Fire Rated Or Not?

[securespark]

There are oodles of sparkie videos, both of installation and EICR testing where they insist on installing fire rated fittings everywhere, or coding non- FRF's as C2 or higher.

In what situations do sparks on here install fire-rated recessed light fittings, and why?

Should non- FRF's always be mentioned on an EICR?

Are FRF's only required where the space above them belongs to a different property?

Someone on YT was arguing that if you have a third storey or loft conversion, every recessed fitting below that should be a FR one.

 

[JohnW2]

Should non- FRF's always be mentioned on an EICR?

Presumably not when they are not 'required'? Even when they are required, that requirement is not related to the electrical installation, per se (but, rather, a different part of te Building Regs), so it's probably doubtful whether they should ever be mentioned in an EICR even if they are non-compliant with non-electrical parts of the building regs. Let's face it, the thing penetrating a fire barrier (and hence possibly non-conformant with Part B) could just as easily be a pipe or a duct as an electrical fitting.. I wonder what others think?

Are FRF's only required where the space above them belongs to a different property?

As I recently observed, Approved Doc B is very heavy going (at least for me!). Fire-rated things are only required if/when they penetrate fire barriers/partitions and, in terms of one- or two-storey domestic dwellings, my understanding has always been that what you say is correct. However ...

Someone on YT was arguing that if you have a third storey or loft conversion, every recessed fitting below that should be a FR one.

Things (and Approved Doc B!) get more complicated in a building of three or more stories (and that includes 2 storeys + loft conversion) and/or above a certain height and something along the lines of what you suggest may well then be the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

When I do an electrical installation condition report it is only for the electrics, there is another guy who does fire alarms and the like, since the fire rating it not part of my remit, it does not appear on an EICR unless specially requested.

I know the EICR forms are used by the LABC when they ask for third party inspection after some building work, and in that case the same as if you had done the installation any non compliance should be noted, but that is a special case. All they are doing is using the EICR forms as only the person/s who design, install and inspect and test can sign an installation certificate, and in that case anything which would not be permitted with a new installation should be high lighted, but for normal EICR it is not part of remit so no reference.

 

[EFLImpudence]

With reference to the fire-rating of downlights not being part of an EICR, I suppose it is the same people who think it is who also think it applies to consumer units.

 

[JohnW2]

With reference to the fire-rating of downlights not being part of an EICR, I suppose it is the same people who think it is who also think it applies to consumer units.

That did occur to me.

However, since EICRs are an invention of BS7671, and since most people regard them as relating to conformity with regulations in BS7671, that would make it reasonable to assume that plastic CUs are within the scope of an EICR but that fire-rated downlighters are not - since BS7671 contains regulations about the former but none about where the latter are required.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not exactly:

It is just the 'fire-ratedness' of downlights (that they contain intumescent material) that is being said to be outside the scope of an EICR; their installation surely is.

7671 says nothing about the 'fire-ratedness' of CUs; just that they shall be constructed of non-combustible material or enclosed in such - much like downlights are.

 

[JohnW2]

Not exactly: It is just the 'fire-ratedness' of downlights (that they contain intumescent material) that is being said to be outside the scope of an EICR; their installation surely is.

that's what I meant. Obviously, anything 'electrical' to do with downlighters is within the scope of BS7671, and hence the scope of EICRs. However, BS7671 says nothing about required 'fire-ratedness' of downlights (nor about what materials they may be constructed of), either in general or in any particular locations/situations.

7671 says nothing about the 'fire-ratedness' of CUs; just that they shall be constructed of non-combustible material or enclosed in such - much like downlights are.

BS7671 does not use the term 'fire-rated' in relation to CUs (not the least because it would rarely be relevant), but (in contrast with downlights) it does include a regulation (relating to all domestic CUs, no matter where located) requiring that they be made out of a 'non-combustible' material - so I think it's different. There is no requirement in BS7671 that downlights (in general or in specific situations) be constructed out of any particular material.

Don't forget that 'fire-rated' (as in downlights) is nothing to do with the item 'catching on fire' or anything like that (as is the concern with CUs). Rather, it's about preventing the spread of a fire (of any cause) through holes created to accommodate the item.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Don't forget that 'fire-rated' (as in downlights) is nothing to do with the item 'catching on fire' or anything like that (as is the concern with CUs).

Yes, I thought of that after I wrote it, but -

Rather, it's about preventing the spread of a fire (of any cause) through holes created to accommodate the item

Neither does BS7671 mention the spread of fire in connection with CUs.

 

[JohnW2]

Neither does BS7671 mention the spread of fire in connection with CUs.

Exactly. 'combustibity' and 'fire-ratedness' are two totally different issues and, in relation to CUs, BS7671 only addresses (and has requirements in relation to) the former.

'Fire-ratedness' would only be relevant to CUs in the very rare situations in which they were installed in a hole created in a partition (wall, ceiling etc.) which was required to be 'fire-rated' - and, if that ever were the case, the the requirements of Part B (as 'explained' in Approved Doc B) would have to be complied with. That is nothing to do with electricity, BS7671 or EICRs.

As I've observed before, the reg about CUs is silly even from the LFBs viewpoint, since there is no requirement for it to 'contain' fire. As I've said, a metal CU absolutely moth-eaten (other than on the top) with 10mm diameter holes would be compliant!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, in a cupboard with stairs above is irrelevant - to the EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

So, in a cupboard with stairs above is irrelevant - to the EICR.

That depoends upon what you mean.

It's irrelevant to the question of whether or not it conforms with BS7671. If it's plastic, it is non-conformant no matter where it is located.

However, as I keep saying, determining whether or not it is non-conformant is only the first step as far as an EICR in concerned. If it is found to be non-conformant (with current regs), the person providing the IECR then has to use their judgement/opinion to decide whether or not (in the prevailing circumstances) it represents enough of a potential danger' to warrant 'urgent remedial action' - and it's apparent that some people (like Simon) don't regard it as unreasonable to feel that location under wooden stairs is one factor which may influence their judgement about that.

You will have noted that I have been extensively using the term 'non-conformant' in this discussion, and that is because of the very odd change in definitions that has arisen in the 18th. As you know, a 'non-compliance' is now defined as "a non-conformity which may give rise to danger". Hence, if one throws around the phrase 'non-compliance' in the way we did before this change goes a long way to implying that a non-compliance should be given a C2, whereas a non-conformity which is not a 'non-compliance' (per new definition) should not be given a C2.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok. Non-comformant, then. Do they do it on purpose?

 

[JohnW2]

Ok. Non-comformant, then. Do they do it on purpose?

Do what - create this extraordinary definition? If so, your guess is as good as mine.

In every other field I have ever worked in in which the term 'non-compliance' (with a rule, regulation or whatever) is used, it means exactly 'what it says' (as, presumably, did BS7671, pre-18th). I have never previously come in a situation in which 'non-compliance' means something more than literal non-conformity.

Someone must have seen some perceived virtue in this change, but I struggle to think what the reasoning can have been!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Blimey.
Start a thread about downlighters and it ends up back on an unfinished topic about CU's from a previous thread....

 

[JohnW2]

Blimey. Start a thread about downlighters and it ends up back on an unfinished topic about CU's from a previous thread....

It hasn't really drifted much. You asked "Should non- FRF's always be mentioned on an EICR?", and (following my initial suggestion that the 'fire-rating', per se of a downlighter was outside of the scope of an EICR, and so probably shouldn't be mentioned on an EICR), , EFLI then suggested that there might be a parallel with plastic CUs (as per other threads).

However, as you will have seen see, I disagree with EFLI - since, whilst BS7671 says nothing about situations in which downlighters (or anything else) should be 'fire-rated', it does say that domestic CUs should be made out of 'non-combustible' materials.

Kind Regards, John