Customer won't get work done to sign off consumer unit

[travellingspark]

I was contracted to do some lights, needed a CU change due to requiring RCD protection, along with main bonding. All done but the existing lighting circuit isn't earthed up to scratch (High EFLI, needs a rewire in my opinion) but the customer won't get more work done, doesn't want the hassle and to spend the money. Should I just sign off the circuits that are up to scratch and tell the customer I can't sign off the lighting circuit?

 

[steptoe]

yep, you can put it down on the cert , limitations I do believe in my inebriated state.

are there any class 1 fittings?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I was contracted to do some lights, needed a CU change due to requiring RCD protection, along with main bonding. All done but the existing lighting circuit isn't earthed up to scratch (High EFLI, needs a rewire in my opinion) but the customer won't get more work done, doesn't want the hassle and to spend the money. Should I just sign off the circuits that are up to scratch and tell the customer I can't sign off the lighting circuit?

Contracted? as in a written contract agreement?

or just a verbal request?

If a written contract how come the customer was not aware of the full agreed work schedule before commencing work with ALL agreed costs materials etc...

I doubt any of us like thinking you are purchasing something only to be told there are "extras" to pay?

e.g.

Oh by the way if you want the sleeves on that coat its

 

[steptoe]

Im a pratt,

BUT, maybe yet another reason for why I do an INFORMAL PIR before any CU change I do.

 

[MajorOak]

I agree a PIR should have been done before the installation and the customer notified, given the PIR before any work commenced. However, I hadthe same situation with a flat a few months ago.

This is only for installations before 1966 though, it is not dangerous that no CPCs are present on a lighting circuit, providing that certain precautions are adhered too!

The electrical safety council have a leaflet out explaining the situation, only before 1966!!

Best practice guides : Electrical Safety Council

First leaflet, ESC Best Practice Guide No.1 Issue 2

Replacing a consumer unit in domestic premises, where lighting circuits have no protective conductor.

Nothing would be better than a rewire, but in some situations it's not practical, just for a CPC on a lighting circuit.

After 1966 the IEE regs. stated that lighting circuits need a CPC

 

[Doc Hudson]

Even if a full PIR was not done opening up a few light switches, remove a ceiling rose cover, and or looking inside a fuse box often shows quite quickly if T&E or singles are used for the existing wiring and possible risks of no CPC used.

Doc H.

 

[fletchflash]

OP says a high ELI on the circuit, not lack of CPC.

I take it this is a different lighting circuit to what you've been working on.

How high is the EL?

As stated early, you should have either done more thourough tests before quoting for a board change, or made the customer aware of possible extras.

I wouldnt sign off a CU change with a fault on it. I think you should try and fault find it, if customers not willing to pay then for free. If the earths there but faulty it needs rectifying

 

[MajorOak]

Yeah you're flectch, didn't see that, otherwise you wouldn't get an EFLI a reading. If there is earthing to any of the lighting and it reads high you need to find the fault.

I have once seen in an old property were the EFLI on the lighting circuit was high, around 20-30 ohms, while the other circuits were around 0.5 ohms. On further inspection, a previous electrician had taken the earthing for the lighting circuit from nearby water pipes, in the airing cupboard. This may have been acceptable in previous regs, before the 15th edition, I don't know, however, there was no main protective bonding conductor to the the water pipes in the house, so it was relying on the water pipes entering the earth to act as the earth electrode. So the lighting earth was TT and the rest of the house was a TN-S system.

 

[fletchflash]

Yeah you're flectch, didn't see that, otherwise you wouldn't get an EFLI a reading. If there is earthing to any of the lighting and it reads high you need to find the fault.I have once seen in an old property were the EFLI on the lighting circuit was high, around 20-30 ohms, while the other circuits were around 0.5 ohms. On further inspection, a previous electrician had taken the earthing for the lighting circuit from nearby water pipes, in the airing cupboard. This may have been acceptable in previous regs, before the 15th edition, I don't know, however, there was no main protective bonding conductor to the the water pipes in the house, so it was relying on the water pipes entering the earth to act as the earth electrode. So the lighting earth was TT and the rest of the house was a TN-S system.

hhmmm... dodgy! not really a proper TT though, was it bonded? i dont think thats ever been an acceptable practice.

That does raise the further question, whats the R1+R2/ R2 reading for the lighting circuit? Does it have a cpc or not?

 

[MajorOak]

Naa cause it's not a propper TT, I was having a laugh, no it was not bonded and it had no RCDs protecting any of the circuits. We ran a new a new CPC from the CU to the airing cupboard and picked up the existing one, bonded up the gas and water and cross bonded the rads and pipe work in the kitchen and bathrooms.

This was late 80s could have been early 90s? I remember it well as I was coming to the end of my apprenticeship and used it in an SA I was writing for college.