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 10287 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
    If your tenant is willing, I'd get them to sign a declaration along the lines of:

     
    It has been explained to me that: while some of the lighting circuits are missing a "circuit protective conductor", the lighting is still electrically safe as long as only "class II" (typically non-metallic) light fittings and switches are installed. I understand that this is currently the case. I undertake not to repair or replace any of the light fittings in the premises without advance approval by the landlord. In return, I am happy to avoid during the current tenancy, the considerable disruption that would be entailed by replacing all the existing lighting cables - which are typically embedded in walls and under floorboards etc.

  • 0
    "The circuit is non compliant" It is compliant, with the 14th Ed. And regulations are not retrospective. What part of "not retrospective" don't you understand.
  • 0
    UKPN:

    "The circuit is non compliant" It is compliant, with the 14th Ed. And regulations are not retrospective. What part of "not retrospective" don't you understand. 




    What has that got to do with it?


  • 0
    UKPN:

    "The circuit is non compliant" It is compliant, with the 14th Ed. And regulations are not retrospective. What part of "not retrospective" don't you understand. 


    The new law requires that all rented property must be inspected against BS7671:2018 - the 18th edition.  Whether or not it complied with the 14th edition is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not it considered safe for continued use, when measured against the standards of the 18th edition.


  • 0
    As I said above, it is bad law. I am sure the government consulted someone as to the content, but that body did not properly analyse the difficulties of the current wording. As far as I know the IET was not consulted, although one might expect that they should have been. The sitting tenant thing will continue to happen, as various editions of BS7671 pass, and this probably needs specific wording in BS7671 to deal with the retrospective nature of such changes,, in a more robust way than the present words.
  • 0
    Working Group Report.pdf


    Have a look at Annex B, third row up on the first table.
  • 0
    Sadly the ship has sailed - we have no idea who the IET sent along, or what they said,  but that chances of it being someone who actually sticks their fingers into a consumer unit on a regular basis is unlikely, and as we are finding in many areas of life, policy drafted by folk too well insulated from the real world is often unhelpful.


    It is in the same category as glossy risk assessments drawn up by  3rd parties,  to satisfy some higher management, that are neither read nor followed by the folk doing the job.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I've spoken to the electrician. He interprets the regulations strictly (IMHO too strictly) and he thinks the whole lighting circuit should be rewired. Until an opportunity arises to do that (between tenancies) I should upgrade some of the light switches beyond the changes I made years ago. Some of them have roughly-tacked together wooden back boxes and these should be metal (!).


    I still don't believe the lack of CPC is C1 i.e "Danger Present" so I'm not totally happy with all this, but I have respect for his advice. I was surprised to hear that I don't need a new EICR despite the "Unsatisfactory" conclusion, I just have to keep a record of the work done. If I do that we will both have covered ourselves.
  • 0
    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? ?


  • 0
    Really? You  should be ashamed of yourself trying to prolong the working life of these electrical circuits in a tenanted home.

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