Eicr,I never like these

[cliffed]

What’s your thoughts on this,codes etc.
Quite a lot if these,on wall lights & chain hanging lanterns.
It needs some enclosure sure, but it was ok 20 years ago,& no probs.

 

[pc1966]

Best practice guide has C2 for:

• Unenclosed electrical connections, such as at luminaires. (Such a defect can contribute to a fire, particularly where extra-low voltage filament lamps are used)

 

[westward10]

That has never been okay. Terminations require suitable enclosure.

 

[Paul L]

What would be classed as a suitable enclosure for these type of fittings? I have previously stated that i always flush a small metal architrave box in the wall to put the connections in for lights of this type but as soon as the fixing screws are taken out then any connection is always going to be exposed anyway.
I suppose maybe its all about how the connections sit against the wall and what type of wall it is etc. Also the fact that you could get rogue strands of cable sticking out of connectors wouldn't help being very close to the fitting.

 

[MJPD29]

What would be classed as a suitable enclosure for these type of fittings? I have previously stated that i always flush a small metal architrave box in the wall to put the connections in for lights of this type but as soon as the fixing screws are taken out then any connection is always going to be exposed anyway.
I suppose maybe its all about how the connections sit against the wall and what type of wall it is etc. Also the fact that you could get rogue strands of cable sticking out of connectors wouldn't help being very close to the fitting.

A flush metal box is fine when you take the screws out of any switch, socket etc the connections are exposed the recess metal box is the enclosure

 

[Paul L]

So would it ever be acceptable to say that the fitting itself is the enclosure for these connections? I only ask this because when i was an apprentice in the 80's (gulp) the electricians i worked with nearly always just tucked the connections behind fittings of this type.
Maybe it was just different thinking then.

 

[MJPD29]

So would it ever be acceptable to say that the fitting itself is the enclosure for these connections? I only ask this because when i was an apprentice in the 80's (gulp) the electricians i worked with nearly always just tucked the connections behind fittings of this type.
Maybe it was just different thinking then.

I still see it a lot of the time now its still common

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Although a chase in brickwork hidden behind the luminaire prevents access to the connections, it's neither insulative like a plastic junction box nor earthed like the flush architrave box, nor does it protect the terminals and exposed basic insulation from moisture etc. If any moisture is present, leakage can occur into the brick etc. I don't mind if the back of the luminaire forms the 'cover' of the box, so long as the rest of the box is made of something suitable.

 

[Paul L]

Thank you Lucien, well explained as ever. Its all down to good workmanship and covering all the requirements of the regulations at the end of the day

 

[Dustydazzler]

Connector block shoved in a hole lacks care & attention imo but you will find examples in nearly every house up & down the country...
Can you touch the cores/connections when the light is in place... probably not

is it a bit badgers rough then probably yes.
in a perfect world some sort of plastic ‘box’ would Be used to house the electrical connections.
but the issue is quite often lack of physical space , most modern wall lights & ceiling lights don’t allow enough room for a 3 x 2 inch wago box to sit behind it...

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Rough perhaps, but I think it may be okay, and compliant. Here is why:

526.5
Every termination and joint in a live conductor or a PEN conductor shall be made within one of the following or a combination thereof:
(i) A suitable accessory complying with the appropriate product standard
(ii) An equipment enclosure complying with the appropriate product standard
(iii) An enclosure partially formed or completed with building material which is non-combustible when tested to BS 476-4.

I know precisely nothing about BS 476-4, but I find it difficult to imagine that brickwork, plaster, plasterboard etc would be deemed combustible when tested to any standard.

 

[Timbo]

Personally I would replace those connectors with wagos (other makes available).

 

[Dartlec]

Personally I would replace those connectors with wagos (other makes available).

The Wago 224 are ideal for this sort of thing. Used some in similar situation where there was barely any earth left (had been cut short) though in this case there was a metal architrave box or similar in the wall.

 

[cliffed]

Rough perhaps, but I think it may be okay, and compliant. Here is why:

526.5
Every termination and joint in a live conductor or a PEN conductor shall be made within one of the following or a combination thereof:
(i) A suitable accessory complying with the appropriate product standard
(ii) An equipment enclosure complying with the appropriate product standard
(iii) An enclosure partially formed or completed with building material which is non-combustible when tested to BS 476-4.

I know precisely nothing about BS 476-4, but I find it difficult to imagine that brickwork, plaster, plasterboard etc would be deemed combustible when tested to any standard.

Ok, still not happy with it though, so what code.
[automerge]1601103809[/automerge]

The Wago 224 are ideal for this sort of thing. Used some in similar situation where there was barely any earth left (had been cut short) though in this case there was a metal architrave box or similar in the wall.

Yea,definitely be better but hiding them behind a old fashioned wall light would be not easy.
would need some more chopping out of brickwork, making it your responsibility,is it still rough or acceptable.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Ok, still not happy with it though, so what code.

What code do you think something that complies with the regulations attracts?

 

[cliffed]

What code do you think something that complies with the regulations attracts?

Still code 2 for me,it’s definitely not correct ,still needs a enclosure,pattresss.

 

[Dartlec]

Still code 2 for me,it’s definitely not correct ,still needs a enclosure,pattresss.

If unsheathed cables were visible outside the enclosure once on I'd agree C2, but for the sake of argument is this any different from most of the metal decorative light fittings that come with a single bar that connects to the ceiling - they have no 'back' other than that provided by the plasterboard, yet the cabling within is usually not sheathed or in a separate enclosure (apart from the IP rated ones which are those hideous tiny ones)

And the plasterboard in these cases (unless specifically fire rated), is arguably more combustible than the wall would be in this case.

I like the way Paul Meenan from E5 approaches C2 - one thing has to happen for it to be dangerous. If the unsheathed cabling is exposed, then a nick to the insulation means danger as live parts could be accessible.

If it's within the metal enclosure, then worst that will happen with the same nick is that the metal enclosure would become live, which would then require another failure of fault protection to become dangerous.

 

[mattg4321]

No code for me.

No different from a ceiling light with the plasterboard forming part of the enclosure.

Actually probably safer as sometimes basic insulation can be visible above a ceiling where people are rooting around working sometimes.

 

[Colin Jenkins]

Rough perhaps, but I think it may be okay, and compliant. Here is why:

526.5
Every termination and joint in a live conductor or a PEN conductor shall be made within one of the following or a combination thereof:
(i) A suitable accessory complying with the appropriate product standard
(ii) An equipment enclosure complying with the appropriate product standard
(iii) An enclosure partially formed or completed with building material which is non-combustible when tested to BS 476-4.

I know precisely nothing about BS 476-4, but I find it difficult to imagine that brickwork, plaster, plasterboard etc would be deemed combustible when tested to any standard.

What’s your thoughts on this,codes etc.
Quite a lot if these,on wall lights & chain hanging lanterns.
It needs some enclosure sure, but it was ok 20 years ago,& no probs.

Hello Cliffed.
This type of wall light connection is very common. See Pretty Mouth's comments which explains the thinking used (excuse?) for doing so. The bashing out of the masonry behind the light constitutes an "incombustible enclosure" I was given to understand in my 1960s apprenticeship. I never accepted this myself and have always installed a metal architrave box to enclose a 3 x 5 amp connector block, which fits in nicely, the front of the light fitting forming the lid of the enclosure. I have never (yet) encountered a wall light fitting that didn't completely cover the architrave box. On a slightly different note, wall lights are fashionable items which the Management occasionally decrees should be changed. Personally I find removing and replacing such fittings when required is easier with conventional screw terminals rather than Wagos etc, but each to their own. To answer your question, I would give it a C3. Regards, Colin Jenkins.
Edit. For after-market ceiling fittings fittings with no backplate (very common) I always cut a circular backplate from Tufnol or similar to enclose the connections.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Still code 2 for me,it’s definitely not correct ,still needs a enclosure,pattresss.

C2 - potentially dangerous. How so?
[automerge]1601116879[/automerge]

The Wago 224 are ideal for this sort of thing. Used some in similar situation where there was barely any earth left (had been cut short) though in this case there was a metal architrave box or similar in the wall.

These are ok, but I always worry that I might accidentally release the conductors when cramming them into whatever is enclosing them. I prefer the lever 221s myself.