www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk

End of 411.3.1.1 says

A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.

This was the case since 1966, before 1966 we did not need an earth to the lights, the key word is "suspended" so from the ceiling rose to the bulb holder can be twin core with no earth, but to ceiling rose we need an earth.

But if you use a GU10 in the main they are fixed to the ceiling, may be just two spring clips, but not suspended so need an earth wire?

ericmark wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:44 am End of 411.3.1.1 says

A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.

This was the case since 1966, before 1966 we did not need an earth to the lights, the key word is "suspended" so from the ceiling rose to the bulb holder can be twin core with no earth, but to ceiling rose we need an earth.

But if you use a GU10 in the main they are fixed to the ceiling, may be just two spring clips, but not suspended so need an earth wire?

This is simply one of a large number of badly worded regulations - which is still in the 18th edition.

I, and many others interpret this to mean that T&E must be used to all points on a lighting circuit - except where a class 2 light is - so if you have a daisy chain of class 2 lights, the CPC needs to be continuous to the end of the line . Then the requisite R1 + R2 and Zs tests can be conducted properly.

The problem with lights is if earth is not run to what replaces the ceiling rose, then it will not be taken to next fitting, but at the moment there is a transition from 12 volt MR16 to 230 volt MR16 as the electronic transformers are often too big to allow use of LED lights, having a minimum output which is too high.

So there is a temptation to use the old SELV cables for the LV supply and often there is no earth.

But the size of MR16 is rather small for a good spread of light, and there are some slightly larger flush fittings which give a better spread, smaller versions of the 2D idea, and these are some times metal and so need an earth.

Although this has been a problem for a few years, the EICR being make law with rented properties means the problem is being high lighted.

The last thing any electrician wants is a customer saying that job you did in 2017 has been condemned when I got an EICR done, you need to come and put it right. Clearly the BS7671 is not retrospective so if allowed at the time of fitting not a problem, but earth wires have been required since 1966, so can't use that as an excuse.

ericmark wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:39 amThe last thing any electrician wants is a customer saying that job you did in 2017 has been condemned when I got an EICR done, you need to come and put it right. Clearly the BS7671 is not retrospective so if allowed at the time of fitting not a problem, but earth wires have been required since 1966, so can't use that as an excuse.

This is a very tricky area and you're quite correct that BS 7671 isn't retrospective, so a C3 would be the appropriate course of action BUT if I'm converting light fittings from MR16 to GU10 and they are class 1 fittings then the cabling needs to be changed at the same time

Its a bit like the all lighting to have RCD protection in the 18th ed - and I've come across a fair number of sparks giving C2 codes for these when they should be C3 - the truly awful and misleading Napit Code breakers book has a a lot to do with this

I have never seen the Napit Code breakers book, I have looked at the electrical safety council best practice guild 4 and that does seem to also have some errors, as far as I am concerned if I am doing an EICR then only looking at the installation, too many items plugged in is to my mind done under inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment, however I have noted the new landlord law does not agree with that, and seems to say any non portable equipment should be included with the EICR, although the governments own guild seems to say only hard wired equipment, seems they have a problem with the English language!

But as it stands there is no law or even regulation to say what should have what code, and nothing to stop one giving the old codes 1, 2, 3, and 4, but fact that 4 was dropped and we only have C1, C2, and C3 now, points out the coding has nothing really to do with regulations, we could decide never to issue a code C2, and either say dangerous or recommended, and not use potentially dangerous and we would not be breaking any rules or laws. In fact when I bought my house I had a home buyers report done, and it used no codes, just comments on the electrical system.

However the local authority building control uses an EICR instead of an installation certificate as clearly can't use an installation certificate unless you do the installation, and they instruct the inspector to complete the EICR as if it is an installation certificate, they want any deviation from BS7671 to be noted, and they issue the completion certificate on the strength of what is reported in the EICR, in this case they are the client and so can ask for what they want.

Of course where the owner/landlord is the client they are also free to agree with any EICR inspector as to what they want, which makes it all a little pointless basing a law on the EICR coding.

However if I fit some thing in 2000 i.e. using BS7671:1992 then if it did not comply the owner has every right to call me back to correct it, personally I feel the limit should be next EICR which would have been due 2010, unless some thing unlikely to be found, like not following safe routes. I always did the paperwork, not for client, it was for me, if I have paperwork showing a loop impedance of 0.56 and on return find 0.8 then clearly some thing has been done between the two readings.

But a ceiling rose replaced with a Hager Ashley J501 and then feed into a step down transformer and 12 silly 50 mm 12 volt lights, using twin core, and then the step down transformer is by-passed and the G5.3 fitting replaced with GU10 is an easy conversion, and likely safe if using all class II, however also wiring whole house in twin core also safe if using all class II, so there needs to be a point where it is no longer acceptable to use twin core.

I have seen commercial installations with suspended ceilings using the Klik plug in ceiling rose PRC2000 and flex to the light fitting, and if the light fitting was class II I would see no reason to use three core flex, it was simply plugged in, no difference to plugging in a table lamp. So I would say a GU10 with cable and plug clearly does not need three core, and if I fitted a hand drier which was class II to a FCU again twin core to FCU.

So the question is where do we draw the line? This becomes more important with landlord EICR and likelihood some pedantic inspector will issue a code C2. The same goes for cable used from lamp holder to junction box, in the loft area clearly needs an outer, as accessible without a tool, but between ceiling and floor boards I would have said the outer not required, yet seen video's of EICR where the inspector is removing the MR16 fitting to check for insulation cut back too far and missing hoods, and since most MR16 fittings held in place with spring clips then they do not need a tool to access.

Yes being pedantic, but it seems inspectors doing EICR are being pedantic, so where do you draw the line?