Light Fitting Change Question

[Mottie]

My ones are actual ceiling roses and I just have the wire that would go to a bayonet fitting coming through the ceilings. Probably breaking some technical rule but they’ve worked for me in this house since 1990.

I do. The ceiling rose is designed to be screwed securely to something (usually the ceiling).
The cables, of course should be securely clipped to backgrounds.

Why? Because the ceiling rose has no cable restraints or other clamps that prevent cables being yanked out.
The same goes for those round junction boxes.

PLUS all of the above have screw terminals and these are not permitted unless tha junction is accessible (which a ceiling rose would be, if it were in the proper place - on the ceiling).

Under the floorboards is NOT accessible. To comply with regulations these must be a maintenance free certified junction box.
So thats probably three broken regulations right there.

Thought so. Still…..

 

[morqthana]

I do. The ceiling rose is designed to be screwed securely to something (usually the ceiling).
The cables, of course should be securely clipped to backgrounds.

Why? Because the ceiling rose has no cable restraints or other clamps that prevent cables being yanked out.
The same goes for those round junction boxes.

PLUS all of the above have screw terminals and these are not permitted unless tha junction is accessible (which a ceiling rose would be, if it were in the proper place - on the ceiling).

Under the floorboards is NOT accessible. To comply with regulations these must be a maintenance free certified junction box.
So thats probably three broken regulations right there.

I'm guessing that that has not always been the case, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.

I'm also guessing that these are true:

1) The regulations prohibit installing new ones.
2) The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.

Question - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

 

[Taylortwocities]

I'm guessing that that has not always been the case, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.

It had always been the case. The issue is that lack of awareness of the regulations - nobody is properly trained anymore.

1) The regulations prohibit installing new ones

Don’t be stupid. Of course they don’t.

2) The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.

An EICR may deem an incorrectly installed one to be replaced. That may need to be done within 28 days for a rental property.

Question - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

It says that any new work must meet today’s regulations.

So, this would be ok for you m, would it? No concerns ?

 

[SUNRAY]

I'm guessing that that has not always been the case, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.

And they still do sell those junction boxes, example: https://www.screwfix.com/p/essentials-30a-3-terminal-heavy-duty-junction-box-black/7552d, https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Accessories_Index/Junction_Boxes/index.html to name but two

I'm also guessing that these are true:

1) The regulations prohibit installing new ones.

No

2) The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.

Not specifically

Question - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

Do the job properly.

I thought you deemed yourself to know what's what, it now seems you simply make wild guesses?

EDIT: I started writing this hours ago and hadn't realised Taylor had posted in the meantime

 

[ebee]

Yes there is quite a lot of supposition around this thread.
A ceiling rose is just, in essence, a junction box made to look pretty so if you leave it on the ceiling so what?
Good practice in securing cables should be carried out in all circumstances, often not quite though, as we all know.
When altering/adding is a great opportunity to achieve compliance.
I think the main thing here is a valid test to see the "Earthwire" is in fact an Earthed wire in the proper sense. and I do mean "a proper valid test".
Although doing all things proper in every sense according things in the regs is the Holy Grail of of the Wiring Regs , some have far greater importance than the others in the real world.
Some things looking a bit dogdy does lead us to think "what else has been done and to what standard?".
An oversight or an EICR by a decent "competent person" is ideal but getting the earths properly tested is your first port of call.
We can not reliably make a judgement from those pics.

 

[securespark]

I don't necessarily consider a junction box under a floorboard to be inaccessible. It depends what is on top of the floorboard.

 

[securespark]

The same as these fire rated down lights.

EICR compiler: "Oh no! You've not got fire-rated down lights in the lounge! I'm going to have to mark down your EICR!"

Customer: "Oh no! I've got a massive hole in my hall ceiling where the staircase goes!"

 

[morqthana]

It had always been the case. The issue is that lack of awareness of the regulations - nobody is properly trained anymore.

OK

Don’t be stupid. Of course they don’t.

Don't be stupid. Try to pay attention to the context from your own post.

PLUS all of the above have screw terminals and these are not permitted unless tha junction is accessible

The regulations prohibit installing new [CLEARLY IMPLIED] screw terminal [/CLEARLY IMPLIED] ones [CLEARLY IMPLIED] which are not accessible [/CLEARLY IMPLIED].

The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.

An EICR may deem an incorrectly installed one to be replaced. That may need to be done within 28 days for a rental property.

Not specifically

OK.

I do wonder though how an EICR would be able to mention the existence of something inaccessible, unless it was what must be a very rare situation of one being visible but unreachable.

Question - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

It says that any new work must meet today’s regulations.

Do the job properly.

Neither of which answers the question about adding a new cable to an existing screw-terminal junction box. Although if someone was doing that, the box would clearly have to be accessible.

But no matter - between you you've brought about the situation where I don't care any more.

So, this would be ok for you m, would it? No concerns ?

View attachment 386834

Don't be ridiculous - surely anyone can see there's all sorts of things wrong there. Although clearly being inaccessible isn't one of them.

If I had any desire to pursue this with you I'd ask what if the junction box did have a lid, and was screwed down, and the cables were clipped, but you may stand down.

I thought you deemed yourself to know what's what

No, but I did deem myself to be someone who could ask questions which would be read properly and not be called stupid by someone who hadn't.

it now seems you simply make wild guesses?

Hardly "wild" guesses. Is it the word "guess" that you don't like?

If I'd written


I'm assuming that that has not always been the case, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.

I'm also assuming that these are true:

1) The regulations prohibit installing new ones.
2) The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.


would you be criticising "wild assumptions"?

Anyway - whatever.

 

[SUNRAY]

OK




Don't be stupid. Try to pay attention to the context from your own post.










OK.

I do wonder though how an EICR would be able to mention the existence of something inaccessible, unless it was what must be a very rare situation of one being visible but unreachable.






Neither of which answers the question about adding a new cable to an existing screw-terminal junction box. Although if someone was doing that, the box would clearly have to be accessible.

But no matter - between you you've brought about the situation where I don't care any more.




Don't be ridiculous - surely anyone can see there's all sorts of things wrong there. Although clearly being inaccessible isn't one of them.

If I had any desire to pursue this with you I'd ask what if the junction box did have a lid, and was screwed down, and the cables were clipped, but you may stand down.



No, but I did deem myself to be someone who could ask questions which would be read properly and not be called stupid by someone who hadn't.





Hardly "wild" guesses. Is it the word "guess" that you don't like?

If I'd written


I'm assuming that that has not always been the case, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.

I'm also assuming that these are true:

1) The regulations prohibit installing new ones.
2) The regulations do not require existing ones to be replaced.


would you be criticising "wild assumptions"?

Anyway - whatever.

Quite honestly I have no idea what you have just written, I think you have deliberately written a stupid post #17 in reply to a reasonable description and then deliberately twisted just about every part of replies to it.
Assuming your guess questions were genuine I answered them briefly.

Selecting just one point from it as an example you ask a question and respond to the 2 answers which I tripple quote to avoid ambiguity:

Question - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

It says that any new work must meet today’s regulations.

IQuestion - what do the regulations say about adding new cable(s) to an existing one?

Do the job properly.

Neither of which answers the question about adding a new cable to an existing screw-terminal junction box.

One answer explicitly states it has to be done to current regulations, I don't see how that doesn't answer the question.
T'other states it has to be done correctly, the implication being to current regulations, I don't see how that doesn't answer the question.

You seem to object to the word stupid being used regarding your replies so I'll avoid using it again here.

 

[morqthana]

Quite honestly I have no idea what you have just written,

Really?

Should I apologise for assuming that you can read properly?

I think you have deliberately written a stupid post #17 in reply to a reasonable description and then deliberately twisted just about every part of replies to it.

The answer is no, I shouldn't apologise to someone who calls my replies stupid because he isn't able to read properly.

all of the above have screw terminals and these are not permitted unless tha junction is accessible

So with the bl****n' obvious context stuck in for the benefit of those unable to call upon their own ability to understand it, I wrote

I guess the regulations prohibit installing new junction boxes with screw terminals in places where they are not accessible.

And that's a stupid thing to assume?

It may have been wrong, but stupid?

I accept that it was wrong, because Taylortwocities reply, with the bl****n' obvious context stuck in for the benefit of those unable to call upon their own ability to understand it, was

Don’t be stupid. Of course they don’t prohibit installing new junction boxes with screw terminals in places where they are not accessible.

Assuming your guess questions were genuine I answered them briefly.

They were genuine.

I'm guessing that it has not always been the case that junction boxes with screw terminals are not permitted unless they are accessible, given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere.


I'm also guessing that these are true:

1) The regulations prohibit installing new junction boxes with screw terminals unless they are accessible.
2) The regulations do not require existing junction boxes with screw terminals which are not accessible to be replaced.

Do I object to being told I'm wrong, if I am? Of course not.

Do I object to being told I'm stupid to make those assumptions? Funnily enough, yes, I do.

Selecting just one point from it as an example you ask a question and respond to the 2 answers which I tripple quote to avoid ambiguity:

One answer explicitly states it has to be done to current regulations, I don't see how that doesn't answer the question.
T'other states it has to be done correctly, the implication being to current regulations, I don't see how that doesn't answer the question.

The actual answer is of no practical interest to me, I was just curious.

But it's good to know that if it was of practical interest to someone that the replies from Taylortwocities and you would tell him whether the regulations say he can connect a new cable to an existing junction box with screw terminals which is not accessible. Although of course as I later reasoned, if you can get to the junction box to add a cable it must be accessible.

 

[opps]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I think many DIYers eventually think, "fect it" my question has turned into a b*fest and then either select an answer which seems to be the path of least resistance or just walks on.

You guys know more about the subject than I do, nevertheless, collectively you risk driving away traffic. Without the said traffic, this site will not be viable.

I rely upon this site for info. If you lot want to engage in petty arguments, go for it, but don't complain when the site shuts down.

 

[morqthana]

You're right, and I admit I reacted a bit when having expressed my assumption that the regulations prohibit installing new junction boxes with screw terminals in places where they are not accessible I was told not to be stupid and that of course they don’t prohibit that.

But honestly...

 

[SUNRAY]

I guess the regulations prohibit installing new junction boxes with screw terminals in places where they are not accessible.

And that's a stupid thing to assume?

It's not a stupid question to ask if you are seeking advice.

However it didn't read as; you asking a question and linked in with the earlier comment

...given that they used to sell those round junction boxes everywhere...

implying they are no longer available put the whole post into doubt as they certainly are available and to date I've not been aware of any change to their availability. Having said that I have every expectation that the sales of such boxes have significantly dropped with the current trend/fashion for using Wago style products for everything.


I've opted to ignore the remainder of your deliberate attempt to manipulate the previous comments, this is the last I'll post here other than to assist further with the OP.

 

[Jone90]

Metal luminaires should be earthed and that cable has the earth as the bare conductor. So, IMO, if you feel confident enough to have a go, turn the power off and try.

Thanks mate. So essentially on a metal light run the bare cable into the earth socket? If I’m fitting a plastic rose, does the bare wire just stay loose like here? Cheers

 

[Scally-Ho]

Idealy and in general working practice, the bare earth wire should be 'sleeved' by the electrician undertaking the wiring, and the correct colour sleeving being green-yellow. In your new plastic rose, you will see a single bare and uninsulated terminal on it's own, that will be the earth connection. Nothing should be left loose.

https://i2.wp.com/forum.buildhub.org.uk/uploads/monthly_2019_12/981AFEC4-836E-4EB2-99B5-C9DF13152F3B.jpeg.c52f6054a71368782e564ada2fe872e0.jpeg