Bathroom Down-lights CODE C2?

[Alan G]

I wonder if you can help I've just had a EICR on a property and I've received a C2 due to the fact the down-lights aren't IP rated. Having sat the BS 7671 some years ago the BS tells me that the zone 2 height is 2.25m. The ceiling in question is 2.3m. Appreciating it's advisable and I'll swap them out but is it the Regs considering it's outside the zone? Have things changed? Thank you in anticipation. Alan

 

[loz2754]

Regardless of zoning, all items of electrical equipment need to be suitable for whatever environmental conditions they are located in.
I would say personally that lights directly above a bath will be exposed to high levels of moisture from steam, likewise with a shower they could be exposed to the water spray bouncing off the top off my bald head. Therefore I would fit IP65 or higher.
Elsewhere in the bathroom may not be as exposed to moisture and a lower IP rating might be acceptable.
Which highlights one of the issues regarding EICRs in general - the person conducting the EICR and putting his name and reputation to it is the ones who makes this kind of judgement. And one electrician will differ from another, and another.........

 

[Alan G]

Regardless of zoning, all items of electrical equipment need to be suitable for whatever environmental conditions they are located in.
I would say personally that lights directly above a bath will be exposed to high levels of moisture from steam, likewise with a shower they could be exposed to the water spray bouncing off the top off my bald head. Therefore I would fit IP65 or higher.
Elsewhere in the bathroom may not be as exposed to moisture and a lower IP rating might be acceptable.
Which highlights one of the issues regarding EICRs in general - the person conducting the EICR and putting his name and reputation to it is the ones who makes this kind of judgement. And one electrician will differ from another, and another.........

Loz, appreciate the reply. So I believe your saying it's not necessary regulatory it's a judgement from those who carried out the EICR which I entirely agree with and will swap them out. I would have thought if it's obviously not regulatory it would have been a C3 as in a recommendation but I guess that's where the judgement comes in of the approved contractor. Thank you.

 

[Spoon]

Welcome to the forum mate.

Depending on where the light is fitted will depend on what IP rating it has to have. This is in the regs.
Below is a screen shot of the zones.


Hope this helps.

 

[loz2754]

Whether it's a C2 or C3 is down to the judgement of the person doing the inspection. If there is obvious deterioration of the downlights, or signs of water ingress, that may well be a C2, even if outside of any zones.

 

[Alan G]

Welcome to the forum mate.

Depending on where the light is fitted will depend on what IP rating it has to have. This is in the regs.
Below is a screen shot of the zones.
View attachment 95315

Hope this helps.

Thanks Spoon looks the same as 2008 standard so nothings changed.

 

[Alan G]

Whether it's a C2 or C3 is down to the judgement of the person doing the inspection. If there is obvious deterioration of the downlights, or signs of water ingress, that may well be a C2, even if outside of any zones.

I didn't appreciate it was that much down to judgement.

There is no deterioration or signs of water damage but I'll take the hit as there is potential for them to be dangerous especially if you have a bald head ; )

Thank you for your help, good to know you can get help when needed.

Best regards Alan

 

[Spoon]

Thanks Spoon looks the same as 2008 standard so nothings changed.

Nope, nothing has changed with regards to zones.
So what IP rating is your light and what zone is it in?

 

[brianmoooore]

The C2 should quote the number of the reg that has been violated. If it's the one referring to zones, then the classification is incorrect; if it's the suitable for environment one, then maybe C2.

 

[littlespark]

C3, improvement strongly recommended.

It’s outside the zones, by all of 5cm, and degradation through insufficient IP rating could be years… depending on ventilation, how often it’s steamy etc

Is it dangerous? No
Is it potentially dangerous? Not for some time, possibly by the next EICR. By which time, any recommended improvements would have been actioned.

 

[Dartlec]

I've always thought the zone height was a daft one - in most houses downlights are usually just outside the zone, and therefore not required to be a particular IP rating.

Would have made more sense to make it to the ceiling, or set a height more than the average house ceiling (2.5m maybe) . It's not like steam stops at 2.25cm!

@brianmoooore is correct in that if they have given it a C2, it should be under "suitability of current-using equipment for particular position with the location (701.55)", rather than "suitability of accessories and controlgear etc. for a particular zone (701.512.3)"

Or it could go under "Suitability of accessories for external influences (512.2)" I guess.

I'd feel C3 would be more appropriate though tbh, unless they are rusty. They are presumably RCD protected anyway, and if you are tall enough to change bulbs while in the shower and do so then not sure an EICR is going to save you!

Was it a NAPIT inspector? Could be the NAPIT guide striking again and someone not using actual judgement. (Don't have a copy to check what they say)

It's a common code I saw with the quicky EICR mongers that popped up to fill the PRS need - They no doubt wanted to sell some shiny new downlights.

Maybe the same ones who will swear blind you can't have a light switch in a bathroom, or that there is a zone around a sink.

 

[DPG]

I've always thought the zone height was a daft one - in most houses downlights are usually just outside the zone, and therefore not required to be a particular IP rating.

Would have made more sense to make it to the ceiling, or set a height more than the average house ceiling (2.5m maybe) . It's not like steam stops at 2.25cm!

@brianmoooore is correct in that if they have given it a C2, it should be under "suitability of current-using equipment for particular position with the location (701.55)", rather than "suitability of accessories and controlgear etc. for a particular zone (701.512.3)"

Or it could go under "Suitability of accessories for external influences (512.2)" I guess.

I'd feel C3 would be more appropriate though tbh, unless they are rusty. They are presumably RCD protected anyway, and if you are tall enough to change bulbs while in the shower and do so then not sure an EICR is going to save you!

Was it a NAPIT inspector? Could be the NAPIT guide striking again and someone not using actual judgement. (Don't have a copy to check what they say)

It's a common code I saw with the quicky EICR mongers that popped up to fill the PRS need - They no doubt wanted to sell some shiny new downlights.

Maybe the same ones who will swear blind you can't have a light switch in a bathroom, or that there is a zone around a sink.

Can you have an 'EICR monger'? I thought you could only mong iron and cheese.

 

[UNG]

This is one of those situations where do you err on the side of caution or not and then we have a whole new debate

 

[Dartlec]

Can you have an 'EICR monger'? I thought you could only mong iron and cheese.

-monger
[ˈmʌŋɡə]

COMBININGFORM

1. denoting a dealer or trader in a specified commodity.
   "fishmonger" ·
   [more]
   • denoting a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, especially one that is undesirable or discreditable.
     "warmonger"
   
   
   
   
   I was relying on the latter definition ​

 

[DPG]

-monger
[ˈmʌŋɡə]

COMBININGFORM

1. denoting a dealer or trader in a specified commodity.
   "fishmonger" ·
   [more]
   • denoting a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, especially one that is undesirable or discreditable.
     "warmonger"
   
   
   
   
   I was relying on the latter definition ​

Fair point. I think from now on we use use the term EICR Monger for anyone producing dodgy ones.

 

[littlespark]

Fair point. I think from now on we use use the term EICR Monger for anyone producing dodgy ones.

They’ve already got a name….
“Drive-by-ers”

 

[Alan G]

I've always thought the zone height was a daft one - in most houses downlights are usually just outside the zone, and therefore not required to be a particular IP rating.

Would have made more sense to make it to the ceiling, or set a height more than the average house ceiling (2.5m maybe) . It's not like steam stops at 2.25cm!

@brianmoooore is correct in that if they have given it a C2, it should be under "suitability of current-using equipment for particular position with the location (701.55)", rather than "suitability of accessories and controlgear etc. for a particular zone (701.512.3)"

Or it could go under "Suitability of accessories for external influences (512.2)" I guess.

I'd feel C3 would be more appropriate though tbh, unless they are rusty. They are presumably RCD protected anyway, and if you are tall enough to change bulbs while in the shower and do so then not sure an EICR is going to save you!

Was it a NAPIT inspector? Could be the NAPIT guide striking again and someone not using actual judgement. (Don't have a copy to check what they say)

It's a common code I saw with the quicky EICR mongers that popped up to fill the PRS need - They no doubt wanted to sell some shiny new downlights.

Maybe the same ones who will swear blind you can't have a light switch in a bathroom, or that there is a zone around a sink.

They are outside the zone but as you and DPG state to stop the ambiguity why didn't they put 2.5 metres as the majority of houses are 2.3m. They put it under 8.6 Suitability of equipment for external influences for installed location in terms of IP rating and 8.7 Suitability of equipment for installation in a particular zone. They aren't rusty & there is no deterioration as they were only fitted (by a bathroom fitter & team) 3 or 4 years ago. They are RCD protected. It wasn't an inspector just an approved contractor. I didn't particularity want some some shiny new down lights to be honest but it looks like I have to as they err'd on the side of caution .. and I know you can have a light switch 60cm from the edge bath or shower but I guess I could still become a monger : )

Thank you again it's obviously a judgement of which I became the victim

Best regards Alan

The C2 should quote the number of the reg that has been violated. If it's the one referring to zones, then the classification is incorrect; if it's the suitable for environment one, then maybe C2.

Hi Brian thanks and hopefully answered above.

Nope, nothing has changed with regards to zones.
So what IP rating is your light and what zone is it in?

Hi Spoon assumingly they are not IPX4 otherwise he wouldn't have regarded it as a C2 and in terms of zoning they aren't in a zone. As said it looks like I'm the victim of erring on the side of caution but hey ...

 

[brianmoooore]

If they mentioned 'zone' and not preceded by 'outside of', then the classification is wrong, and should be challenged. The lights are not in a 'zone'.
They may still classify it as a C2, but not for any reason that makes reference to zones.

 

[Alan G]

If they mentioned 'zone' and not preceded by 'outside of', then the classification is wrong, and should be challenged. The lights are not in a 'zone'.
They may still classify it as a C2, but not for any reason that makes reference to zones.

Hi Brian they C2'd items 8.6 & 8.7 in Part 10 and to give you the exact wording in Part 6 ... '8.6 Down Lights (x2) above bath not of correct IP rating' which is exactly the same as the next item '8.7 Down Lights (x2) above bath not of correct IP rating'. I did try to challenge via email but to no avail hence me coming on the forum for advice. I guess it could come under 8.6 but as said they aren't rusty & there is no deterioration so I guess as Loz states is a judgement call which I will abide as it makes sense I guess. Regards Alan