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 10321 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
    Given that the majority of tenanted homes are painted white and magnolia; and we are probably only talking about thirty quids worth of cable plus some fittings to replace around ten light switches, it’s hardly the biggest of issues rewiring the lighting circuit.


    A couple of electricians for a day or a couple of days for an electrician and it will all be sorted apart from someone possibly having to touch the paintwork up.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    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.


    As others have said, what needs to be done is compare that actual level of safety the installation provides with the level set by current standards - non-conformities with current standards that are inconsequential as far as the safety of the users of the installation are concerned (e.g. red/black instead of brown/blue) don't get a mention, small deviations (such as lack of additional protection where ADS is adequate) attract a C3 code (and the installation could still be considered satisfactory), more serious inadequacies such as lack of ADS (without any alternative such as supp bonding/controlled R2) for exposed-conductive-parts attract a C2 (and thus an unsatisfactory), only things that are immediately dangerous (such as bare line conductors) should be given a C1.


    Personally I wouldn't consider the reliance on double/reinforced insulation on a domestic lighting circuit a major deviation from the current BS 7671 - the requirement for effective supervision etc. (412.1.2) only applies where the entire circuit (or installation) uses that approach - so a circuit with a c.p.c. to the 1st point and then continued unearthed from there for the rest of the house wouldn't be subject to that requirement. (Perhaps that's not what the author of those words intended, but going by what's actually written). The difference between a circuit that's all double/reinforced insulation and one that's 99% double/reinforced and 1% ADS is minor in my mind. Likewise the lack of a c.p.c. on a circuit that has no exposed-conductive-parts, while clearly a non-conformity, doesn't to my mind affect the safety of the installation as it stands, especially if reasonable steps have been taken to avoid the replacement of equipment by users of the installation.


       - Andy.
  • 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. 


  • 0
    The waffle continues, Where the topic writer has slipped up is he has trusted the agent to engage this amateur. Requirements as I see it are 5 years experience of testing, a Qualification of 2391 level and more. It should have been checked. The guy could have been one of these jack of all trades types who has latched on to this rip off of landlords. I cant see an experienced sparks doing this, sooner or later it would catch up with him. 

    As a previous poster has mentioned, report him, not to his trade body, because they all P in the same pot. No, go to the council/trading standards, and ask why, after repeated requests to explain how this is a "danger to life" which requires immediate remedy, the guy wont answer. Because he cant answer, it isnt dangerous. It wasnt dangerous in 1970, the cable hasnt deteriorated, all ins fitting, RCD. nothing has changed. 


    Regards, UKPN
  • 0
    Alan Capon:

    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.


    Or you could interpret it as a kindly slap on the wrist and see no reason to do anything.


    In this case, I feel sure that the OP has got the message. ?


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Sparkingchip:

    Given that the majority of tenanted homes are painted white and magnolia; and we are probably only talking about thirty quids worth of cable plus some fittings to replace around ten light switches, it’s hardly the biggest of issues rewiring the lighting circuit.


    A couple of electricians for a day or a couple of days for an electrician and it will all be sorted apart from someone possibly having to touch the paintwork up.


    Andy Betteridge 


     




    It's a bit more than that - furniture removed and carpets taken up (three bedrooms), walls chased out (dust!) and plaster patched up throughout. Family put into temporary accommodation etc etc.


    I think I'm doing the right thing by further improving what is there and planning to rewire at the next change of tenancy.

     


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    UKPN:

    trusted the agent to engage this amateur.




    I've not mentioned an agent, there is no agent.

     



    UKPN:


    No, go to the council/trading standards, and ask why, after repeated requests to explain how this is a "danger to life" which requires immediate remedy, the guy wont answer. Because he cant answer, it isnt dangerous. It wasnt dangerous in 1970, the cable hasnt deteriorated, all ins fitting, RCD. nothing has changed.




    Steady on! The electrician replied, see https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/1037/26815#p147002 (post near bottom of p2).  While we disagree on the C1, I'm taking his advice and making improvements.


    Thanks to all for the continued posts, it is very enlightening.


  • 0
    So you didnt check this amateur electrician out before you employed him? If you did, please let us know the result, we are interested. Perhaps he is one of these home maintenance guys, roofing, tiling, decorating, plumbing, and has seen an opening for easy money doing rental reports while he is waiting for his next lawn cutting job.


    Regards, UKPNZap
  • 0
    You might actually surprise yourself if you sit and sketch the layout on a piece of paper, you may find you only need to lift a couple of floor boards front to back of the house to rewire most of the lighting circuit downstairs and upstairs generally has a loft above it.


    Light switches are generally either side of the hallway wall running through the centre of the house on the ground floor circuit and floors generally have voids.
  • 0
    JPCoetzee:

    It's a bit more than that - furniture removed and carpets taken up (three bedrooms), walls chased out (dust!) and plaster patched up throughout. Family put into temporary accommodation etc etc.


    It is certainly possible to rewire an occupied house, but it isn't half a bother. Floorboards up on one side of the bed, move bed, floorboards up on the other side, etc. It helps considerably if the switch drops are under capping or mini conduit, which you will only know when you start poking around. New chases can be made without spreading too much dust around.


    I know that it can be done 'cos I have done it for my daughter, but unless the occupant is very cooperative, it doesn't really seem to be a commercially viable proposition. Only for love, not money! ?


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