Missing cpc on lighting circuit

[Sharpend]

So the question is what would @Fleeting do in this case?

 

[Fleeting]

Not your problem they cannot afford to rectify correctly. It is no more unsafe than it was before you got there, they have the Report so move on. The OP is going to use a means of protection not suitable for a dwelling and as you know there is nothing to stop them changing this. Each to their own but I wouldn't want to become involved in it because once you start doctoring it you are involved. No one from a scheme or the people behind that Guide will be holding your hand in the dock should it all go wrong and never ever think it won't.

 

[Fleeting]

So the question is what would @Fleeting do in this case?

Quote for rewiring as necessary if they say no then walk away I won't lose sleep over it.

 

[Murdoch]

So the question is what would @Fleeting do in this case?

He won't tell us.

He's on the fence as usual next to Sir Keir Hindsight

But as the best practice guide outlines, there are acceptable solutions and as all electrical "bodies" contributed to these guides we can only assume that by putting their Logos in them, they would back their members.

 

[Fleeting]

He won't tell us.

He's on the fence as usual next to Sir Keir Hindsight

But as the best practice guide outlines, there are acceptable solutions and as all electrical "bodies" contributed to these guides we can only assume that by putting their Logos in them, they would back their members.

See #23.
You seriously think these people would back you up, you actually think that in the case you mentioned where the client reinstated Class I lights and say someone died because of this they would have their arm around you and give support. That takes optimism to a whole new level.

 

[Murdoch]

See #23.
You seriously think these people would back you up, you actually think that in the case you mentioned where the client reinstated Class I lights and say someone died because of this they would have their arm around you and give support. That takes optimism to a whole new level.

Absolutely

When your car gets serviced, and breaks 2 months later, do you Sue the garage ?
The minute you leave a site anybody could do anything after you, home owner, Bob the builder, et all

It’s not as if anybody cares any way

As long as we make installation’s safer our job is complete

 

[Fleeting]

Absolutely

When your car gets serviced, and breaks 2 months later, do you Sue the garage ?
The minute you leave a site anybody could do anything after you, home owner, Bob the builder, et all

It’s not as if anybody cares any way

As long as we make installation’s safer our job is complete

The servicing of a car is not comparable. As I said it is your prerogative I am just giving my viewpoint, we always consider the consequences. Take your case where you noted Class I fittings had been reinstated well we would not be in this situation but with you it has happened and what do you do, you basically ignored it no longer your problem which maybe it isn't. We all have different policies and ethics.

 

[binky]

OP

consult this, especially section 7

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/2146/bpg1.pdf

section 10.4 is very applicable.

At one time, the best practice guide used to state that if the client refused to change metal light switches and lamps then you should at least persuade them to fit an RCD to the lighting cct. I used to have a copy of that somewhere, but that was 3 computers ago!

 

[Murdoch]

section 10.4 is very applicable.

At one time, the best practice guide used to state that if the client refused to change metal light switches and lamps then you should at least persuade them to fit an RCD to the lighting cct. I used to have a copy of that somewhere, but that was 3 computers ago!

This one?

 

[binky]

The servicing of a car is not comparable. As I said it is your prerogative I am just giving my viewpoint, we always consider the consequences. Take your case where you noted Class I fittings had been reinstated well we would not be in this situation but with you it has happened and what do you do, you basically ignored it no longer your problem which maybe it isn't. We all have different policies and ethics.

MOT is more appropiate, the moment you drive away it is more or less invalid. EICRs are a similar snapshot in time, nothing more, so imho as long as you have tested properly and advised the customer accordingly there is little chance of ending up in court. In such circumstances I do test for continuity on the neutral to ensure there's no high resistances on that, something I think we should do anyway, cpc or not.

I totally understand your position, but some customers just don't have the money to rewire circuits. Changing class I accessories to class II at least protects them from potential danger. If the client is then daft enough to replace the metal accessories, that's their problem, as long as you have emails/ invoices showing work was done to change these to Class II, your arse is covered.

 

[binky]

This one?

that's the beastie! It also has my other favourite phrase - 'distress change'.

quick scan read shows what we have discussed is perfectly acceptable practice.

 

[Fleeting]

MOT is more appropiate, the moment you drive away it is more or less invalid. EICRs are a similar snapshot in time, nothing more, so imho as long as you have tested properly and advised the customer accordingly there is little chance of ending up in court. In such circumstances I do test for continuity on the neutral to ensure there's no high resistances on that, something I think we should do anyway, cpc or not.

I totally understand your position, but some customers just don't have the money to rewire circuits. Changing class I accessories to class II at least protects them from potential danger. If the client is then daft enough to replace the metal accessories, that's their problem, as long as you have emails/ invoices showing work was done to change these to Class II, your arse is covered.

I agree but this isn't the issue of an EICR it is about putting in place an ad hoc Class II system in place for protection which isn't acceptable in an unsupervised dwelling. See Regulation 412.1.2.

 

[Mike P]

Surely, the problem will always be that after an inspection, someone can always add fittings. Which is why it has to have a CPC to cover all eventualities.

 

[binky]

I agree but this isn't the issue of an EICR it is about putting in place an ad hoc Class II system in place for protection which isn't acceptable in an unsupervised dwelling. See Regulation 412.1.2.

the best practice guide as posted by Murdoch disagrees.

It's not really an ad hoc Class ii system, but an exercise in remvoing extranous conductive parts from an existing system from which the client could get belted, but was compliant with the regs at time of installation. The work improves the safety of the system for those without funds to rewire. If you were installing a brand new system then you are dead correct 412.1.2 would prohibit doing that.

 

[Fleeting]

the best practice guide as posted by Murdoch disagrees.

It's not really an ad hoc Class ii system, but an exercise in remvoing extranous conductive parts from an existing system from which the client could get belted, but was compliant with the regs at time of installation. The work improves the safety of the system for those without funds to rewire. If you were installing a brand new system then you are dead correct 412.1.2 would prohibit doing that.

Best Practice Guide is not what I work to it is BS7671 but as I say each to their own but I avoid situations where your apparent 'improvements' can easily be reverted hence the wording in 412.1.2 which is applicable to all works not just new systems.
The fact an individual doesn't have the funds is not relevant.

 

[binky]

Best Practice Guide is not what I work to it is BS7671 but as I say each to their own but I avoid situations where your apparent 'improvements' can easily be reverted hence the wording in 412.1.2 which is applicable to all works not just new systems.
The fact an individual doesn't have the funds is not relevant.

all work can easily be buggered by the client the moment you step out of the door.

 

[Murdoch]

Best Practice Guide is not what I work to it is BS7671 but as I say each to their own but I avoid situations where your apparent 'improvements' can easily be reverted hence the wording in 412.1.2 which is applicable to all works not just new systems.
The fact an individual doesn't have the funds is not relevant.

You must operate in an odd part of the UK where all homes have lighting circuits with CPC's

 

[Murdoch]

that's the beastie! It also has my other favourite phrase - 'distress change'.

quick scan read shows what we have discussed is perfectly acceptable practice.

I think we've used old fashioned common sense

 

[Fleeting]

all work can easily be buggered by the client the moment you step out of the door.

Oh I totally agree but a Class II installation should not be left unsupervised.

 

[Fleeting]

You must operate in an odd part of the UK where all homes have lighting circuits with CPC's

We are more commercial and industrial however we have had this crop up.