C2 or C3

[Davisonp]

I would value your opinions on this.

I did an EICR and found two lights in a bedroom that are florescent lights so class 1 but the lighting circuit is old and does not have an earth. However, the lights are in vanity units, so you cannot touch the units without dismantling the vanity units. As they cannot be touched, can the C2 for using an earthed fitting on non earthed lighting circuit be downgraded to C3?

 

[HandySparks]

Hmm. Is there any risk to someone changing a tube in the event of a fault?

 

[westward10]

C2 for me because to say they cannot be touched isn't good enough, you did

 

[The Ghost]

Are they on a lighting circuit or plugged in behind or at the side of it?

 

[Davisonp]

Are they on a lighting circuit or plugged in behind or at the side of it?

Wired direct into the lighting circuit.

 

[Davisonp]

The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be changed to class 2 fittings if the client wants a satisfactory result.

 

[Octopus]

What does the best practice guide suggest?

 

[Davisonp]

What does the best practice guide suggest?

Nothing for this scenario.

 

[telectrix]

C2 in my book. CYA.

 

[Ib≤In≤Iz]

I would say a C2, the same as any other class 1 fitting without a cpc.

 

[Andy78]

Nothing for this scenario.

Yes it does. Lack of cpc to a class 1 fitting is a specific example of a C2

 

[Davisonp]

Yes it does. Lack of cpc to a class 1 fitting is a specific example of a C2

The question was if the fitting is inaccessible, can the code change to C3.

And the answer is defiantly “No”

 

[Andy78]

The question was if the fitting is inaccessible, can the code change to C3.

But it's not inaccessible is it ?
As Handysparks and Westward pointed out, it must be accessible enough to change lamps, and for you to determine that it is class 1 with no cpc.

 

[westward10]

It isn't inaccessible, you got to it. I think Class 1, no cpc, minimum Code 2.

 

[The Ghost]

Maybe it's not accessible without a tool?

 

[westward10]

But it's not inaccessible is it ?
As Handysparks and Westward pointed out, it must be accessible enough to change lamps, and for you to determine that it is class 1 with no cpc.

Beat me to it.

 

[Davisonp]

Settled, it is a C2

 

[bigspark17]

C2 for me,, if it has an earth terminal it must be earthed

 

[7029 dave]

Class 2 fitting, or as it stands code 2.

 

[Toneyz]

The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be changed to class 2 fittings if the client wants a satisfactory result.

I hope this does not mean you are being told what the outcome is to be ! Is there any other class 1 on the circuit ?.if the rest of the installation is in a good state that would outcome a satisfactory result recommend to the client they are disconnected until earthed

 

[Pete999]

Wired direct into the lighting circuit.

Is the rest of the lighting circuit earthed? in other words has some Dilbert just run a 2 core cable to the units off of the existing circuit ?

 

[Davisonp]

Is the rest of the lighting circuit earthed? in other words has some Dilbert just run a 2 core cable to the units off of the existing circuit ?

No, the entire upstairs is unearthed, however, there was a test in 1998 and the tester recorded a Zs for the upstairs lighting, so three possibilities.
1) The circuit has lost it’s earth.
2) The result recorded was a mistake.
3) There are 3 cables in the MCB and the old Zs recorded is surprisingly low for the length of the cable I was trying to measure, so the Zs test results may be at a point on one of the other cables that is earthed.

NOTE: The florescent fittings are the only class 1 fitting on the upstairs, no metal switches or lights.
It is twin and earth to the pendants I can get into and into the florescent fittings but floating earth at the pendants and florescent fittings.
I will be doing some investigation to see if the three cables are Twin and earth from the consumer unit and if it is, finding the break in the cable somewhere.
I will also have to break into one of the 1960’s pendants in the old part of the building to replace it, and then I will be able to confirm if the cable used originally is T&E or just 2 core.

 

[westward10]

So you are saying there is a cpc present but it has no continuity, or there is no cpc present.

 

[Wilko]

deleted

 

[Pete999]

So you are saying there is a cpc present but it has no continuity, or there is no cpc present.

Was going to ask the same thing but you beat me to it

 

[Davisonp]

So you are saying there is a cpc present but it has no continuity, or there is no cpc present.

Yes, I was not thinking straight. There is a CPC in the upstairs 1980’s extension but no earth continuity. I had assumed that as there were no class 1 fittings upstairs (Until I discovered the Florescent fittings) that the 80’s extension wiring had extended the non earthed old lighting circuit, but it should have been earthed when it was built, so I will need to be investigating and re-instating the earth to the upstairs lighting circuit and confirming the old part of the building is earthed.

 

[Pete999]

Yes, I was not thinking straight. There is a CPC in the upstairs 1980’s extension but no earth continuity. I had assumed that as there were no class 1 fittings upstairs (Until I discovered the Florescent fittings) that the 80’s extension wiring had extended the non earthed old lighting circuit, but it should have been earthed when it was built, so I will need to be investigating and re-instating the earth to the upstairs lighting circuit and confirming the old part of the building is earthed.

Probably find that some Dilbert doing the 2nd fix cut all the cpcs off because "they aren't needed"

 

[telectrix]

Probably find that some Dilbert doing the 2nd fix cut all the cpcs off because "they aren't needed"

once you have used the cpc to strip the sheath, it is redundant. it is an ex cpc, not dead, just resting.