Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 97 replies
  • Subscribers 26 subscribers
  • Views 6805 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

New EICR "unsatisfactory" - complete rewire required?!?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
The lighting circuit has no CPC (earth), this is not uncommon in older houses. For that reason all light fittings are Class 2 i.e. plastic with no metal, and there is a clause in the tenancy agreement which forbids tampering with the light fittings (this is a house we own and rent out).


Previous EICRs did not even mention the lighting circuit because of the Class 2 fittings. I have just got a new EICR with an observation "lighting circuits have little or no earth" and classification code C1 ("Danger present, risk of injury, immediate remedial action required"). The overall assessment says "Unsatisfactory" with the comment "Needs updating to current regs". This can only be fixed by a complete rewire of the whole lighting circuit.


This is pointless, there are no earth connections in the plastic fittings.


Any thoughts? Many thanks.
  • 0
    Another few question for JPCoetzee:


    To Quote [in respect of the last EICR]

    "it passed five years ago and nothing has changed". 

    It would be very unusual that the last Report did not code the absence of CPC. On face value this could be C3. If there was no mention of no CPC in that report it does call into question the veracity of it.

    You also say that sometime in the last 15 years " the fittings were changed to class II ".


    So 
    1. Are all the light fittings all insulated?

    • Are all the light switches all insulated?

    • Importantly to above, are there insulated back boxes, surface plastic boxes or insulated lugs on recessed metal back boxes or maybe nylon fixing screws as a last resort?

    • Is there a clear durable label on the Con Unit stating the light circuit has no earth provision and so no accessories should be changed for class 1 types?


    If the answer to all of the above was yes and the last EICR recorded recorded all of the above, in addition to there being 30mA RCD protection, it cannot be anything other than recommend improve, it cannot be potentially dangerous as far to many things have to go wrong before that happens. Further, if the occupant of the house was a tenant since the last report [ 5 years ago?] and nothing has changed; the lighting being exactly as described in that report, that in itself demonstrates risk is minimal.


    Rental does sway the balance of risk, I can understand the sentiment of JP wanting this to be C2, but I cannot see how that can be justified. This re-inforced/ double insulation bit can be a bit of a distraction. The accessories are all insulated, it just happens that the fixed wiring has no cpc. But it is what it is and, if it remains as such for a period and no one has mucked about with it, it remains adequate, surely. For it to be claimed that this lighting circuit is a whole wiring system requiring supervision and control due to claim that protection is by re-inforced/ double insulation it would really need to involve equipment rather than just accessories, though I would concede that a flush metal box with insulating lugs could be viewed as such.


    If we are going to worry about supervision and control then we would also need to pay some attention to the new breed of Consumer Unit on TT , with no RCD upstream of it.?....................


  • 0
    JPCoetzee:
    Sparkingchip:

    Has any upgrading work been carried out at all? Are the lighting circuits protected by 30 mA RCD?


    Andy B.




    On other circuits, yes, about 15 years ago but not on this lighting circuit except for changing the fittings to Class 2. Yes the lighting circuit is protected by 30mA RCD.






    I cannot understand that answer, is the circuit protected by a 30 mA RCD or not?


  • 0
    Owain:
    JPCoetzee:

    Re-wiring would be very disruptive and very dusty because wires are buried in the wall and not conduited.


    Then the new stuff goes in plastic minitrunking on the surface (with sufficient fire-resisting retaining clips).

    Or if the ceiling voids are reasonably accessible*, and the only chasing required is switch drops, leave spare cable in the void and use a ceiling-mounted pull switch, or one of the wireless switch systems. *If bedroom carpets have to be lifted, put the tenant in a hotel for a night and tell the sparkies to work a night shift, including moving stuff.




    Put the tenants in the hotel and let the electrician work sensible days, bearing in mind that there are gangs of electricians who will rewire the entire house in a day.


  • 0
    Its a C3 (at most) everyone knows that. It is neither dangerous or potentially dangerous. There is no risk and nor likely to be. Its only a C3 as a kind gesture, but something like this cant be improved. 1966? For those who dont get out much, there are older homes.


    All will be revealed in the forthcoming "Webinar" on earthing. Lets just hope for the hosts sake no one asks embarrassing questions such as why do TT steel fuseboxes now not need earth protection? 


    Regards,  UKPNZap

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Alcomax:

    It would be very unusual that the last Report did not code the absence of CPC. 



    The last report DID note the lack of CPC which is why all fittings were changed to Class 2. But it passed the installation as satisfactory.

     
    1. Are all the light fittings all insulated?

    2. Are all the light switches all insulated?

    3. Importantly to above, are there insulated back boxes, surface plastic boxes or insulated lugs on recessed metal back boxes or maybe nylon fixing screws as a last resort?

    4. Is there a clear durable label on the Con Unit stating the light circuit has no earth provision and so no accessories should be changed for class 1 types?



    1. Yes.

    2. They are plastic light switches.

    3. The back boxes are metal. I'm not sure about the screws, I think they are all nylon.

    4. Yes.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Sparkingchip:
    JPCoetzee:
    Sparkingchip:

    Has any upgrading work been carried out at all? Are the lighting circuits protected by 30 mA RCD?


    Andy B.




    On other circuits, yes, about 15 years ago but not on this lighting circuit except for changing the fittings to Class 2. Yes the lighting circuit is protected by 30mA RCD.






    I cannot understand that answer, is the circuit protected by a 30 mA RCD or not?






    Yes.


  • 0
    UKPN:

    ... 1966? For those who dont get out much, there are older homes.

    ........

     Lets just hope for the hosts sake no one asks embarrassing questions such as why do TT steel fuseboxes now not need earth protection? 


    Regards,  UKPNZap

     


    Well yes, there are far older homes but most that had electricity before that, being rubber insulated, round (and maybe 2 pin) sockets etc, will by now have had to be rewired.   A few will have had a mains electricity supply added for the first time.

    The fact the DNOs think nothing of using pre-war cables does not translate to the same for indoor wiring - as I'm sure you know really , PILC and VIR decay at very different rates.


    I'm right behind you on the metal consumer units and fuse boxes  on TT supplies however, but sadly it seems the regs and the committee that write them are not,.


    Sadly the landlord legislation means that you have to meet the electrical requirements of the current regs, not  the sensible note at the front that says previous versions were not that bad.

    regards

    Mike.


  • 0
    So the requirement to have 30 mA RCD protection on a domestic lighting circuit is fulfilled.


    The requirement to have 30 mA RCD protection for cables concealed in walls is fulfilled.


    So I would go for a code 3 for the lack of a CPC with all insulated or double insulated fittings, but you need to consider what John said very carefully as tenants do stupid things.
  • 0
    There is a problem here. If the tenant does not want any work carried out (QUITE REASONABLY) then the landlord or contractor has no right to do so. Entry to the tenants home is restricted to a very limited range of actions, and moving the contents about is not one of them, or causing disruption to the tenants' legitimate activities (such as working from home) either. The decorations and room finish form part of the rental contract, so trunking may not be fitted without permission of the tenant, who objects. The law is badly drafted and does not explain how this requirement can be met with sitting tenants. The options offered above would be fantastically expensive (thousands of pounds) so are not practical. No court would convict this Landlord John, and a council would not issue an enforcement notice because they would have to deal with the tenant and their property, and they plead poverty. The LAW is simply BAD. The earth wire provides no additional safety in this installation, so its lack cannot be considered potentially dangerous. It must get a C3, at least until the tenant changes.
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    There is a problem here. If the tenant does not want any work carried out (QUITE REASONABLY) then the landlord or contractor has no right to do so. Entry to the tenants home is restricted to a very limited range of actions, and moving the contents about is not one of them, or causing disruption to the tenants' legitimate activities (such as working from home) either. The decorations and room finish form part of the rental contract, so trunking may not be fitted without permission of the tenant, who objects. The law is badly drafted and does not explain how this requirement can be met with sitting tenants. The options offered above would be fantastically expensive (thousands of pounds) so are not practical. No court would convict this Landlord John, and a council would not issue an enforcement notice because they would have to deal with the tenant and their property, and they plead poverty. The LAW is simply BAD. The earth wire provides no additional safety in this installation, so its lack cannot be considered potentially dangerous. It must get a C3, at least until the tenant changes.


    The legal instrument is badly written.  The IET did not seem to be able to stop that, even though it seems they were part of the consultation.  If the tenant prevents the landlord from observing a legal duty, it's probably not in our gift to judge whether the landlord will be convicted in the end (or rather, first be served enforcement, appeal, be fined...)  I rather hope that a case like this gets to court as it should provide a proper legal precedent regards how the instrument is interpreted.  Someone will suffer for another parties poor choice of datum!


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines