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.

 

[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.

 

[Dartlec]

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.

If the cable comes forward into the enclosure I do usually use 221s, but where the cable is trimmed right back to the wall and you only have an inch or so of exposed wire and limited space, then the 224 comes into its own

 

[cliffed]

Thanks for all comments ,all cabling needs to be connected in appropriate enclosure,the wall light is not an enclosure.
Cables can be seen when light is fitted & also the danger of causing a fault when re-fitting light.
Agree with all & pondering C3 or C2,the difference there is unsatisfactory or satisffactory status.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

all cabling needs to be connected in appropriate enclosure,the wall light is not an enclosure.

If the wall light is a metallic class 2 one, then I'd agree, the terminations would need to be in one of those supplied tiny plastic boxes to insulated them from the metal casing. But looking at your picture it appears to be earthed, so I'm assuming class 1? In which case I don't see any problem with the connections being made in the base (again I'm assuming a hollow metallic base).

 

[catdog1121]

Single insulated cable outside of an enclosure, according to NAPIT codebreakers its a C2 and I totally agree.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Single insulated cable outside of an enclosure, according to NAPIT codebreakers its a C2 and I totally agree.

would the light fitting itself form an enclosure thou ...?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

would the light fitting itself form an enclosure thou ...?

Almost certainly. Many light fittings with a hollow base have a connector block fixed in their base, the centre terminal connected to a tab earthing the fitting. Where else are you going to make the connection?

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

Haha Codebreakers ??

 

[cliffed]

Code 2,says it all really.
[automerge]1601191955[/automerge]
Another one bites the dust ?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Code 2,says it all really.
[automerge]1601191955[/automerge]
Another one bites the dust ?

The three paragraphs you have selected from BPG4 wouldn't apply in the case of your original post because:

1. Single insulated conductors are not accessible to touch or likely to come into contact with metalwork
2. Connections are made within an enclosure according to BS7671. Read carefully the regulation I posted at #11
3. No fire barrier has been breached

With this in mind, please explain how you think this is a C2 - potentially dangerous?

 

[cliffed]

The three paragraphs you have selected from BPG4 wouldn't apply in the case of your original post because:

1. Single insulated conductors are not accessible to touch or likely to come into contact with metalwork
2. Connections are made within an enclosure according to BS7671. Read carefully the regulation I posted at #11
3. No fire barrier has been breached

With this in mind, please explain how you think this is a C2 - potentially dangerous?

Could be potentially dangerous,& definitely a fire hazard.