is the lighting circuit on an RCD out of interest?

 

[Risteard]

any departures written out on the cert.

You must remember that a departure is required to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671.

 

[Leesparkykent]

You must remember that a departure is required to afford at least the same degree of safety as compliance with BS7671.

There are many sparks who believe the departures box is a get out of jail free card :13:

 

[Octopus]

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.

So that means you never issue a cert if there is anything wrong with a site?

 

[andyb]

I think this is being over thought, all that's being asked by the client is the replacement of 2 defective lights and a pull switch.
Advise the client of the situation, recommend that it's put right, if client declines carry out tests as outlined by Lucien, fit class 2 accessories and issue MWC.
I'd rather do this than leave them in darkness.

I would note the lack of cpc in this case not as a departure on the cert, but a comment on existing installation.

 

[Risteard]

So that means you never issue a cert if there is anything wrong with a site?

There could be plenty wrong with the site, but it cannot be related to the work I am carrying out. If, for example, there was no cpc continuity on a circuit upstream of work I had been carrying out then I couldn't certify it without first rectifying this/ensuring there was cpc continuity at the accessory I was working at.

Otherwise what would be the purpose of the certificate? I sign a declaration that the work complies with BS7671 and yet you are suggesting make comments on the cert which clearly prove that it doesn't. I believe that I'd be leaving myself wide open if I were to do that.

 

[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

 

[7029 dave]

TBH ffs why fill out a MWC to change a light fitting. OTT in my book

 

[djelectric]

That guide states that only Class I fittings & accessories simultaneously accessible with earthed metalwork or extraneousconductive-parts are a danger, or where they are fitted in rooms with an earthed floor, special locations (RCD required) and portable applications.

If there is no risk of someone coming in contact with the fitting simultaneously with anything earthed then its fine, just label the board, note it on the cert and make the client aware.

There is always the risk of some cowboy coming in and changing something that could make that circuit dangerous, but the same goes with anything.. Someone could come along and extend your ring circuit to the garden using indoor accessories to power a load of heaters! But you complied at the time of your cert, what happens after is someone elses problem.

 

[djelectric]

That guide states that only Class I fittings & accessories simultaneously accessible with earthed metalwork or extraneousconductive-parts are a danger, or where they are fitted in rooms with an earthed floor, special locations (RCD required) and portable applications.

If there is no risk of someone coming in contact with the fitting simultaneously with anything earthed then its fine, just label the board, note it on the cert and make the client aware.

There is always the risk of some cowboy coming in and changing something that could make that circuit dangerous, but the same goes with anything.. Someone could come along and extend your ring circuit to the garden using indoor accessories to power a load of heaters! But you complied at the time of your cert, what happens after is someone elses problem.

That said, I suppose there is the risk of someone wielding a pair of metal steps that manages to touch the radiator and faulty (live) light fitting at the same time.. Or scaffolders carrying their poles through the window because its the easier route.. Loads of potential risks..