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 29 subscribers
  • Views 10327 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.
Parents
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:
    Twisting words. Wiring , to a previous ed, (14th) is "not necessarily unsafe" This wiring is not unsafe.

    I don't think it's logical to assume that wiring done to an earlier edition can automatically be considered to be safe. If that were the case we'd have to accept completely unearthed systems, basic insulation only, even exposed live part on the likes on knife switches - on the basis that that's what the 1st Ed allowed back in 1882.


    Certainly a system to earlier standards shouldn't automatically be considered unsafe either - that would be equally illogical.


    Indeed, and that is more or less what is written in the front of BS7671, when people claim the regs are not retrospective. I don’t recall the exact phrase but it is something like “installations carried out to a previous edition are not necessarily unsafe for continued service”. This indicates that they may be safe, or they may not be safe. It is up to the competent person doing the inspection on the day to make the judgement call. 


    it does seem a little over-zealous to award anything higher than a C3, but in the end of the day, rightly or wrongly to make the judgement. You could take the view that if you have been receiving a C3 or it’s predecessor every time for 20 years, then there has been plenty of time to improve things, especially in a commercial environment, although BS7671 does not set a time limit on things. 


    Regards,


    Alan. 


Reply
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:
    Twisting words. Wiring , to a previous ed, (14th) is "not necessarily unsafe" This wiring is not unsafe.

    I don't think it's logical to assume that wiring done to an earlier edition can automatically be considered to be safe. If that were the case we'd have to accept completely unearthed systems, basic insulation only, even exposed live part on the likes on knife switches - on the basis that that's what the 1st Ed allowed back in 1882.


    Certainly a system to earlier standards shouldn't automatically be considered unsafe either - that would be equally illogical.


    Indeed, and that is more or less what is written in the front of BS7671, when people claim the regs are not retrospective. I don’t recall the exact phrase but it is something like “installations carried out to a previous edition are not necessarily unsafe for continued service”. This indicates that they may be safe, or they may not be safe. It is up to the competent person doing the inspection on the day to make the judgement call. 


    it does seem a little over-zealous to award anything higher than a C3, but in the end of the day, rightly or wrongly to make the judgement. You could take the view that if you have been receiving a C3 or it’s predecessor every time for 20 years, then there has been plenty of time to improve things, especially in a commercial environment, although BS7671 does not set a time limit on things. 


    Regards,


    Alan. 


Children
No Data

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