Bad emergency lighting install

[timhoward]

Two lighting circuits covering various communal areas on two floors of a HMO.
The non-maintained emergency lighting that covers those areas is on a separate circuit (actually with the fire alarm). So either of the lighting breakers could trip and the relevant lighting wouldn't come on.

Who takes the view that this is a NOTE as it's not an electrical safety issue, and who takes the view that the electrical installation was badly thought out and/or implemented and it's fair game to code this as an electrical issue? My leaning is the former. Who's on which side of the fence?!

As far as I can see the only trivial improvement is putting the maintained links in them all.

 

[westward10]

So the fittings aren't actually non maintained if you can put links in them, they are maintained.

 

[timhoward]

So the fittings aren't actually non maintained if you can put links in them, they are maintained.

I said the last bit wrong.
They are non maintained. They could be converted to be on all the time.

 

[westward10]

What do their rating plates state X 1 180 or X 0 180.

 

[timhoward]

What do their rating plates state X 1 180 or X 0 180.

Sorry I didn't notice. All I can say is that they are elderly Eterna units (pre-LED) with the choc-block style connection. They are in all likelihood overdue replacement anyway.
I don't claim to be a BS5266 expert which is why I'm asking here - my understanding was that the current arrangements aren't compliant. As ever I'm happy to be corrected though. Ultimately I'm trying to provide helpful and accurate advice to a landlord.

 

[ipf]

As far as I can see the only trivial improvement is putting the maintained links in them all.

That leaving them on 24hrs or can the L be switched (or tested)?

 

[timhoward]

That leaving them on 24hrs or can the L be switched (or tested)?

I'm actually starting to have doubts now that these fittings are able to be maintained after all.

At the moment if the lights go off due to a breaker trip the emergency lights won't come on.
This is because they are wired via test switch from another circuit (which is shared with the fire alarm, another issue...)
Future options as I see it are
a) rewire them to be on the relevant circuits
b) mess around with contactors from both the circuits which seems overkill and adding parts to maintain and replace.
c) have the emergency lights on all the time ( which occured to me while driving back and may in fact not be possible with the current fittings)

But I'm mainly interested in whether it's appropriate for this to be a C3 or C2 as opposed to a Note (as per expired smoke alarms etc)

 

[westward10]

If they are the old Eterna 8w tube fittings they are either M or NM and NM cannot become M. NM fittings must operate upon failure of the local general lighting.
Personally I wouldn't mention it in the Report they should be routinely tested and if this is done by a competent person they should be noting this.
The fire alarm should be a dedicated circuit wired in FP200 or equivalent and should not have anything else connected from it.

 

[ipf]

I'm actually starting to have doubts now that these fittings are able to be maintained after all.

At the moment if the lights go off due to a breaker trip the emergency lights won't come on.
This is because they are wired via test switch from another circuit (which is shared with the fire alarm, another issue...)
Future options as I see it are
a) rewire them to be on the relevant circuits
b) mess around with contactors from both the circuits which seems overkill and adding parts to maintain and replace.
c) have the emergency lights on all the time ( which occured to me while driving back and may in fact not be possible with the current fittings)

But I'm mainly interested in whether it's appropriate for this to be a C3 or C2 as opposed to a Note (as per expired smoke alarms etc)

Seems like DIY.
Emergency lighting is a different test procedure and certificate than an EIC or EICR, so I think it would be a notation rather than a C2 or C3, if anything.

 

[davesparks]

But I'm mainly interested in whether it's appropriate for this to be a C3 or C2 as opposed to a Note (as per expired smoke alarms etc)

None of the above, in my opinion it's a conversation with the responsible person to explain the problem and/or a seperate letter.

 

[Fazz711]

You say if the breaker trips the E/M lights won't come on.
Are they not battery operated for power loss?

 

[westward10]

You say if the breaker trips the E/M lights won't come on.
Are they not battery operated for power loss?

He means if either of the lighting circuits trip they won't come on because they are wired through another circuit.

 

[Lister1987]

560.9, any emergency lighting should comply with the relevant parts of BS 5266/BS EN 1838. If it is designed/installed in such a way that it doesn't perform as it should then it can't, by extension, be deemed to meet the parts of 5266-1/1838.

Really you want to see how it was designed as it could be fundamentally flawed, in which case a case could be made under the Fire Safety (Regulatory Reform) Order 2005 and statutory breaches could be present but that is really for the licensing authority.

Whether to C2/C3 is would be personal choice, being a safety service I would want it fixed so would C2 it, moreover being a HMO it may have additional stipulations from the licensing authority, given more weight to a code of C2 over C3.

 

[timhoward]

Thanks a lot everyone. I've met landlord this morning to talk through this, the fire alarm (T+E feed and shared supply) and other matters.
He's on board with making improvements.

 

[sinewove]

Two lighting circuits covering various communal areas on two floors of a HMO.
The non-maintained emergency lighting that covers those areas is on a separate circuit (actually with the fire alarm). So either of the lighting breakers could trip and the relevant lighting wouldn't come on.

Who takes the view that this is a NOTE as it's not an electrical safety issue, and who takes the view that the electrical installation was badly thought out and/or implemented and it's fair game to code this as an electrical issue? My leaning is the former. Who's on which side of the fence?!

As far as I can see the only trivial improvement is putting the maintained links in them all.

Not an expert on em lighting,but could a contactor on each lighting cct with series contacts break the cct to the em lights if any lighting cct failed?

 

[timhoward]

Not an expert on em lighting,but could a contactor on each lighting cct with series contacts break the cct to the em lights if any lighting cct failed?

Yes. (actually option b in post #7!)
Since writing that it seemed overkill I've realised that low rated contactors are under £10 and this could in fact be the simplest solution.

 

[davesparks]

Not an expert on em lighting,but could a contactor on each lighting cct with series contacts break the cct to the em lights if any lighting cct failed?

Yes, but it adds more potential points of failure and may make the system less easy to maintain in the future.

 

[Lister1987]

(T+E feed and shared supply) and other matters.

Please tell me that's in FP from the board to those safety services?

 

[timhoward]

Please tell me that's in FP from the board to those safety services?

That's exactly the point - it isn't.
To be fair when that system was installed it actually didn't have to be. (if I I remember correctly from my fire alarm days 2002 was the change in BS 5389 that bought that in)
Anyway, it's been bought to the landlords attention and he is being meticulous in wanting everything spot-on, so it's being upgraded. I've phoned the fire alarm service company and they are on board.