"2 core lighting cable-no cpc

[Albert]

Hi, testing a lighting circuit today I found that the circuit in the CU was created using 2 core cable (red and black but no cpc), being more precise there are two light circuits (u/s and d/s), both missing earth in the cu.
As I don't have enough experience I wondered whether this is a common thing, I am quiet sure that this is not right. It is interesting that the ceiling roses in the pendant lights have earth connected (I would guess that this part of the circuit was done by someone else at a different time).
Any ideas? any suggestions?
Thanks
Albert

 

[breezer]

its old wire, lighting used to have no earth. rewire time

 

[Albert]

its old wire, lighting used to have no earth. rewire time

Thanks,
I thought so, As I am not registered yet (will be when I'll finish part 2 in June), according to part P I can't rectify this, because it requires re-wiring 2 circuits, but I want to do it the right way so I fill in a 'Minor Electrical installation Certificate', for the work I have done, (as I always do), In which part of the certificate I should put this in? Is there another way that I could do the work and still comply with BS 7671?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

EICs, MWCs, PIRs, BS7671 compliance etc etc have absolutely nothing to do with Part P.

If you feel competent to fill forms in then you can do so, irrespective of what the Building Regulations require in terms of being regarded Competent to self-certify compliance with them.

Whether you decide to notify LABC of the work is up to you.

BTW - if you have Part 1, and 2381, and can get 2391, or demonstrate T&I competence, then I'm sure you could get Part P Competent Person status before June, if you wanted to...

 

[Albert]

Firstly, thanks for your reply
I looked very carefully into Part P and read your reply, there are few things that I do not completely agree with you (please don't take it personally, I am not trying to create a conflict but a discussion) either I don't understand your reply or I don't understand Part P (may be both), in any case the following is my reply:
ban-all-sheds

EICs, MWCs, PIRs, BS7671 compliance etc etc have absolutely nothing to do with Part P

As I understand it Part P makes it clear that BS 7671 is part of the building regulation which electricians should comply with the relevant parts of it (other than BS 7671). I think that there is a link between all those names (NICEIC etc.), BS 7671 and Part P; it is clearly links BS 7671 with part P in 'The requirements part and in section 0.

If you feel competent to fill forms in then you can do so, irrespective of what the Building Regulations require in terms of being regarded Competent to self-certify compliance with them.

This is exactly the point being competent is something that you have nothing to feel or decide about, as I see it you have to be qualified otherwise you can't be considered competent. If you look in section 0 paragraph 0.8 a. and b. the idea is that a person who is not properly qualified would not have the necessary knowledge of BS 7671, the understanding of electrical installation, testing /inspection and health and safety etc.

Whether you decide to notify LABC of the work is up to you

The discission whether to notify the authorities is not in your hands, there is a list of jobs that you can do without notifying but you still must be competent, if you are doing DIY work, you should follow the list of work that you allowed to do and than ask a competent person to certify it (no notification or registration required).

BTW - if you have Part 1, and 2381, and can get 2391, or demonstrate T&I competence, then I'm sure you could get Part P Competent Person status before June, if you wanted to...

Thanks for your encouragement; as I am doing part 2 i will be automatically comply with 2381, I intend to do 2391 in any case, just because I think that it is a very important issue.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Firstly, thanks for your reply
I looked very carefully into Part P

First, and most important and fundamental question - is what you have read the Part P Approved Document (which is just guidelines, and has no legal force), or the actual law, i.e. Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210 The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004?

EICs, MWCs, PIRs, BS7671 compliance etc etc have absolutely nothing to do with Part P

As I understand it Part P makes it clear that BS 7671 is part of the building regulation which electricians should comply with the relevant parts of it (other than BS 7671). I think that there is a link between all those names (NICEIC etc.), BS 7671 and Part P; it is clearly links BS 7671 with part P in 'The requirements part and in section 0.

No - the newly amended Building Regulations do not require compliance with BS7671. The only mentions of BS7671 in the Regulations are this paragraph:

"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2."

and a footnote telling you that you can buy a copy of the Wiring Regulations from the IEE.

Even the Approved Document clearly says that compliance is a way of meeting the Building Regs requirements, but that is all.

If you feel competent to fill forms in then you can do so, irrespective of what the Building Regulations require in terms of being regarded Competent to self-certify compliance with them.

This is exactly the point being competent is something that you have nothing to feel or decide about, as I see it you have to be qualified otherwise you can't be considered competent.

You may see it that way, but the law does not. There has never been a legal definition of "competence", and please note that nothing that anyone signs on an EIC or related form states that they are in any way "qualified". Of course, 2360/2361/2381 etc etc are ways of demonstrating competence, but they are not mandated, in exactly the same way that there is no guarantee that someone who is qualified is not incompetent.

If you look in section 0 paragraph 0.8 a. and b. the idea is that a person who is not properly qualified would not have the necessary knowledge of BS 7671, the understanding of electrical installation, testing /inspection and health and safety etc.

That may be their idea, but most people are agreed that it's a pretty discredited one. And as I have pointed out before, and may do so again before I'm finished, you are referring to the Approved Document, not the actual law.

Whether you decide to notify LABC of the work is up to you

The discission whether to notify the authorities is not in your hands,

That's not what I said. I wasn't talking about what you are required to do, I said that whether you decide to do what you are required to do is up to you. The law requires me not to exceed 70mph on motorways, but the decision to comply with that law or not is in my hands.

there is a list of jobs that you can do without notifying but you still must be competent, if you are doing DIY work, you should follow the list of work that you allowed to do and than ask a competent person to certify it (no notification or registration required).

Another no, I'm afraid. If the work is notifiable, and you are not Competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations, then you have to notify the LABC, and it is then their responsibility to determine whether you have complied with the Building Regulations. I keep stressing that the way that I do, because the issue of compliance is not one of compliance with any particular wiring regulations. Also, as many electrically qualified and competent people bitterly point out, Competence to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations has nothing to do with demonstrable competence to perform electrical installation work.
Finally, it seems that many LABCs are attempting to sidestep their responsibilities by saying that if you cannot self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations then you must get your electrical work inspected, tested and certified as being safe, and compliant with BS7671, by someone competent to do so, despite:

1) There is clearly no legal requirement to adhere to BS7671
2) There is no legal definition of "competent" in this sense
3) What they are then effectively saying is that if you cannot self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations they will accept a certificate from someone else who cannot self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.....

It's a farce.

 

[Albert]

Yes I reffered to the "green" copy that I downloaded from the NIC or IEE site (I do not remember), in any case, the fact that there are so many questions related to this Part P issue, just shows how badly is was done and how little thought was put into it.
In any case You reffering to a document that I did not read, and I think I should read it before making any silly comment, and because I need to know about it.
Is the referece you gave me enough to find this document or I need to search for another title?
many thanks for your patience
Albert

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes I reffered to the "green" copy that I downloaded from the NIC or IEE site (I do not remember), in any case, the fact that there are so many questions related to this Part P issue, just shows how badly is was done and how little thought was put into it.

Understatement of the year...

In any case You reffering to a document that I did not read, and I think I should read it before making any silly comment, and because I need to know about it.
Is the referece you gave me enough to find this document or I need to search for another title?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043210.htm

 

[Albert]

Understatement of the year...

Will I get a prize...?

thanks again

 

[eswdd]

according to part P I can't rectify this, because it requires re-wiring 2 circuits

surely you could do each circuit as a seperate job and thus totally sidestep the notification problem. and since the legal speak specifies a rewire of a circuit when the cable is damaged, if you really want to conform you could 'accidentally' drill through the wire when the circuit happened to be switched off

 

[Albert]

Yes I reffered to the "green" copy that I downloaded from the NIC or IEE site (I do not remember), in any case, the fact that there are so many questions related to this Part P issue, just shows how badly is was done and how little thought was put into it.

Understatement of the year...

In any case You reffering to a document that I did not read, and I think I should read it before making any silly comment, and because I need to know about it.
Is the referece you gave me enough to find this document or I need to search for another title?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043210.htm[/QUOTE]
So if this "Green" copy that was published by the 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister', with the title "The building Regulations 2000, Electrical safety, approved document P" is not the one to look at or consult with, so what is this document?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Approved Documents are intended to provide
guidance for some of the more common
building situations. However, there may well be
alternative ways of achieving compliance with
the requirements. Thus there is no obligation
to adopt any particular solution contained in
an Approved Document if you prefer to meet
the relevant requirement in some other way.

 

[Albert]

according to part P I can't rectify this, because it requires re-wiring 2 circuits

surely you could do each circuit as a separate job and thus totally sidestep the notification problem. and since the legal speak specifies a rewire of a circuit when the cable is damaged, if you really want to conform you could 'accidentally' drill through the wire when the circuit happened to be switched off

Thanks for your advice, I can do that but at the moment I would like to understand the new building regulations (particularly part P), other wise I could buy a big hat and ride a horse,... it seems that no one really see the logic of the way it was done (may be those who as a result will get more rich than they are...?)

 

[Albert]

Approved Documents are intended to provide
guidance for some of the more common
building situations. However, there may well be
alternative ways of achieving compliance with
the requirements. Thus there is no obligation
to adopt any particular solution contained in
an Approved Document if you prefer to meet
the relevant requirement in some other way.

hi again
looked at the 3210 document, and called the IEE, C&G and NIC to get some information, as you probably know the approved document of part P does not conflict with the building regulation or even does not change the meaning of the regs. The IEE, C&G and NIC reply was that this copy of the part P is legally bounding and it is exactly as the regs (because it is part of it). I am sure, as you mentioned, that there are many other ways to comply with the requirements.

 

[Damocles]

In the grand scheme of things, sorting a broken ring is a lot more important than missing earth on lighting. Particularly, as you said, if someone has already organised some sort of fix to provide an earth at the lighting points. Presuming it really is connected.