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?
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.
Alcomax:
It would be very unusual that the last Report did not code the absence of CPC.
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?
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.
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, UKPN
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.
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!
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site