Bathroom downlighting

[NMJones]

Morning all,
I’ve a job for quoting to change spots in a bathroom which currently MR16 halogen to LED main

the property is 60/70s so no RCD protection, supplementary bonding or main bonding.

would installing mains spots be okay without the protection in place? no wiring needs to be changed.

3 spots are in zone 1 by the way

Thanks in advance

 

[SparkyChick]

Personally I would be looking at using an RCD fused spur to protect at the very minimum the bathroom. The reason being I would argue that removing the transformers constitutes a fixed wiring change because you're not doing a like for like replacement of just the fittings.

 

[NMJones]

that was my thought as changing from 12v to 230v.

don’t we have the issue now that a RCD fused spur doesn’t conform to the BS numbers for additional protection within the 18th

 

[SparkyChick]

The issue of RCD spurs and sockets not complying has been acknowledged by the IET as being an omission on their part, so yes it would be a deviation from the regulations at this point in time, but since you can test the RCD to confirm it meets the requirements for providing additional protection (1x in 300ms, 5x in 40ms) you can demonstrate that it's as safe as the other standards they specify.

I've done a couple of jobs where I've listed it as a deviation because of the cost involved in adopting another approach. I'm doing a job tomorrow where I'm adding a socket outlet in a domestic property, so that's going to be an RCD socket.

 

[Risteard]

Morning all,
I’ve a job for quoting to change spots in a bathroom which currently MR16 halogen to LED main

the property is 60/70s so no RCD protection, supplementary bonding or main bonding.

would installing mains spots be okay without the protection in place? no wiring needs to be changed.

3 spots are in zone 1 by the way

Thanks in advance

No. Bonding is fundamental to electrical safety and needs to be done as well. Even with a like-for-like replacement I would always advocate adding in RCD protection as required now where feasible.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I would definitely be installing RCD protection. You're changing from ELV to 230V plus it's in a special location. I wouldn't class this as a like for like replacement because of the change from ELV to 230V. In addition you'd have to make sure that the existing cables have an earth if the new lights are class 1.

As for the main bonding I don't think there is any clear answer of when this needs to be in place before 'certain' electrical work can be carried out. In general I would insist on installing it before carrying out pretty much any electrical work, however if it was a particularly small job such as a like for like replacement then I would not insist, i would just recommend. In your example I think I would be insisting.

 

[Wilko]

I would insist on installing it (bonding) before carrying out pretty much any electrical work

Agree @happyhippydad and Mr @Risteard.
Being professionals this is the minimum - to correct a potentially dangerous omission (in this case the bonding) before doing any work.

Unfortunately these older lighting circuits sometimes don’t have a continuous CPC, which is another compulsory fix in my view.

I don’t install anything in bathrooms now without an RCD present, but that’s just me. But I will still use the facilities .

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Agree @happyhippydad and Mr @Risteard.
Being professionals this is the minimum - to correct a potentially dangerous omission (in this case the bonding) before doing any work.

I do wonder how I would feel though if I was strapped for cash and didn't always have a string of jobs lined up. Would I insist on Main bonding if I was struggling to pay the mortgage and work was scarce??! I really don't know. It's easy to have morals when you're not on the bread line.

 

[NMJones]

I may advise for a like for like replacement as the reason for change is seized rims. But, change to LED via the old SELV TXs as I’ve MR16 which work on this system.

Then also recommend on invoice and verbal regarding main bonding and RCD protection upgrade.

thanks all for you input it has helped a lot.

 

[ruston]

Reg 132.16 gives the information for additions to the installation, and 701.415.2 . gives the conditions that have to be met where supplementary protective equipotential bonding can be omitted.
One of the conditions includes the use of an RCD.
[automerge]1578583538[/automerge]

Reg 132.16 gives the information for additions to the installation, and 701.415.2 . gives the conditions that have to be met where supplementary protective equipotential bonding can be omitted.
One of the conditions includes the use of an RCD.

Also see 415.2 for information on additional protection for supplementary protective equipotential supplementary bonding.
Source URL: Bathroom downlighting - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/bathroom-downlighting.182227/#post-1600138

 

[Andyw90]

Personally I would be looking at using an RCD fused spur to protect at the very minimum the bathroom. The reason being I would argue that removing the transformers constitutes a fixed wiring change because you're not doing a like for like replacement of just the fittings.

Hi. I work in newbuild housing and relatively new to the industry. Can you please advise where would you fit the rcd fused spur ? Would this be fitted in the attic space in place of the transformer? Sorry if I’m miles out here.

 

[Ian1981]

Hi. I work in newbuild housing and relatively new to the industry. Can you please advise where would you fit the rcd fused spur ? Would this be fitted in the attic space in place of the transformer? Sorry if I’m miles out here.

The rcd spur if fitted , should really be accessible for testing the push button at least for the owner of the installation and an rcd label placed at its position in the installation