Discuss No CPC in lighting circuits / Fire damage in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

BS7671, it doesn't specifically tell you what to do when changing a CU, but it does tell you what is the current standard for safety.
BS7671 18th ed is the current standard for safety. Ok, let's go circular. When changing a CU, does everything in the installation have to be to current regulations? No.

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?
C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?
Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?
[automerge]1579304761[/automerge]
Look, you guys have been around a while, and I value your opinions, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. But it seems like we're all in the dark with this one. Bs7671 gives us nothing, so we have to take our guidance where we can get it. I'm not with a scheme so I can't ask them for directions. The BPGs are the only guidance I have for CU changes.

To me, it's a code 3, and so fit for continued service. To you guys, not so, but why? You'd let other C3s pass, why not this one?
 
Last edited:
IMHO (as a non-electrician), a 13th edition lighting circuit fitted with only Class II accessories poses no particular danger unless someone sabotages it by replacing one with a supposedly Class 1 one and doesn't bother to find a way of earthing it, which would then be Class 01 and of an equally low standard of safety as the Class 0 accessories originally permitted.

The original installation relied on protection by non-conducting location if any Class 0 accessories were fitted.
If it is still a non-conducting location, and the accessories are all Class II that's two levels of protection (though, as already mentioned, for protection by Class II, and also by non-conductiing location, these measures are now only permitted for new installations if under control of a competent person.
Although a warning notice about not replacing Class II accessories may not strictly comply with the current edition, it is an instruction issued by a competent person to anyone working on the installation and surely better than nothing.)
Feeding this circuit from an RCD (e.g. RCBO) would provide a third level of protection.
 
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.

IF the worst were to happen? This thread is about cu changes incorporating a lighting circuit without a cpc conductor included not the OP. So what is the immediate danger apart from saying a diyer could put a class I light up (which they could do on any installation without conecting earth) if no accessories are damaged, no class I fittings no metal switches, no metal back boxes? Your are adding additional protection via rcd to the circuit, the main bonding & tails could well be updated during this cu change,
If it was feasible of course i would very much push for rewiring the lighting circuits but at the same time i would give the customer the opportunity if they didn't want the upheaval of rewiring and the mess and disruption that can bring.
 
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.
I take your point Westward, but I don't think the IET would allow the ESC produce a document which is essentially a guide, to print information that doesn't comply with BS 7671 or any other BS come to that.
 
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.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

Indent 10.7, if this is in a domestic property.

Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.


So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.
 
Those that are suggesting using double or reinforced insulation, and citing this guidance comes from Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, when used in a domestic property are incorrect.

This guide clearly states, 10.7;

It should be noted that the protective measure double or reinforced insulation is only applicable to installations or circuits therein that are under effective supervision in normal use to ensure no changes are made that would impair the effectiveness of the protective measure (reg 412.1.3)

Domestic and similar premises falling within the scope of this guide, cannot be considered to be under effective supervision.


So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise.

I would suggest the only type of premise that double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure would apply to, is one under the management of a maintenance establishment or similar regime.

Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry
 
Bear in mind the title of the guide, "Replacing a consumer unit in domestic and similar premises."

10.7 of the guide does indeed say that. It backs up 10.1, "This guidance fully recognises that unearthed lighting circuits do not comply with BS 7671". It goes on to say:

10.4. Where the customer will not agree to one of the remedial measures described in section 10.3. of this Guide the customer should be advised that the circuit cannot be reconnected unless they agree to have all associated metallic or Class I fittings or accessories present replaced by all-insulated or Class II alternatives.

This is backed up by the flow chart on p14, which directly contradicts your comment "So this guide clearly advises that you should not stick a yellow warning label on a CU and reenergise a lighting circuit without a cpc, in a domestic or similar premise."
[automerge]1579351605[/automerge]
Here's the 'about' page for Electrical Safety First, the charity offering the guidance:

Formerly the Electrical Safety Council, they've been around for a long time, and seem to have evolved from the NICEIC:

I think it's reasonable to assume their guidance carries some weight in the industry

Bearing in mind the guide is for replacing a consumer unit in domestic properties in general, not just solely a guide about lighting circuits without cpc.

I'm fully aware of the 'charity' and its history, and indeed have used their guidance.

And in 10.7, it clearly advises that domestic properties or similar can not be deemed to be under effective supervision to allow the use of double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure.
 
And in 10.7, it clearly advises that domestic properties or similar can not be deemed to be under effective supervision to allow the use of double or reinforced insulation as a protective measure.

By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.
 
By current regulations, yes. It's already been established many times that a circuit without a CPC does not meet current regulations. The guide takes account of this as per my previous post. We're not rewiring the circuit to current regulations, we're putting it back in use after a board change. It doesn't need to meet current regulations, it just needs to be safe for continued use.

Why would the guide go to all the trouble of detailing a risk assessment and flow chart, and then cryptically suggest it wouldn't comply with current regulations, but stop short of stating that you must not reconnect such circuits in domestic installations? It would be ludicrous.
So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?
 
So what is your interpretation of the wording in 10.7?
That the circuit does not comply with current regulations
[automerge]1579359003[/automerge]
Would someone please answer my earlier questions:

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?

C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?

Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?
 
Last edited:
You answer mine, I'll answer yours :)

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?

C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?

Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?
 
You answer mine, I'll answer yours :)

When doing an EICR, if you found a lighting circuit without CPC, with all insulated/class2 fittings what would you code it?

C1 immediate danger?
C2 Potential danger?
C3 Improvement recommended?

Based on that, would you give a unsatisfactory or satisfactory outcome?

Aha, gotcha there. I’ve freely always stated, never did EICR’s as having returned to the industry in the last few years, I didn’t have the necessary experience IMO, as it’s so subjective.

But I do have experience in reading and absorbing regulations & laws etc.

Anyway, why should I answer your question before you answer mine. I sense a trap.
 

Reply to No CPC in lighting circuits / Fire damage in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock