UK Is a standard Pendant a Class 2 fitting?

[timhoward]

I think this thread explains their use and my primary use for using them as they are class 2 and require no CPC, saves a very expensive/difficult partial rewire.

Not sure I agree - the rewire is long overdue anyway - and the safety feature is surely more about basic protection if there’s no bulb in it. Nothing to stop the households or DIY hero changing it to a pretty metal fitting from the charity shop.
Best Practise Guide 4 has helpful suggestions about how to handle no cpc on lighting circuit during EICRs.
In any case I’m not sure why the class II debate is relevant as the regs say class II can only be used as a means of protection in a supervised installation which a dwelling certainly isn’t.
I haven’t read whole thread - sorry if I’m repeating anything or misunderstanding the point!

 

[bilabonic]

Not sure I agree - the rewire is long overdue anyway - and the safety feature is surely more about basic protection if there’s no bulb in it. Nothing to stop the households or DIY hero changing it to a pretty metal fitting from the charity shop.
Best Practise Guide 4 has helpful suggestions about how to handle no cpc on lighting circuit during EICRs.
In any case I’m not sure why the class II debate is relevant as the regs say class II can only be used as a means of protection in a supervised installation which a dwelling certainly isn’t.
I haven’t read whole thread - sorry if I’m repeating anything or misunderstanding the point!

They suit my needs atm and both a JIB and an NICEIC electricians are willing to issue me an EICR with class 2 pendants (C3 with CU labelled warning notice to say not to install metal fittings on lighting).

This is a solution for me until the property is totally gutted/rewired some time later this year.

 

[timhoward]

both a JIB and an NICEIC electricians are willing to issue me an EICR with class 2 pendants (C3 with CU labelled warning notice to say not to install metal fittings on lighting).

Sure - that is what BPG 4 advises (via BPG 1 see below) too. I'd do that too in some circumstances - I had one recently where a Wylex rewireable board was cracked beyond hope exposing live parts. I wasn't going to refuse to change the CU because of the lack of CPC on lighting circuit, or leave the customer with no lights! (The lighting is getting rewired soon)

My point was more about the words "avoiding rewire" as it sounded as if you meant this was a long term solution - you've now clarified you meant "for the time being".

For the record, this is what BPG1 says, and it's a pragmatic compromise that contravenes the regs as I noted above (Class II protection in dwelling)

 

[bilabonic]

I just opened a ‘cheapy’ unbranded pendant and it had double insulated sign on the base.
Tested continuity an it’s constant whether pins are depressed are not.
So the base is class 2 and the holder is class 1.

I’ll test the BG class 2 when I have chance to see if pins indeed do disconnect without lamp.

 

[nicebutdim]

I can see how a rose could be considered as double insulated, but given the very definition of 'double insulated' I'd consider it quite a liberty to attach the symbol to any rose being sold as part of a pendant set or indeed to any standard bayonet fitting.

 

[littlespark]

I would say the ceiling rose, which can be opened without use of a tool, cannot be double insulated…. Unless the terminals are enclosed inside another plastic box… which they’re not.

Maybe once they’ve been up for a decade, and the cover is stuck with paint, then it can’t be opened.

 

[westward10]

It is all very well a Guide citing you can use Class II but as stated above by @timhoward and by myself many times before Class II cannot be used as a means of protection in a dwelling. Most electricians do not realise this and whilst they think they are making it safer using Class II where there is an absence of a cpc this should be listed as a departure from BS7671.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

It is all very well a Guide citing you can use Class II but as stated above by @timhoward and by myself many times before Class II cannot be used as a means of protection in a dwelling. Most electricians do not realise this and whilst they think they are making it safer using Class II where there is an absence of a cpc this should be listed as a departure from BS7671.

For new work, additions, alterations and so on, absolutely agree.

For maintenance on old existing installations, it's necessary to avoid potential danger.

 

[westward10]

For new work, additions, alterations and so on, absolutely agree.

For maintenance on old existing installations, it's necessary to avoid potential danger.

For new work, additions, alterations etc... you wouldn't consider it as there is no cpc to utilise for ADS. For maintenance I would only ever replace something if it was so dangerous that leaving it couldn't be justified.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

For new work, additions, alterations etc... you wouldn't consider it as there is no cpc to utilise for ADS.

As above, completely agree

For maintenance I would only ever replace something if it was so dangerous that leaving it couldn't be justified.

This would presumably include where class I fittings had been fitted on a lighting circuit with no CPC?

 

[timhoward]

I just opened a ‘cheapy’ unbranded pendant and it had double insulated sign on the base.
Tested continuity an it’s constant whether pins are depressed are not.

As the point of a class 2 symbol is to identify that something should not be earthed to the supply and was designed to be double insulated, to my thinking it's a downright joke putting this on the inside of an screw cover which when removed exposes live parts. Further the CPCs on normal installations are connected to it inside, compounding the craziness. This would lead me not to trust any symbol on that thing, and assume all the symbols on it are reproduced without any basis.

 

[westward10]

As above, completely agree

This would presumably include where class I fittings had been fitted on a lighting circuit with no CPC?

Unless the fitting was damaged and was an immediate danger to people but I wouldn't change Class I to Class II because there are no cpcs. In reality a Class I fitting with no cpc is only a real danger were the enclosure to become live and a person is touching it and an effectively earthed part at the same time but never say never.

 

[littlespark]

You get metal cases, class II fittings that don’t need an earth…. And don’t supply an earth terminal….. so carrying the cpc to another light means a bit of work….
No need if there’s no cpc of course.

So, we need to redesign the humble ceiling rose… we need double insulated terminals, space for a live loop for old 3 plate…. Cable clamps to stop it from pulling out, etc

 

[Aaron b]

Hager make the klik roses so you can unplug the whole light fitting.

I can't see an issue with the screw off roses, they are out of reach of children and still have basic protection with it removed.

Are you saying that the issue is it being replaced with a class 1 fitting and not earthing that?

 

[brianmoooore]

Not always out of reach though. This is in my son's recently bought new build.

 

[Aaron b]

Not always out of reach though. This is in my son's recently bought new build.

I thought those batten ones had screw in but your right. When you can pop the lamp out and touch the live parts it's not really the issue though.

I don't get your take on the lack of earth causing an issue and class 2 not being acceptable. Without being metallic ads doesn't apply and loads of appliances are class 2 (Just interested in your take on it ).

 

[brianmoooore]

That batten uses the same base as the ceiling rose of the same make, with the lamp holder part held in place by a twist on lid, similar to the ceiling rose, but with a much larger hole in the middle.
Doesn't really show in the pic., but my problem with that particular light is the way the lamp projects horizontally into the cupboard space, where it is in serious danger of just being snapped off by stuff placed inside, or someone simply trying to reach the back corners of it. Should have been a low profile enclosed fitting of some kind.

 

[7029 dave]

That batten uses the same base as the ceiling rose of the same make, with the lamp holder part held in place by a twist on lid, similar to the ceiling rose, but with a much larger hole in the middle.
Doesn't really show in the pic., but my problem with that particular light is the way the lamp projects horizontally into the cupboard space, where it is in serious danger of just being snapped off by stuff placed inside, or someone simply trying to reach the back corners of it. Should have been a low profile enclosed fitting of some kind.

I would have used an angled batten holder in this situation.

 

[DPG]

I would have used an angled batten holder in this situation.

A proper surface mounted fitting would be better. Not a good place for a lamp to be sticking out, even at an angle.

 

[7029 dave]

A proper surface mounted fitting would be better. Not a good place for a lamp to be sticking out, even at an angle.

Absolutely, but as in this instant the new build shower did not want to spend the money on an enclosed light fitting, so that stick a celling mounted batten holder up, IMO the angled would have been better.