The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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 31 subscribers
  • Views 14562 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
    I am surprised this topic is still grinding on. 307 views, 50 posts and still no conclusion. What was it again? 1970s/14thed lighting circuit. installed correctly to those regs. Safe for continued use. Even if the fitting was metal it was still in regs in those days. What was the report? C2, danger to life, immediate attention reqd. What exactly is the danger? Needs upgrading to 18th? The tester will have a field day when the 19thed comes out, Every installation wired up to the day before he will brand a C2, or worse. 


    The most popular scam at the moment is that old chestnut, fuseboard changes. C2, got to be metal, we are hearing reports of £1000+ to change. Not bad work if you can get it, £50 quid for the fuseboard, 3/4 hours labour, £200/£300 an hour. 


    Qualifications? who knows, do the landlords ask? 


    My understanding is a "dangerous" report has to be rectified and confirmation to the council within 28 days. How can you rectify something thats ok?


    I better check my "Flymo" lawnmower lead in the morning.


    Mind how you go, regards UKPN















  • 0
    UKPN.

    just because something complied with a previous version of the regs does not, in itself, mean that is should be considered safe today.

    it is considered safe or unsafe purely on its merits when considerd alongside our regs current today


    in this instance of no cpc if no metal parts including backboxes can be touched then it is not unsafe and if some renders it unsafe by changing it then it outside our remit.


    a C3 yes but not a C2 or C1. Although Sparkingchip's coment holds good. Rewire it please
  • 0
    Twisting words. 

     Wiring , to a previous ed, (14th) is "not necessarily unsafe" This wiring is not unsafe. 

    It is unreasonable to rewire this lighting circuit. 

    There are millions of buildings wired to previous eds, far outweighing any wired to the 18thed. more probably to the 14thed than any other. There are many with a water main/rod earth with an excellent ELI. They are safe for continued use. You can of course recite parrot fashion "rewire" but it unreasonable to expect consumers to "upgrade" their wiring every time a picture guide book "requires" it. I certainly wouldnt, and I would like an answer, instead of this repetitive waffle, how is this topics wiring DANGEROUS?

    Regards, UKPN
  • 0
    One of the things that has to be recorded on an EICR is the estimated age of the installation.


    I was thinking around fifty five years for this installation, however without a CPC and wooden back boxes I would go for a minimum of sixty years, it almost certainly was installed around 1960, possibly during the late 1950’s.


    So how should the wooden back boxes behind the light switches be coded?

    Depending on the wall construction Code 2 may definitely be appropriate.
  • 0
    Getting it in perspective, we all frequently "handle" insulated tools and appliances, would we advocate otherwise ? .

    If however, the argument is for danger present, because a noninformed person could fit a metal light fitting, then I agree with a recommendation of code 3 but that's only in the case for installations that have had an inspection report; the occupier or owner, is probably then made aware of the danger present. The other installations remaining uninspected are the danger since it is still lurking unawares. Also a notice should be firmly fixed at the consumer unit or fuseboard warning of the danger present if metallic fittings are installed.


    Jaymack
  • 0
     
    Chris Pearson:

    So the least bad solution might be to rewire the circuit.


    The tenant does NOT want that. I have talked to her and she is happy that the electrics are safe (it passed EICR five years ago and nothing has changed). She works from home and has children. Re-wiring would be very disruptive and very dusty because wires are buried in the wall and not conduited. The house is full of furniture which would have to be removed. It would be a nightmare for her.


    If the house was between tenants and empty I might agree.


    My only concern is the lighting cables them selves are not protected but as long as the circuit is protected by RCD or RCBO this would then be a C3 and possibly deal with the C1

     




     


  • 0
    I think there was a general consensus that the circuit should have been coded C3 (at least before the complicating factor of wooden back boxes was mentioned). The debate has been instead been around what, legally, the landlord should do once given an erroneous C1. This is not something that has an obvious answer, given that it is new untested law, and law that has been badly drafted and insists on rented dwelling being 18th Ed compliant. And that we're not lawyers.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Sparkingchip:

    One of the things that has to be recorded on an EICR is the estimated age of the installation.

    It says "20+" years but I think that is way off. I would say more likely 70s.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    UKPN:

    I am surprised this topic is still grinding on.


    As the OP (and my first post!) I'm finding it fascinating. Opinion is really polarised. I suspect that if I steer a path down the middle I'll be doing the right thing.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Chris Pearson:
    JPCoetzee:

    Some of them have roughly-tacked together wooden back boxes and these should be metal (!).


    No!


    If you put in metal back boxes, you potentially have exposed conductive parts because of the screws unless the switches are of a type which conceal them.


    The wooden back boxes may be as rough as a badger's ars*, but so long as they are reasonably sound, they are unlikely to present a danger. If some of them are roughly tacked together, are others beautifully joined, or what? ?




    Heh, no. Some of them already have metal back boxes. I guess the recommendation for a metal back box rather than wooden is to make the whole assembly more structurally sound.


    I may put a shallow plastic surface box instead, if that can work. I will be using nylon screws everywhere.


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