No earth in lighting circuit what next?

[Elliott96]

Im sure this has probably been asked before in this forum but ive just upgraded a fuseboard today and found no earth in the lighting (two core). Obviously the next thing to do would be to tell the customer either rewire or change everything on that circuit to class 2 fittings and accessories, but in this case the customer didnt want to go ahead with either.... what should i do? Cutting the circuit out would be abit extreme?

 

[l4urence]

So what do you guys do after you replace the consumer unit and then discover that there is no cpc continuity on one metal light switch, but the customer refuses to pay to have the issue resolved. Let's assume that you didn't check every single light switch and every single light fitting before replacing the consumer unit (as some of you definitely appear to do prior to a C/U change), do you then remove the consumer unit and reinstall the one you took out?

I always do an EICR before a CU change. Highlights any issues and there are few(er) and less dramatic surprises.

 

[GMES]

In that case, can you answer my question in #167?

I'm presuming that when you and other sparks swap a board out that you then do all relevant tests after to get circuit details and results, well is it any harder to carry out the same tests before ripping the old board out.
I think it's worth saying a well that it doesn't have to be a full on eicr but surely an hour of of a sparks time at say £ 30 -40 per hour is not going to break the bank. Furthermore if I was working to that type of financial restraint I would get out of domestic as quickly as possible.
I'm glad I don't do domestic if prices are this tight.

 

[Rpa07]

I'm presuming that when you and other sparks swap a board out that you then do all relevant tests after to get circuit details and results, well is it any harder to carry out the same tests before ripping the old board out.
I think it's worth saying a well that it doesn't have to be a full on eicr but surely an hour of of a sparks time at say £ 30 -40 per hour is not going to break the bank. Furthermore if I was working to that type of financial restraint I would get out of domestic as quickly as possible.
I'm glad I don't do domestic if prices are this tight.

It’s not the prices that are tight - it’s the customers ;-))

 

[GMES]

It’s not the prices that are tight - it’s the customers ;-))

I mean no disrespect , I just couldn't work like that. That's the beauty of commercial and industrial there is a lot more financial flexibility involved, some of my customers would happily pay thousands more if it was the right thing to do.

 

[Midwest]

I'm presuming that when you and other sparks swap a board out that you then do all relevant tests after to get circuit details and results, well is it any harder to carry out the same tests before ripping the old board out.
I think it's worth saying a well that it doesn't have to be a full on eicr but surely an hour of of a sparks time at say £ 30 -40 per hour is not going to break the bank. Furthermore if I was working to that type of financial restraint I would get out of domestic as quickly as possible.
I'm glad I don't do domestic if prices are this tight.

I don’t think your understanding my point. Before the old CU comes off the wall, I’ll carry out tests to insure I’m not going to have problems with the new one. But that’s included in my price to install a new one. I don’t charge for a separate EICR, as some seem to suggest you can, in a domestic situation.

 

[Midwest]

I always do an EICR before a CU change. Highlights any issues and there are few(er) and less dramatic surprises.

Can you answer my question please. I’m not being obstreperous, just interested in how you charge for it.

 

[45140]

You are missing the point that the installation was, and probably had been in that condition (no CPC) for many years before our lad came on site, so how is that his fault? At the end of the day, even though he might have demonstrated some lack of foresight and knowledge, he has made the installation safer. He has certainly not caused any accident that might happen in the future. As long as he has informed the client of the situation, then that is up to them, it's their house. I often wonder when courts are mentioned how many times this actually happens?? Bet the poor devil hasn't slept for a week.

What changes the situation is that a skilled person has now worked on the system and has identified that the system does NOT comply with the requirements of BS7671 in being commissioned into a condition that is safe. Under various elements of Legislation the installer now has to make the installation safe. It is absolutely NO defence in law to argue that you have made it a little more safer.

I cannot see why there should be any dubiety here, the Regulations and accepted Industry best practice give quite clear direction what should be done in such circumstances. Compliance with those adds a massive amount of weight to your situation. If you wish to do anything not in compliance with those then under law (HASAW Act Section 7) you would have to demonstrate that what you had done was at least as safe. Walking away having energised a cct that could give rise to danger is negligence as a minimum.

Why not check with the Insurance Company and ask them if you are covered by such an action ?

 

[Wilko]

... I think it's worth saying as well that it doesn't have to be a full on eicr but surely an hour of of a sparks time at say £ 30 -40 per hour is not going to break the bank. Furthermore if I was working to that type of financial restraint I would get out of domestic as quickly as possible. I'm glad I don't do domestic if prices are this tight.

Hi - this is what I do... An hour and I'll generally have enough to go back to Customer and discuss. I have learnt the hard way the value of this small investment.

 

[GMES]

I don’t think your understanding my point. Before the old CU comes off the wall, I’ll carry out tests to insure I’m not going to have problems with the new one. But that’s included in my price to install a new one. I don’t charge for a separate EICR, as some seem to suggest you can, in a domestic situation.

Fair point , I misunderstood, I now concur I wouldn't charge for a full eicr first but would dedicate an hour or 2 beforehand and like to think I would have found the lighting had no cpc.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What changes the situation is that a skilled person has now worked on the system and has identified that the system does NOT comply with the requirements of BS7671 in being commissioned into a condition that is safe. Under various elements of Legislation the installer now has to make the installation safe. It is absolutely NO defence in law to argue that you have made it a little more safer.

I cannot see why there should be any dubiety here, the Regulations and accepted Industry best practice give quite clear direction what should be done in such circumstances. Compliance with those adds a massive amount of weight to your situation. If you wish to do anything not in compliance with those then under law (HASAW Act Section 7) you would have to demonstrate that what you had done was at least as safe. Walking away having energised a cct that could give rise to danger is negligence as a minimum.

Why not check with the Insurance Company and ask them if you are covered by such an action ?

If you could list any of the legislation that now requires someone to make something safe against the wishes of the owner/employer, it would be useful.

 

[alasdairp]

I have been following this thread closely and did post once earlier (#113), but I have now changed my mind. If you have a car that needs and has a current MoT test pass, but you take it for a regular service (not an new MoT test as it is only 6 months in) and the garage tells you need a new critical part (say a road spring or brake pads or discs) as currently it is unsafe and would fail an MoT, then they can't force you to have the work done by them and you can drive the car away. You now have a car that you have been told in writing that would fail an MoT test. Therefore, under MoT rules, you must not drive that vehicle other than to a garage for a repair and/or a new MoT test. If you do and are caught, then you are charged with the offence, not the garage.

So, if the electrician leaves the circuit "off" (but not locked off) and tells the customer why, and writes it and the reason why clearly on the certificate for the new CU and on the CU inspection label (or on another new label next to it), then if the customer turns the circuit MCB back on then they are taking responsibility for acting (effectively) illegally and any consequences. The electrician should also send a receipt for the new CU to the person with the same warning on it. I believe that would stand up in a court of law.

 

[45140]

when the customer is informed that their lighting circuit has no cpc and they refuse to have it rewired or the metal fittings replaced with plastic etc, at what point would the customer take the electrician to court and on what grounds.

That would not be a sustainable basis for a client to proceed with an action as the Installer could demonstrate that the installation did not comply with BS7671, and thus under S7 of the H&SAW Act he could not reconnect that or those ccts.

As already mentioned (many times) their installation has been left safer by the electrician than it was beforehand and the risks were highlighted to the customer who failed to take corrective action. Had the electrician been negligent in their work which resulted in someone being suffering a shock (or worse) or even a fire etc, then they would likley have some success pursuing a claim, but again as mentioned many times, in the scenario given the customer never had cpc in their circuit to start with so the spark isn't to blame for this.

I do not agree, whilst it is true that the overall risk has been reduced, a substantial risk remains. The question is, is this reasonable ? So we look to what is in the public domain to address this scenario. BS7671 is clear and there is adequate Industry best practice that gives direction. Fail to follow that and in the event of an accident you would have to demonstrate that what you did was NO less safe than BS7671 or best practice.

Now what happens next time an electrician comes ? He will give a C2 in all likelihood.

I would be interested to learn of how many electricians have been successfully prosecuted in court in the situation described above (I would imagine it would be zero)?

You could well be right however times are changing and we are becoming more litigious. The point is not necessarily that an accident WILL happen but that in the event of an accident occurring the HSE will be looking very carefully indeed at the condition of the installation, will open BS7671 and refer to Industry best practice. If these have not been followed then immediately you have a breach of the H&SAW Act S7, followed by the EAWR.

In the event that another electrician identifies the issue, the client could potentially sue the Installer for leaving the installation in that condition. The basis of any claim would be the failure to complete the works in accordance with BS7671 and Industry best practice. Now whilst the Installer could argue that the householder refused to pay but I cannot see that defence lasting as the view would be that as the skilled person the installer was more aware of the implications than the householder, and £1 to a £1000 the householder would be pleading lack of understanding, etc, etc. Onus back on the Installer

I honestly wouldn't lose a moments sleep in this situation as my rear is covered.

Sorry not being argumentative but I would dispute that

What I am more concerned with is the unsafe installations I see on an almost weekly basis done by builders, bathroom, kitchen fitters (or anyone taking payment from the house owner), who aren't registered (and subsequently haven't issued a cert) and left a potentially unsafe installation. Sadly I have also seen too many installations done by registered sparks that were far from the required standard. We hear of the occasional person being prosecuted, which I would guess doesn't realistically even account for as many as 0.001% of the offenders.

What needs to happen is what applies in Ireland. It is a criminal offence for an unregistered person to work on any electrical equipment. Any instances found are required to be notified by the electrician to the local Council who will investigate and prosecute in almost every case.

 

[45140]

If you could list any of the legislation that now requires someone to make something safe against the wishes of the owner/employer, it would be useful.

I never said there was.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The Health and Safety at Work Act does not apply to domestic installations.
Yes most inspectors would apply a code C2.
Then again if an installation was completed today to the 16th edition, most inspectors would apply code C2s tomorrow.
As with the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Electricity At Work Regulations do not apply to domestic installations.
I doubt very much that the Householder would be able to sue for work not conducted that the Householder refused to have conducted.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I never said there was.

You stated:
“Under various elements of Legislation the installer now has to make the installation safe.”

 

[45140]

The Health and Safety at Work Act does not apply to domestic installations.

HSWA section 3 places general duties on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than themselves or their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety.

For section 3 to apply:
there must be a duty-holder - either an employer or a self-employed person, and

• there must be a risk to the health or safety of a person who is not the employee of the duty holder or the self-employed duty holder themselves, and
• that risk must arise from the conduct of the duty holder's undertaking. An 'undertaking' means 'enterprise' or 'business'.

 

[dksanders]

when the customer is informed that their lighting circuit has no cpc and they refuse to have it rewired or the metal fittings replaced with plastic etc, at what point would the customer take the electrician to court and on what grounds. As already mentioned (many times) their installation has been left safer by the electrician than it was beforehand and the risks were highlighted to the customer who failed to take corrective action. Had the electrician been negligent in their work which resulted in someone being suffering a shock (or worse) or even a fire etc, then they would likley have some success pursuing a claim, but again as mentioned many times, in the scenario given the customer never had cpc in their circuit to start with so the spark isn't to blame for this.

I would be interested to learn of how many electricians have been successfully prosecuted in court in the situation described above (I would imagine it would be zero)?

I honestly wouldn't lose a moments sleep in this situation as my rear is covered. What I am more concerned with is the unsafe installations I see on an almost weekly basis done by builders, bathroom, kitchen fitters (or anyone taking payment from the house owner), who aren't registered (and subsequently haven't issued a cert) and left a potentially unsafe installation. Sadly I have also seen too many installations done by registered sparks that were far from the required standard. We hear of the occasional person being prosecuted, which I would guess doesn't realistically even account for as many as 0.001% of the offenders.

Hi Peter, when I imagine it going to court if it did, I'm thinking of the circumstance where someone has been killed or injured (like the owner) and it's the HSE who are taking the electrician to court.

 

[45140]

You stated:
“Under various elements of Legislation the installer now has to make the installation safe.”

Yes quite correct, make safe being the operative emphasis. BS7671 is quite clear on this surely ?

 

[dksanders]

Do you not disconnect circuits from the fuseboard when conducting an EICR to report the condition?

Normally when a spark carries out an EICR circuits are disconnected from the board. Many light circuits show a cpc in the board, but there isn't always a earth continuity throughout that circuit. So when they discover the lack of cpc on a lighting circuit are you saying it's only a EICR so they can reconnect the circuit to the board because they aren't working on it.

Replacing a fuseboard by your definition means 'working on the circuit,' when in fact you are doing the same as an EICR by removing the circuit to test it, but with a C/U change you are putting it back into a safer board and that appears to mean you have been working on it.

So if I remove a shower, cooker or ring circuit to test during an EICR and I discover a dangerous fault on one of those circuits, it's fine for me to reenergise the circuit because I'm not working on it, but if I remove it to test before fitting to a safer board I'm not allowed to reconnect it?

Of course I disconnect for an EICR, the point I was making is that the reason for disconnecting the circuit is to report on it, there is no obligation to remedy any defects there and then but record them with the appropriate coding.

If (as has happened a few times) I find a situation like this (had one a few weeks ago earthed T&E at the light fittings but the T&E back to the CU had no CPCs, the earths had no continuity to earth anywhere), then I issue a Dangerous Situation Report, inform the client that I'm not allowed to reconnect the circuit. I also inform them that with if this circuit was reconnected, in all likelihood their house insurance would be null and void.

However, I do not leave them as in that case, with no light. I make sure they've got, or will get, table lamps they can use plugged into sockets.

 

[45140]

And that is probably the simplest and clearest answer to the question ?

 

[Midwest]

I don’t always agree with spinlondon , but I’m also not sure HaSaW Act applies in domestic properties, think you’ll have better luck with CDM regs, if appropriate?

 

[peterhyper]

Very interesting thread, if not a little concerning that there are so many differing opinions on something as basic as no cpc on a lighting circuit.

So to summarise, what have we learned:

Some apparently do an extensive EICR on every light switch and light fitting as well as well as every other circuit prior to quoting for a C/U change (aren't they lucky to find all their customers willing to pay for this inconvenience to them just to get a quote). Some open the fuseboard and that tells them everything they need to know (I wonder if they know Wednesday's lotto numbers). Some charge for an hour's check before quoting (not sure how much they can check in an hour - unless it's a shed), and some don't do any checks prior to installing a C/U.

Some would not reconnect a light circuit that doesn't have a cpc unless the customer crosses their palm with silver and pays them to make it good. But if they discovered a dangerous circuit during an EICR, it's okay to reconnect it because it's just an EICR and they aren't working on the circuit?

Some suggest we should rewire a light circuit with no cpc for free if we didn't check it before replacing the C/U.

Some think we could be prosecuted if we connect an existing lighting circuit with no cpc to a new improved C/U with RCDs and other safety improvements.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The only time you can apply HASWA and EAWR to a domestic installation, is when work is being conducted.
Once the work has been completed, they no longer apply.
As long as the person conducting the work conducts it in a safe manner and does not endanger anyone else, there is no breach.

With respect to BS7671, there is no requirement to upgrade any part of an installation.
There is no requirement to rectify faults found in an existing installation.
There is no requirement to refuse work on a part of an installation, because another part does not comply.

There is however a requirement not to do any work that will leave an installation less safe.
There is also a requirement to comment on unsafe conditions in an existing installation (where reasonably practicable).

 

[sparksburnout]

"What needs to happen is what applies in Ireland. It is a criminal offence for an unregistered person to work on any electrical equipment. Any instances found are required to be notified by the electrician to the local Council who will investigate and prosecute in almost every case." So how would you define that then? Putting a plug on?

 

[magnoliafan89]

God..this post has been done to death now hasnt it? We seem to be running around in circles.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Problem I have with licensing systems, is that they are more to do with protecting electrician’s income than to do with safety.

 

[45140]

Copy of guidance for clarification
Controlled Electrical Works3, as currently defined, in a domestic setting can only be carried out by a REC. There will be no legal exemption for the owner/occupier. However, minor electrical work will remain outside the scope of Restricted Electrical Works.
Restricted Electrical Works will cover:
1. the installation, commissioning, inspection and testing of a new Electrical Installation which is fixed, fastened or mounted or otherwise secured so that its position does not change and requires connection or re-connection to the distribution network or the transmission network, as the case may be;
2. the modification, installation or replacement of a Distribution Board including customer tails on either side of the Main Protective Device or of an Electrical Installation in any of the special locations listed in Part 7 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations, as the case may be;
3. the installation or replacement of one or more circuits in an Electrical Installation, including the installation of one or more additional protective devices for such circuits on a Distribution Board; or
4. the inspection, testing or certification of, or reporting on, existing Electrical Installations covered by Chapter 62 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations;
in a Domestic Property.
Minor electrical works including the replacement of an electrical accessory such as a light switch, the replacement or relocation of light fitting where the existing circuit is retained, the provision of an additional socket to an existing radial circuit, or electrical works which do not require the issuance of a completion certificate under Section 9D of the Act.

 

[Midwest]

^^^Isn't that legislation for Ireland?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

^^^Isn't that legislation for Ireland?

Eire.

 

[Midwest]

Eire.

You mean Éire