EICR code for sockets on an upstairs lights

[Chris Skinner]

Hi guys hope you’re doing ok with all this going on. Anyway recently I was doing an EICR for a family member and to my amazement came across 5 upstairs sockets that were connected to the upstairs lighting circuit. The properties wiring looked quite on the older side but there was a new amendment 3 consumer unit installed a few years back, so RCD protected. It seemed to be all the sockets on the inside cavity wall the sockets were installed on. Upon inspection of the loft found more sockets in the loft. Total bodgery cables hanging out of plug tops and junctions everywhere more than enough to fail in installation. My question is what code to give sockets if any bearing as there is 6 Amp over current protection on it, the loft is covered in double layered insulation, so would think that comes into play, circuit goes from fuseboard in 1.5T+E and all sockets have just 1 2.5T+E at them, Just wondering people’s thoughts thanks.

 

[westward10]

It is unconventional but not in essence dangerous. The ccc of the cables are restricted by the 6A protective device so thermal insulation isn't likely to be an issue. If the socket outlets are used for significant loads above that of the protective device you are likely to get nuisance tripping. The most you can do is comment on installation methods and verify the usage of the sockets to see if nuisance tripping is going to be a problem.

 

[pc1966]

Reminds me of those horrible (and presumably now banned) adaptors to allow folk to plug stuff in to lighting sockets way back!

Electrically it is not, strictly speaking, a hazard as @westward10 says but given the high chance of a nuisance trip coupled with floors being plunged in to darkness as a result it would not be satisfactory to me, but I can't really say what code reason would cover that.
[automerge]1587976879[/automerge]
Come to think of it there is something about the over current protection must be rated at or above the expected demand, and I think the diversity ratings for 13A socket are already over 6A so that might be a code reason. Will take a look.
[automerge]1587977792[/automerge]
433.1.1 (i) rated current of protective device not less than design current

For assumed rating for 13A sockets one might reasonably assume it is 13A! But in Appendix A of the on-site guide it excludes BS1363 from the "rated current" list (along with 2A outlets) and points to Appendix H, and there it gives ring and radial finals not less than 20A (but that is not explicitly stated as a requirement, just the table for multiple sockets shows no option below that).

 

[davesparks]

I would probably go with C3 'improvement recommended'
In my opinion having lights and power on the same circuit doesnt satisfy division of circuits to minimise nuisance when a circuit trips.

Though if the installation methods are as bad as you suggest you may have poor quality joints etc that also need to be recorded on the EICR.

 

[EricMark]

If we have a general power cut, we not only loose lights and sockets but also outside lights, so the "take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit" when dividing the installation into circuits may be desirable but does not produce a danger.

The "reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" has been raised many times, to comply one can hardly argue that two RCDs are enough, yet it is common to find only two RCD's.

So if we want to code a socket on a lighting circuit, then the same code would apply for lighting and power circuits on the same RCD.

And in my house, the emergency torch is powered by the sockets, so if a lighting RCBO trips the emergency torch will not light, except when close enough to trigger the PIR.

So although we all know it should not be done, I would say it does not attract a code, as if it did same code would be used if only two RCDs.

 

[pc1966]

I would still agree with @davesparks view it is a C3 on the basis it is clearly an inadequate design in the first place, but as no potential electrical danger (beyond loss of lights) it is not enough to merit C2.

 

[davesparks]

If we have a general power cut, we not only loose lights and sockets but also outside lights, so the "take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit" when dividing the installation into circuits may be desirable but does not produce a danger.

Then why does the regulation exist?

Yes in a power cut you loose everything, but that is irrelevant to the point. It can be dangerous in a powercut and it can be dangerous when a single circuit fails.

It also says to minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault, which this arrangement clearly does not.

General purpose sockets on a 6A MCB greatly increases the chances of the MCB tripping as the design current is now much higher than the MCB rating.

Also the probability of that MCB being subject to small, long duration, overloads is pretty high, this is also non-compliant and may damage the MCB