How often do you see spurs on a certificate's schedule of circuits?
As in "differently able"?
They clearly did feel differently, but have not been able to define how they feel, which makes it impossible for anyone to go along with them.
Switches near hobs
- Thread starter DavidA1982
- Start date
They clearly did feel differently, but have not been able to define how they feel, which makes it impossible for anyone to go along with them.
Sponsored Links
Whilst I do not pretend to understand the 'why', it's fairly clear that their intention was to make a distinction between 'lighting circuits' and 'all other circuits'. There is no real difficulty in 'going along' with that assumed intent for clear-cut situations - and that is, I think, what most people do (very many circuits are quite obviously not 'lighting circuits'). As I've said, the only real difficulty arises in relation to circuits which are primarily for lighting, but also serve small fans, shaver sockets or whatever. Common sense suggests that it's probably reasonable to treat them as lighting circuits, but we don't know whether that was 'their' intent.
The lack of clarity in the regs is clearly not satisfactory.
Kind Regards, John
Indeed it is not.
And the right and proper way to deal with that is to reject it as unsatisfactory, not to try and "best-guess" your way around their incompetence.
That's one view. Many would probably try to get close as to what they 'guessed' was the intent.
In practice, it's probably a pretty much a non-issue. It's unlikely that the situation would often arise that anyone would contemplate using 1.0mm² for anything other than lighting (with or without fans/shaver sockets etc.) - since, even with Method C, the largest standard-size MCB one could protect it with would be 10A. A dedicated alarms, boiler or freezer circuit, perhaps, but, in practice, I would not have thought much else in terms of common circuits.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
I don't pretend to know anything about the Regs or even what the conversation involves here, but surely as they are legislation you apply the same rules of interpretation as you would to any other piece of legislation?
I.e. if a literal interpretation of the words gives rise to an absurdity (and it seems to here), then you look to the intention of the legislator and interpret the law in line with that.
As I recently wrote, I agree. The issue is a simple one - the regs say that the minimum sizes of cables are 1.0mm² for 'lighting circuits' and 1.5mm² for 'power circuits', but fail to define precisely what they mean by those two types of circuits. Although it might sound obvious, as I've said, there are grey areas - e.g. if a circuit supplies mainly lights, but also extrator fan(s) or shaver sockets etc., is it still a 'lighting circuit'?
In this case, it's not so much absurd as simply unclear. However, as I've said, I personally feel that the appropriate thing to do is to make one's best attempt to decide (some would say 'guess') what was the intent of the (imperfectly drafted) regulation. In this case, I personally feel that this means that any lighting circuit (even if it also supplies small fans and/or shaver sockets etc.) can use 1.0mm² cable, but that the minimum size for any other circuit is 1.5mm². I believe that is the interpretation that most electricians adopt.
Kind Regards, John
Not if people are told that they may not use 1mm² for a fan or a shaver socket because it's not a lighting circuit.
And anyway - I know that you don't care for them, but there is a matter of principle at stake.
But you are trying to complicate it.
And therefore they don't work.
What if it supplies a socket for a lighting wall-wart? I guess that's still lighting, even though it has a BS 1363 socket on it?
What if someone later uses that same socket for a phone charger, or a TV amplifier? Is it now a power circuit?
How do you classify a circuit which has both sockets and lighting on it?
And therefore unacceptable.
Lack of clarity, lack of precision, lack of accuracy - all of these things are unacceptable in technical regulations.
Ah - I always forget about Table 4D5
. That's another anomaly of the regs - Table 4D2A says that the Method C CCC of 1mm² cable is 15A - but, as I presume your pictures are meant to remind me, Table 4D5 says 16A!Whatever, as I said, I don't think that (in view of the assumed intent of Table 52.3) many people would contemplate using 1mm² cable for a circuit that required a 16A OPD. Are you suggesting that, just as a "matter of principle", we should start wiring, say, immersion circuits in 1mm² cable, given that most people would regard it as 'fairly obvious' that the intent of the regs was to forbid that?
Kind Regards, John
I agree - but, even if 'unacceptable', if those issues do exist, then IMO we have to find a sensible way of dealing with the situation, rather than just 'reject' the badly-written regulation and act as if it wasn't there.
Kind Regards, John
Oh, bloody hell. I've got this: LED strips on a wall wart, plugged in to a socket on the lighting circuit (1mm).
*******s. Do I have to replace the lighting circuit cable too?! I'm starting to dislike my electrician.
Amidst the confusions and uncertainties, I don't see any problem with that one. LED strips are lights, aren't they - so they don't detract from the fact that it's a lighting circuit! No-one has suggested that lights on a lighting circuit can't be supplied via sockets
Now, as BAS has said, if that wall wart were supplying something which was not 'lighting' ...... !!Kind Regards, John
Right, I'm going to put a bloody massive label next to the socket saying something like "this is a socket for a lighting circuit, do not plug anything other than lights in to this". The sockets are on top of the kitchen cabinets so they are not really accessible anyway, but it won't hurt to make it absolutely clear what those sockets are to be used for.Amidst the confusions and uncertainties, I don't see any problem with that one. LED strips are lights, aren't they - so they don't detract from the fact that it's a lighting circuit! No-one has suggested that lights on a lighting circuit can't be supplied via sockets
Kind Regards, John
Fair enough, but I don't think you really need to worry. There are probably millions of 1mm ² (primarily) 'lighting circuits' out there which are supplying small loads which are not lighting, and no-one is 'in prison' as a result
It all seems very silly. Whilst it is not difficult to imagine what was probably the 'intent' of those who wrote this ill-defined regulation (although they probably overlooked the 'grey areas' which were always going to be a major problem), speculating about the 'reason for that intent' is far more difficult. There's no obvious reason why one should single out 'lighting circuits' (even if one can, and does, define them!) for being allowed to use smaller cable than any other type of circuit!
Kind Regards, John
Would such a circuit comply with 433.1.1?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
