cover for downlighters in cupboard

[ThePinkPanther]

Hi

I am fitting a kitchen and have installed two of these lights:

http://www.howdens.com/product-rang...cessories/lighting/flush-mounted-downlighter/

I have installed one of these in each of two adjacent tall glass fronted cupboards. I fitted them flush by cutting a 57mm diameter hole in the top of each cupboard (18mm MFC).

They work fine and look good but when they are on they each project a spot of light onto the ceiling above and I would prefer that they don't. Therefore, I would like to make a small cover (which will be hidden by the cornice) that will stop the spot of light being projected onto the ceiling whilst still allowing sufficient air flow to prevent over heating.

Unless anyone thinks this would be a bad idea, I intend to make a little bridge for each light out of some thin sheet metal, which will allow the heat (and light) to dissipate and allow plenty of air flow for the light, something like this:

Untitled

• ThePinkPanther
• 13 Nov 2012
• 1

The cornice is only an inch or so high.

A little test I made out of a strip of tin foil ~40mm wide seemed to work fine although the foil is a little too flimsy. I shall probably look in the DIY sheds for some 1mm thick sheet metal which can be mechanically fixed in place.

Does this sound OK? I would appreciate you views.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Taylortwocities]

The technical info (on that link you posted) say

When Fitting Flush - 55mm Diameter Hole Required. 5mm Space Required Around Fitting

So your plan should be OK.

Mind you, the instructions also say
All Lighting Installations Must Be Carried Out By Qualified Electricians, And According To Current Building Regulations

So, have you complied with this (ie notified the local authority before doing electrical work in a kitchen?)

 

[Chri5]

They come as a flat pack and you make them up, with a little adjustment you could just place these over the holes.



http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Lighting_Menu_Index/Fire_Cover_Downlight/index.html

Or make up some box covers with some odd bits of plasterboard and a tube of no nails.


These would have avoided holes all together and saved 36w ph http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LED3CW.html

 

[JohnW2]

...So, have you complied with this (ie notified the local authority before doing electrical work in a kitchen?)

As we've discussed before, the answer to that question is really none of the business of anyone on this forum - so it's probably a question which should not really be asked. I personally would have no problem with it if it were converted to a statement ("So you should have notified the local authority before doing electrical work in a kitchen") or even to a less intrusive question ("I presume you know that you should have notified .....?") ... but perhaps I'm over-sensitive!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As we've discussed before, the answer to that question is really none of the business of anyone on this forum.

In this case, no, but in some cases it is.

If the OP has said that he's "going to get an electrician to connect it and sign it off", or if it's clearly part of a larger project which would have been notified, or if it's "I've got an electrician but he's on the dark side of the moon this weekend" it is.

Basically, if the situation is not doing what the council have been told, and/or making decisions that should be made by the electrician expected to put his name to it, then the responsible course of action is not to lead the OP into a mess.

 

[JohnW2]

As we've discussed before, the answer to that question is really none of the business of anyone on this forum.

In this case, no, but in some cases it is.

We disagree, then. Provided that the OP is aware, or has been made aware by us, of the legal requirement to notify the work being discussed, then I don't think that his/her decision as to whether or not to comply with that law is any of our business, and we therefore shouldn't ask the question, and expect a reply, in a 'public forum'.

As for the rest of what you say, we should, IMO, make our decision as to the extent (if at all) we should assist/'encourage' an OP to do the work on the basis of our judgement as to the apparent ability/competence of that person to comply with Part P, regardless of whether or not they intend to comply with the law regarding notification. That's my view/approach, anyway. The matter of what we should do about the clearly incompetant person who is hell-bent on continuing, with or without our assistance, is a difficult one, about which we disagree somewhat, but that's a different matter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We disagree, then. Provided that the OP is aware, or has been made aware by us, of the legal requirement to notify the work being discussed, then I don't think that his/her decision as to whether or not to comply with that law is any of our business, and we therefore shouldn't ask the question, and expect a reply, in a 'public forum'.

It's nothing to do with us concerning ourselves about whether he complies - it is to do with whether we should give him advice which will cause him to contravene what he has told his LABC will be the way that he will comply.

As for the rest of what you say, we should, IMO, make our decision as to the extent (if at all) we should assist/'encourage' an OP to do the work on the basis of our judgement as to the apparent ability/competence of that person to comply with Part P, regardless of whether or not they intend to comply with the law regarding notification.

Competence to comply with Part P is irrelevant, we're talking about notification.

I am perfectly capable of complying with Part P, but if I built an extension, and told my council that the electrics would be done by a registered electrician, and then went and did them my self I'd be USCWAP when it came to getting a completion certificate from them.

As I have said before, I do not think we should refuse to give advice just because someone isn't notifying, but if it's possible that they have notified, tacitly, or via their architect/structural engineer submitting an application, or by them not noticing a standard assumption on their council's website which they have gone along with, then we should clarify the situation before giving them advice which will lead them to be USCWAP. If they genuinely think that they can make all sorts of design and construction decisions and their electrician, or an electrician, will come along after the event and assume responsibility for them, then it behoves us to tell them that they can't do that, not give them advice which will cause their plan to fail.

 

[JohnW2]

It's nothing to do with us concerning ourselves about whether he complies - it is to do with whether we should give him advice which will cause him to contravene what he has told his LABC will be the way that he will comply.

No disagreement with that - but, as I wrote to TTC, that can be achieved by making statements, without asking publically about whether the OP was complying with, or intended to comply with, the law concerning notification.

Competence to comply with Part P is irrelevant, we're talking about notification.

OK, but that's the wider, practical, discussion. As I've said, provided the OP is fully aware of the legal notification requirements (including, where appropriate, the implications of what he has told LABC, implictly or explicitly), apparent competence to comply with Part P is the only thing which matters to me (in deciding what assistance/'encouragement should be offered).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No disagreement with that - but, as I wrote to TTC, that can be achieved by making statements, without asking publically about whether the OP was complying with, or intended to comply with, the law concerning notification.

That's the most efficient way to find out how our advice should be moderated.

As I've said, provided the OP is fully aware of the legal notification requirements (including, where appropriate, the implications of what he has told LABC, implictly or explicitly), apparent competence to comply with Part P is the only thing which matters to me (in deciding what assistance/'encouragement should be offered).

So you think we should just assume that he is fully aware of the implications of what he has told the LABC? Even where, when what he's told them might have been done implicitly, he may have no idea that he's told them anything? We should just assume that he fully understands what electricians will/may/will not/may not do in terms of signing off other peoples work?

 

[JohnW2]

So you think we should just assume that he is fully aware of the implications of what he has told the LABC? Even where, when what he's told them might have been done implicitly, he may have no idea that he's told them anything? We should just assume that he fully understands what electricians will/may/will not/may not do in terms of signing off other peoples work?

Nope, I don't think that you/we should assume anything. In situations in which you/we feel there is doubt as to whether an OP fully understands all those things, you/we should simply tell them (ideally, refer them to a wiki or suchlike, since this arises so often).

The problem with asking a question (particularly a question like the one that TTC asked in this thread - "...have you complied with this ['the law']?....") is that the answer may be that the OP fully understands the situation but has decided to break the law - something which is 'none of our business' and, IMO, not appropriate material for a 'public' forum.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Chri5]

Gentleman, you appear to have scared the op away.

 

[JohnW2]

Gentleman, you appear to have scared the op away.

And that, if true, is obviously a demonstration of the main reason why the question should not be asked!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, it's a demonstration of why you shouldn't have started arguing about the asking of a perfectly reasonable question.

 

[JohnW2]

No, it's a demonstration of why you shouldn't have started arguing about the asking of a perfectly reasonable question.

When did you last knowingly break a UK law?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Monday.