Legailty of an aparently recent partial re-wire

[Googleberry]

Hi there, I'd be grateful for a bit of advice on the legality of some wiring in my house, which we bought in August 2007. The house was built in 1969 and has a nicely wired and newish looking Proteus MCB consumer unit in the kitchen (no RCDs though).

The basic survey that we had done mentioned nothing untoward with the wiring, stating only that it was PVC and appeared to be in good condition. It recommended an electrical survey as a matter of principle, rather than for any particular reason.

Surprisingly, when I looked at the wiring more closely, I found that there was no earth on the downstairs lighting circuit, which appears to have been wired with red/black single-core double-insulated PVC cable.

Upstairs, we appear to have twin and earth in new colours on the lighting circuit, using a loop-in scheme. All the wall switches and ceiling roses are new upstairs, and it looks as if that circuit has been completely re-wired, right back to the consumer unit, and very neatly too!

There was no electrical certificate available when we brought the house, and no test stickers to be seen. Nor was there a sticker warning of mixed wiring on the consumer unit which, I understand, there should have been. So, did the previous owner do a naughty in re-wiring the upstairs lighting circuit, or is it possible that this was done before Part P came into force?

Obviously, I intend to have the ground floor lighting circuit re-wired, and the consumer unit replaced with one that has RCDs. If I get an electrician in to do this, will he think that I re-wired the upstairs and have me hauled before the courts?

I’d be grateful for your thoughts and advice!

 

[Spark123]

The new colours were available before part p came into force, I very much doubt that an electrician would be that interested in it tbh - they should be more interested in ensuring it is safe.

 

[Googleberry]

The new colours were available before part p came into force, I very much doubt that an electrician would be that interested in it tbh - they should be more interested in ensuring it is safe.

The wiring certainly looks good, but I have no evidence of it having been tested.

One thing I didn't mention was that we had no earth bonding to the pipework either, which became apparent when we had a new boiler installed. That was easily rectified, so it seems surprising that someone should go to the trouble of re-wiring one of the lighting circuits without sorting that out! I guess the lighting cables could have been damaged due to stuff being stored up in the loft though.

 

[Spark123]

I take it you mean the protective equipotential bonding to where the water / gas / etc enter the premises? It doesn't suprise me that a lot of people are unaware of the requirements for these tbh.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I get an electrician in to do this, will he think that I re-wired the upstairs and have me hauled before the courts?

She won't be interested, even if she knew you'd done it. If she's any good then she'll check the circuit out anyway, along with all the others for potential problems before starting the CU replacement, and as long as all is well she'll proceed. You should ask her what her quote covers in the event of problems with your existing installation.

TBH, then no matter what illegal wiring someone had done in their house, unless they'd killed someone, or burned down a bunch of houses, nobody is going to be interested. I've not heard of anybody, be they a DIYer or cowboy electrician, being prosecuted only for failing to notify.

it seems surprising that someone should go to the trouble of re-wiring one of the lighting circuits without sorting that out!

Rewiring a lighting circuit isn't rocket science. Any competent DIYer who knows how a loop-in circuit is wired, realises that maintaining earth continuity is important, knows which colour is which and is averagely dexterous can do a safe, functioning and neat job. Even if they didn't know how it all worked they could assiduously copy what was there and end up with what you have inherited.

But if they simply didn't know about the requirements for equipotential bonding then they would not have done that. Or maybe they knew, but didn't see the importance and it was next on the list, but never got done?

 

[Stoday]

Bonding (except for PME installations) was not a requirement in 1969.

The regulations are not retrospective, so you should not expect a new lighting circuit to carry a need to update the bonding.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.
.
130-07
.
.
.

 

[MarkBarl]

If you intend to get the downstairs rewired, get the electrician to do a PIR which will involve testing all the circuits and should then make sure that all work carried out is at least safe.

 

[Googleberry]

I take it you mean the protective equipotential bonding to where the water / gas / etc. enter the premises? It doesn't suprise me that a lot of people are unaware of the requirements for these tbh.

Yes. The plumber went under the floor to find a place to cross-bond to and found that none of the pipes were bonded. He offered to sort it out, but I was happy to do that.

It's interesting that the electric shower in the bathroom was wired properly (for the time, so no RCD), with a 40A MCB, and a continuous length of 6mm T&E to a 45A pull cord switch. The earth is unbroken to the shower, i.e. just L & N cut for the switch, so the installer was obviously aware of the need to preserve integrity of the earth connection, but never checked the equipotential bonding!

 

[Googleberry]

If I get an electrician in to do this, will he think that I re-wired the upstairs and have me hauled before the courts?

She won't be interested, even if she knew you'd done it. If she's any good then she'll check the circuit out anyway, along with all the others for potential problems before starting the CU replacement, and as long as all is well she'll proceed. You should ask her what her quote covers in the event of problems with your existing installation.

TBH, then no matter what illegal wiring someone had done in their house, unless they'd killed someone, or burned down a bunch of houses, nobody is going to be interested. I've not heard of anybody, be they a DIYer or cowboy electrician, being prosecuted only for failing to notify.

it seems surprising that someone should go to the trouble of re-wiring one of the lighting circuits without sorting that out!

Rewiring a lighting circuit isn't rocket science. Any competent DIYer who knows how a loop-in circuit is wired, realises that maintaining earth continuity is important, knows which colour is which and is averagely dexterous can do a safe, functioning and neat job. Even if they didn't know how it all worked they could assiduously copy what was there and end up with what you have inherited.

But if they simply didn't know about the requirements for equipotential bonding then they would not have done that. Or maybe they knew, but didn't see the importance and it was next on the list, but never got done?

I suspect that it may well have been "next on the list" at some point, but he'd split with the missus and been renting the place out to various tenants for a year or two prior to selling, and appears not to have had any of the requisite checks done that Landlords are supposed to. The old gas boiler was in a sorry state; I doubt whether it would have passed either!

 

[JACKC]

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:57 am Post Subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
BAS wrote
130-07
as always when the regs are quoted I look and try and learn, couldn't find this 1 so had a look and think 131.8 is the relevant reg.

 

[RF Lighting]

130-09

The dash rather than a point indicates it's a 16th edition regulation BAS is quoting, to make a point.

 

[JACKC]

Thanks for that, made the mistake of bining mine when buying the 17th.

 

[Stoday]

16th or 17th is irrelevant. This is a DIY forum and BAS should know that few readers would have a copy of BS7671. He should have quoted the words as well as the ref numbers.

Very sloppy and not up the the usual BAS standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hmmm - possibly, but it was more just a reply to you than "DIY advice"...