lights in bathroom mysterioulsy fail to work

[securespark]

Well, the regs are a minimum....there is nothing to say you cannot exceed them....

But I think it is not unreasonable to have at least 2 lighting circuits in a modern home. Even a one bed flat.

It's not like we are still installing 404's, with 1 lighting, 1 cooker, 1 socket and 1 IH circuit!!

 

[JohnW2]

But I think it is not unreasonable to have at least 2 lighting circuits in a modern home. Even a one bed flat.

I suppose one can argue that way, but the dangers, and even 'inconveniences', we are talking about are really very small. Apart from the matter of what is theoretically possible, have you (or anyone else here) ever heard of someone ever having 'come to significant harm' as a result of being plunged into darkness.

I'm pretty certain that most of the (small number of) instances of 'being plunged into darkness' I have experienced in the last few years have been due to (usually brief) power cuts, not to faults in any circuits or inappropriate operation of protective devices - and, as I've said, nothing but (properly maintained) emergency lighting can 'protect' against that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

one man's "inconvenience" is another man's excuse to take his partner to bed early

Low-down dirty rotten b*****d - taking advantage of another man's inconvenience to bed his wife.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

17th Eds (314.1), something like: Every installation shall be divided into circuits as necessary to avoid danger in the event of a fault.

This is the current requirements and the one which the system was installed under. It says absolutely nothing about having to have two lighting circuits. Dividing the lighting from the sockets would qualify, if done in the correct manner.

 

[securespark]

No, of course it doesn't talk about more than 1 lighting circuit. It doesn't talk about more than 1 socket circuit either, but even if it were possible, you wouldn't just have one of those, would you?

After all, knowing what you know now from the 14th Ed (A25, Note 2), providing more than one circuit of any type is what the regulation is hinting at.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

No, of course it doesn't talk about more than 1 lighting circuit. It doesn't talk about more than 1 socket circuit either, but even if it were possible, you wouldn't just have one of those, would you?

After all, knowing what you know now from the 14th Ed (A25, Note 2), providing more than one circuit of any type is what the regulation is hinting at.

But it is no longer a requirement. So my post to the OP stating is not a req or reg, is correct and he has no grounds for requesting the installer to change it.

 

[JohnW2]

No, of course it doesn't talk about more than 1 lighting circuit. It doesn't talk about more than 1 socket circuit either, but even if it were possible, you wouldn't just have one of those, would you?

I probably personally wouldn't do it, but I've seen a good few small installations that have only one 'general purpose' sockets circuit (maybe plus a second one for the kitchen).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But it is no longer a requirement.

Indeed - but I don't think it actually ever was ('a requirement'). Even in the 14th ed., it mere said that a single lighting circuit was 'undesirable in the interests of good planning'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Indeed - but I don't think it actually ever was ('a requirement'). Even in the 14th ed., it mere said that a single lighting circuit was 'undesirable in the interests of good planning'.

Not sure what is actually stated in 14th eds, but I agree that even now it is not desirable. And most worthwhile and conscientious installers, would install at least two lighting and two socket circuits in a dwelling., given the opportunity. I certainly would as a minimum, but we don't have to, nor do we have to install two lighting circuits as a minimum.
(only defending the point I made regarding (reqs/regs), against the comments made by securesparks. Though I do agree it is undesirable to have just the single lighting circuit and not unreasonable to expect at least two lighting circuits, in newly installed/rewired dwelling)

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure what is actually stated in 14th eds, but I agree that even now it is not desirable.

I'm only going by what securespark quoted of "A25 Note 2" of 14th. ed. in message #29 of this thread. However, as I said, it appears to have only spoken of a single lighting circuit was 'undesirable', which is/was not that same as saying that more than lighting circuit was actually "required".

And most worthwhile and conscientious installers, would install at least two lighting and two socket circuits in a dwelling., given the opportunity. I certainly would as a minimum, but we don't have two, nor do we have to install two lighting circuits as a minimum. .... Though I do agree it is undesirable to have just the single lighting circuit and not unreasonable to expect at least two lighting circuits, in newly installed/rewired dwelling)

I agree with all that, and that such is what almost everyone would do as you suggest. However, as I've said, given what those measures are seemingly designed to 'protect' against, multiple lighting circuits and/or having sockets/lighting in a given area on different RCDs falls short of fully achieving that 'protection' unless there is also emergency lighting and/or a requirement for some fixed lighting to be supplied from sockets circuits.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Yes unless we did provide two lighting circuits into each location/room, that was installed in a manner that if one tripped the other in normal circumstances would remain energised, it would be difficult to comply to 314.1 (iii)
But we can take in account, that if the socket circuit in that location/room was installed in manner that either the lighting or socket circuit would remain energised, if one should fail, would usually be sufficient, yet there will be occasion it is not!

 

[JohnW2]

Yes unless we did provide two lighting circuits into each location/room, that was installed in a manner that if one tripped the other in normal circumstances would remain energised, it would be difficult to comply to 314.1 (iii)

Quite - and even if you did that, you would still not have "avoided the danger and minimized the inconvenience" that would result from being plunged into total darkness by a power cut - something which, as I've said, has been a more common cause of 'being plunged into darkness' in my house than has any fault or protective device!

But we can take in account, that if the socket circuit in that location/room was installed in manner that either the lighting or socket circuit would remain energised, if one should fail, would usually be sufficient, yet there will be occasion it is not!

Only really if there was some insistence on sockets-circuit-supplied lighting. I know of very many rooms (indeed, some whole houses, and certainly many whole floors) which have plenty of sockets, but no immediately-available light which is, or could be, plugged into one of those sockets!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A few EM lights in strategic locations will do, with the bonus that they will work in power cuts.

 

[securespark]

A25 just talks about the maximum number of points on a final circuit not exceeding 15A being limited by their aggregate demand according to table A2. And there is no other allowance for diversity and the cable's current capacity must not be exceeded (thought that would be obvious!)

BTW, the demand according to table A2 for lighting outlets is: Current equivalent to the connected load, with a minimum of 100W per lampholder.

 

[JohnW2]

BTW, the demand according to table A2 for lighting outlets is: Current equivalent to the connected load, with a minimum of 100W per lampholder.

Is that not what the OSG (which seems a bit behind the times) still says today?

Kind Regards, John