Brown (Live) sleeving on old black cabling.

[frank999]

A domestic lighting loop circuit - with old Red and Black 1.5 T&E cabling, put in in 2003/4.

I know these days Regs require brown sleeving on the blue cable (switched Live) at the switch and in the rose, or wherever neutral colour cables that carry a live terminate - and I am in the process of adding brown sleeving to the 'black' lives as good practice, I've just had an EICR and nothing was said about the brown sleeving not being present.

What is the norm with older installations in this instance, presume you could just leave it, as it was compliant at the time it was installed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Conductors(wires) just have to be "identified" - not necessarily with coloured sleeving.

Not everyone agrees with me, but I think conductors are identified by the terminals to which they are connected.

I wired a four-gang switch with twenty wires. I put a note in the back box stating "All wires are Line(live) conductors".


Either way, it is not the end of the world.

 

[AndyPRK]

you could just leave it.

You could add red sleeve to old colours.

 

[frank999]

Thanks for the replies.

Back when cables were coloured red and black, should the spark then have put sleeving on or have made identifiable the black as being live, ie was that mandatory back then, and if that was the case back then - and its not present today, does that mean there is a requirement to fit it now. Obviously if it wasn't mandatory - then presume it can be left as you say.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for the replies. .... Back when cables were coloured red and black, should the spark then have put sleeving on or have made identifiable the black as being live, ie was that mandatory back then, and if that was the case back then - and its not present today, does that mean there is a requirement to fit it now. Obviously if it wasn't mandatory - then presume it can be left as you say.

Nothing to do with electrical installations in the UK is 'mandatory' in terms of the law, so I presume you are talking about compliance with the Wiring Regulations (BS7671) which, although not mandatory/law,, are the standard whereby EICRs are judged.

The requirement to 'identify' the use of conductors (e.g. by putting red sleeving over a black-insulated conductor) has existed for a very long time. People undertaking EICRs will probably vary in whether they will bother to mention absent sleeving at all but, if they do, I would hope they would not give it anything worse than a "C3" code, which is of little consequence, even in rental properties.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Yes thinking about it, identifying what is live and what is neutral is fundamental, this article goes back to the 1960's:
https://guides4homeowners.co.uk/electrical/the-history-of-electrical-wire-colours-in-the-uk/

'Mandatory' - I'm sure you put me right on this before and a long post evolved quoting US standards - and what can and can't be accepted to make an installation comply, all very illumunating, however incorrect choice of words on my side, I should have said 'compliance'.

Do I understand correctly that Electrical installations should 'comply' with BS7671, which is formulated to meet requirements of say Part P (Dwellings) of the Building Regulations, which itself sits under Legislation - that has legal requirements.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Part P:

That's it; there is NO more.

 

[JohnW2]

Do I understand correctly that Electrical installations should 'comply' with BS7671, which is formulated to meet requirements of say Part P (Dwellings) of the Building Regulations, which itself sits under Legislation - that has legal requirements.

The only legal requirement is compliance with Part P of the Building Regulations - which, as EFLI has illustrated, is just one sentence, essentially just saying that things must be done safely.

Most people use compliance with BS7671 as a means of demonstrating/'proving' that they have complied with (that one sentence of) 'the law', but there's nothing in law to say that one has to do that. If one has some other way of arguing that one has done things safely enough to satisfy Part P then that is equally acceptable - but very very few people would attempt that. Hence, in practice, it usually comes down to compliance with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Thanks for putting me straight on this point, instead of saying 'Obviously if it wasn't mandatory' I could also have said 'Obviously if it didn't need to comply with regulatory requirements of Part P or comply with BS7671' ... etc.

but very very few people would attempt that - I remember a previous thread here on this subject had a poster stating that he had had to certify installations at US airbases, here in the UK - some of the installation had been installed to US standards for various reasons, I think it was suggested it passed the EICR, but can't remember specifically.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for putting me straight on this point, instead of saying 'Obviously if it wasn't mandatory' I could also have said 'Obviously if it didn't need to comply with regulatory requirements of Part P or comply with BS7671' ... etc.

Even that would not really have been quite right. Since Part P first appeared (in 2005) there has been a legal requirement for any/all domestic UK electrical work to comply with Part P - although, as I said, there never has been any compulsion (in law) to comply with BS7671.

... but very very few people would attempt that - ...

I remember a previous thread here on this subject had a poster stating that he had had to certify installations at US airbases, here in the UK - some of the installation had been installed to US standards for various reasons, I think it was suggested it passed the EICR, but can't remember specifically.

That's more complicated. I don't know, but "US airbases" might well qualify as "US soil" and therefore be subject to US laws and Wiring Codes.

EICRs specifically relate to compliance with BS7671, so I would doubt that an installation wired to US standards would necessarily 'pass' an EICR. Indeed, some US electrical practices might well not be considered 'safe enough' by those in the UK to even satisfy the requirements of Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

EICRs specifically relate to compliance with BS7671, so I would doubt that an installation wired to US standards would necessarily 'pass' an EICR. Indeed, some US electrical practices might well not be considered 'safe enough' by those in the UK to even satisfy the requirements of Part P.

Wire nuts?

 

[JohnW2]

Wire nuts?

To name but one thing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

so I would doubt that an installation wired to US standards would necessarily 'pass' an EICR.

Shame I can't find the thread ... it made an interesting point, I must have my memory wires crossed.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

so I would doubt that an installation wired to US standards would necessarily 'pass' an EICR.

Shame I can't find the thread ... it made an interesting point, I must have my memory wires crossed.

No, I would not think so - there are far too many differences, as there are between many countries. I spent a year working in Italy and was appalled by their accepted standards.

 

[JohnW2]

No, I would not think so - there are far too many differences, as there are between many countries. I spent a year working in Italy and was appalled by their accepted standards.

It's not just a matter of the 'quality' of the standards/practices in various countries. We were talking about 'passing an EICR@ and, since an EICR specifically relates to the requirements of BS7671, it seems pretty unlikley that an installation designed under some other country's regs (even if 'reasonable') would fully comply with the requirements of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John