Lighting circuits with no cpc

[Chris_81]

I was talking to someone today thats just had their wiring tested so they can rent out the house. The bloke that did it condemned the lighting circuits as they had no cpc and only advised that the two old wylex rewirable c/us needed changing (covered by a 100ma rcd before the boards).

I can understand where he was coming from as a lot of the lights and switches were metal and definitely not class 2. No other faults on the lighting circuits. However he said that changing the fittings to all plastic or class 1 wouldn't surfice and that both light circuits needed rewiring before he could sign it off.

I was under the impression if the fittings were changed you could just note it down as having no cpc on the form, but he was adiment that it would be illegal to do that as all circuits had to have a cpc where it was being used or not.

Is he correct or just trying to get more work?

 

[Apache]

We've had this before. There's a guide. Bear with me

 

[Chris_81]

I did try a search but couldn't find the exact answer. I'm sure your superior powers of searching will tho! :Applaud

 

[Apache]

This is the link to the guide

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG1v2_web.pdf

 

[sparkytim]

Hi Chris

Going beyond whats written I am afraid.

Yes all NEW work must have a cpc to all points but existing installations wired to older regs (pre 1966) did not have CPC on lighting.

You are correct, if no CLASS 1 (Metal fittings) and all are CLASS 2 (Insulated) then the installation meets the standard of the time it was installed and hence would ony go down as CODE 4 on PIR.

The ECS has a very clear BEST PRACTICE GUIDE on this which can be down loaded and I suggest your friend passes a copy on to this Guy.

Of course it would be good to bring the installation up to current standard and rewiring of the circuits would be RECOMMENDED but not the only solution.

Often one can take a CPC to any Metal fittings (4mm required) or replace CLASS 1 with CLASS 2 fittings. The guide even gives situations were 30 m A RCD Protection to the circuit WITH metal fittings may be acceptable.

 

[ProDave]

Was this a PIR? in which case it does not pass or fail, it's just a report of how it is, so what exactly can't he "sign off"?

Agree with others, change metal light switches to insulated and all is well.

 

[Chris_81]

Thanks for that Apache. I agree Tim, will print it out for him to pass on. I knew all new work had to have it and you've confirmed what I thought about the rest of it to!

Good to know I wasn't going mad headbang

 

[Chris_81]

Was this a PIR? in which case it does not pass or fail, it's just a report of how it is, so what exactly can't he "sign off"?Agree with others, change metal light switches to insulated and all is well.

Not sure if it was a pir or not. He had to have it done as he's renting the property, don't know if there are any different forms etc for doing that?! From what I've been told he said he was condemning the lights and couldn't sign off the property until they were rewired.

 

[sparkytim]

Another example of lack of full understanding and good judgement that is required for PIRs.

By "Signed Off" he probably means giving it a "Satisfactory" report.

If he is a DI then may be ask if has the extended approval for PIRs if not then perhaps suggest he gain further training.

 

[green-hornet]

I have to agree with sparkytim.

There is a warning label you can place on or near the cu to say that the cpc for whatever circuit is missing, and is not against any regulation.

A PIR is never one or the other, the result is unsatisfactory or satisfactory and each can be given a period of time of validity.

This is so that any code 1 or code 2's can be rectified and then retested.

The only instance any installation "could" be condemed is where you find a clear danger to life or property, and even then we have no powers of disconnection.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Tis what this sticker (as mentioned by GH) is for...

http://www.niceicdirect.com/epages/NICShop.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/NICShop/Products/GCP

Or does this PIR bloke think this stick is ILLEGAL!! as well!

:^O:^O:^O:^O

 

[green-hornet]

Tis what this sticker (as mentioned by GH) is for...http://www.niceicdirect.com/epages/NICShop.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/NICShop/Products/GCP

Or does this PIR bloke think this stick is ILLEGAL!! as well!

:^O:^O:^O:^O

Thats the one

 

[Risteard]

You are correct, if no CLASS 1 (Metal fittings) and all are CLASS 2 (Insulated) then the installation meets the standard of the time it was installed and hence would ony go down as CODE 4 on PIR.The ECS has a very clear BEST PRACTICE GUIDE on this which can be down loaded and I suggest your friend passes a copy on to this Guy.

I disagree. It's irrelevant whether it complied at the time of installation or not. I would probably attribute a Code 1 to it even if all accessories were Class II. And at the very least Code 2.

Frankly I don't agree with the ESC's so-called "best practice guide" as it clearly is not best practice and in fact does not comply with the Regulations.

 

[sparkytim]

Real and imminent Danger?

 

[Badger]

i agree Ristead imho all circuits should have a cpc included in the cable and if i find a circuit without i always note on the cert and also explain that circuit needs updating.

 

[NozSpark]

Another example of lack of full understanding and good judgement that is required for PIRs.By "Signed Off" he probably means giving it a "Satisfactory" report.

If he is a DI then may be ask if has the extended approval for PIRs if not then perhaps suggest he gain further training.

IMO if there are Class 1 fittings then I'd give it a code 2.. other wise it'd get a 4...

Tim.. I don't see the relevance of if he's a DI or AC

A DI with qualifications, experience and the relevant insurance can carry out PIR's so long as they don't use the NICEIC's name or LOGO on any documentation that they produce for the PIR.

The 2391 qualification and experience are far more important!

 

[sparkytim]

Sorry not suggesting DI may not be competent, but may assist customer to have more confidence and avenue for complaint if approved for PIRs by scheme provider.

 

[spinlondon]

I disagree. It's irrelevant whether it complied at the time of installation or not. I would probably attribute a Code 1 to it even if all accessories were Class II. And at the very least Code 2.Frankly I don't agree with the ESC's so-called "best practice guide" as it clearly is not best practice and in fact does not comply with the Regulations.

Is compliance with the Regulations, required by the Regulations?

Regulation 120.3 allows for departures, as long as the same degree of safety is provided as would be provided by compliance with the Regulations.

The ESC obviously consider that the use of class II fittings and accessories, along with RCD protection and the use of a warning sticker on the CU offers the same degree of safety as would be provided by a CPC.

Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinion, as to what is safe or not. However can you offer any argument that the same degree of safety is not provided by following the ESC's best practice guide?

There is the added problem, that this is the guidance offered by as far as I'm aware, all of the scheme providers. Should members of a scheme not comply with their scheme's guidance?

 

[Risteard]

Regulation 120.3 allows for departures, as long as the same degree of safety is provided as would be provided by compliance with the Regulations.

True, but it couldn't possibly be suggested that what they are suggesting provides the same degree of safety. That clause is intended for new innovations etc.

For example, if you were to argue that a "maintenance-free" junction box in an inaccessible location provided the same degree of safety as a joint made by soldering, brazing or compression tool etc. then you would record it as a departure from the Regulations.

I can't see how failing to provide a cpc offers the same degree of safety. Let us also remember that RCDs can at times be prone to failure and should not be used to solve every electrical problem known to man.

 

[ianmacd]

I can't see how failing to provide a cpc offers the same degree of safety. Let us also remember that RCDs can at times be prone to failure and should not be used to solve every electrical problem known to man.

How would it be any safer with a cpc if all the accessories on the circuit were Class II?