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.?....................

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.?....................