Sockets on a lighting circuit - C3 or C2?

[Dustydazzler]

To be fair, I would probably have used 2.5mm just because I generally only have 1mm lights or 2.5mm for RFC/small radial lying around...

I know a lot of new build sparks wiring a lot of power stuff in 1.5 at the momnet due to the high cost of cable

 

[pc1966]

I know a lot of new build sparks wiring a lot of power stuff in 1.5 at the momnet due to the high cost of cable

With appropriate OCPD to match?

 

[Dustydazzler]

With appropriate OCPD to match?

16am cicruit with 1.5 cable for wall panel heaters , boilers , water heaters , towel rails etc
anything where you can get away with using 1.5 to save money

 

[Rockingit]

I really don't see an issue here. Just because something is unconventional doesn't make it unsafe. The circuit is protected by suitable OCPD, the components are rated => the maximum design current.... there's simply nothing to code. Arguments of "what if....." could be applied to an infinite number of scenarios which is why we don't inspect on what doesn't exist.

 

[Lister1987]

C3 just to show you have seen it and educated the client. Doesnt fail the install but covers you if anything occurs

 

[Intoelectrics]

Here it probably has no danger.

But if it could be mistaken for a normal power outlet and so trip out all lights at night due to someone plugging in a heater then I would argue it had a danger to it.

I would argue its an inconvenience rather than a danger. Yes we can all imagine scenarios where the sudden loss of lighting could cause an issue. But we can do the same for many scenarios (as previously stated) Provided the OCPD is correct for the circuit design I believe its fine. I have done this myself previously, especially if the client wanted the flexibility.

As mentioned perhaps a label would suffice?

 

[Rockingit]

C3 just to show you have seen it and educated the client. Doesnt fail the install but covers you if anything occurs

Rubbish. On what engineering basis does it require and justify an improvement?

 

[Intoelectrics]

C3 just to show you have seen it and educated the client. Doesnt fail the install but covers you if anything occurs

What improvement would you recommend other than a label? You could swap them out to FCU's or blank them off but are these an improvement?
I'm not criticising I'm just asking, thinking out loud so to speak.

 

[UNG]

C3 just to show you have seen it and educated the client. Doesnt fail the install but covers you if anything occurs

You can make an observation it does not have to have a code attached to it

 

[UNG]

What improvement would you recommend other than a label? You could swap them out to FCU's or blank them off but are these an improvement?
I'm not criticising I'm just asking, thinking out loud so to speak.

To continue the circle if you swap them for FCU's how would you plug in a 13A plugin lighting adapter that most manufacturers supply these days

 

[westward10]

Some things are worth worrying about, this doesn't.

 

[Dartlec]

Thanks for the thoughts - it's always interesting to see other's views and 'calibrate' my decisions so that I'm happy I'm not too strict or too lax on EICRs.

In this case I think I'll still blank them - it's an unstaffed HMO with quite short term tenants that has had problems before with tenants not necessarily behaving in the most sensible way - so best to try and avoid the room lighting going out if possible. There's zero chance of pelmet lighting ever being installed, and if it was, I'd be the one doing it anyway....

Crappy rewire job done 5 years ago TBH, by an NICEIC DI.

The surveyor for the remortgage even picked up several things, including lack of cable clipping and a poorly extended cooker circuit.

Looks like I'll have to run water bonding too - the water pipe seems to come in from next door (old Victorian terraced house) and resistance check pipe to MET is ~14kOhm, so extraneous if using the 10ma limit test, though not if using 30mA.

Naturally the previous EIC had water bonding ticked, even though there is clearly not a bonding cable leaving the cupboard!

 

[DPG]

Thanks for the thoughts - it's always interesting to see other's views and 'calibrate' my decisions so that I'm happy I'm not too strict or too lax on EICRs.

In this case I think I'll still blank them - it's an unstaffed HMO with quite short term tenants that has had problems before with tenants not necessarily behaving in the most sensible way - so best to try and avoid the room lighting going out if possible. There's zero chance of pelmet lighting ever being installed, and if it was, I'd be the one doing it anyway....

Crappy rewire job done 5 years ago TBH, by an NICEIC DI.

The surveyor for the remortgage even picked up several things, including lack of cable clipping and a poorly extended cooker circuit.

Looks like I'll have to run water bonding too - the water pipe seems to come in from next door (old Victorian terraced house) and resistance check pipe to MET is ~14kOhm, so extraneous if using the 10ma limit test, though not if using 30mA.

Naturally the previous EIC had water bonding ticked, even though there is clearly not a bonding cable leaving the cupboard!


View attachment 100899

View attachment 100900

Wow, that's definitely unsupported cabling !

 

[Dustydazzler]

Wow, that's definitely unsupported cabling !

Someone left without putting up the trunking

 

[Lister1987]

Rubbish. On what engineering basis does it require and justify an improvement?

I'd be asking why it was done that way in the first place?

What improvement would you recommend other than a label? You could swap them out to FCU's or blank them off but are these an improvement?
I'm not criticising I'm just asking, thinking out loud so to speak.

I know UNG raises the point that it's not bad workmanship but it just doesn't sit right; if it is there for a specific purpose then yes (S)FCU it as it removes the "Ohh a plug, just what I need for the roof decorations at Christmas. If it is there for a set purpose then give it a standard radial with standalone OCPD.

You can make an observation it does not have to have a code attached to it

As C3 does naff all to the end result of the EICR I see no harm in attaching a code to it. I know there are various softwares out there that give a CO (Comment Only) option but I refer to earlier; if it doesn't fail it then why not use what is already there?

I respect the opinions of my fellow peers and on most points, will take their advises and counter-arguments and constructive comments but I dunno, it doesn't sit with me, hence my approach, maybe it's just naivety with lack of real world experience, who knows

What is engineering judgement to one person could be --------, -------s and baloney to the next but that is why I love this place; many minds coming together and debating basic stuff.