New Zealand bathroom light

[m1ck_b87]

Non ip rated bathroom light in zone 2 what you reckon guys
Code 2 or
Code 3

 

[Octopus]

C2, imho.

 

[Mike66]

I think it depends on the type of existing light. I think im right in saying that 16th permitted batten holder with home office skirt, I might be wrong. I have just tested an old peoples home & they have enclosed fittings in the bathrooms but are not IPX4 so IMO C3

 

[tony mc]

You have to test to the current regs so code 2 IMO !

 

[telectrix]

are you sure it's in zone 2? 2.24m height.

 

[m1ck_b87]

100% sure tel

 

[telectrix]

then, IMO< against general opinions expressed so far, code 3, i can't really see it as a potential danger.

 

[m1ck_b87]

Personally I think code 3 unless any1 has got any reference to say otherwise.

 

[Mike66]

What type of light fitting is it?

 

[tony mc]

Personally I think code 3 unless any1 has got any reference to say otherwise.

IMO its down to you as the person testing the premises and deciding what code if any is required. You have first hand experience and have seen the fitting in question and as long as you are happy that it is not a potential danger fair enough! As can be seen from some of the replies some think differently !

 

[Mike66]

Does it have 30mA RCD protection? this may have a bearing on the code

There was a discussion on here yesterday regarding lack of 30mA RCD protection on an old installation. The general view was code 3 for that with the explanation that it was ok on the day it was installed. I think that is a code 2 irrellevant on whether it was ok on the day it was installed.

I think at the end of the day you have to judge it as you see fit because everyone will have different views. Every install is different as well as everyones opinion. I think it is still very interesting to see everybodies opinion so keep up the good work

 

[MDJ]

Code 3, but should be a 2, but I have to work to the regs so a 3 it is

 

[Rampantchilli]

There was a discussion on here yesterday regarding lack of 30mA RCD protection on an old installation. The general view was code 3 for that with the explanation that it was ok on the day it was installed. I think that is a code 2 irrellevant on whether it was ok on the day it was installed.

I think at the end of the day you have to judge it as you see fit because everyone will have different views. Every install is different as well as everyones opinion. I think it is still very interesting to see everybodies opinion so keep up the good work

Its dependant on other factors, not just the regs that were current at the time of install.

a socket outlet without Rcd protection is a c3, if its not intended to power outside equipment, but a c2 if it is itended, also if its in a bathroom.
buried cables are only c3 if no Rcd.
and circuits supplying equipment in the bathroom is c2 if no supplementary bonding and no Rcd, but if adequate bonding then only c3.
The ESC best practice guide informs on a lot of these things, although not everything, but the key is to test against current standards, and any codes must be able to be backed up by actual regs, not just good practice

 

[Mike66]

Why is no supplementary bonding a Code 2 if there is no 30mA RCD protection?. From memory
supplementary bonding between circuits came into effect mid way of 16th Edition, before that was not needed as I recall

 

[1ManRiot]

Why is no supplementary bonding a Code 2 if there is no 30mA RCD protection?. From memory
supplementary bonding between circuits came into effect mid way of 16th Edition, before that was not needed as I recall

To 17th, supp. bonding is required unless all circuits meet the required disconnection times, and an RCD is installed, and all extraneous-conductive parts in the location are connected by main protective bonding conductors to the MET, so you would argue it is "potentially dangerous" (C2).

To OP, I think C2 as it is "potentially dangerous".

I was always taught:
-Code 1 if there is a danger and a fault
-Code 2 if there isn't a fault but it'd be dangerous under fault conditions
-Code 3 if there is no danger or fault but isn't compliant to latest regs

 

[MDJ]

should be a 2, but I reckon ufortunately a 3, unless it's a pendant of course hanging 2ft from the bath lol

 

[Mike66]

To 17th, supp. bonding is required unless all circuits meet the required disconnection times, and an RCD is installed, and all extraneous-conductive parts in the location are connected by main protective bonding conductors to the MET, so you would argue it is "potentially dangerous" (C2).

To OP, I think C2 as it is "potentially dangerous".

I was always taught:
-Code 1 if there is a danger and a fault
-Code 2 if there isn't a fault but it'd be dangerous under fault conditions
-Code 3 if there is no danger or fault but isn't compliant to latest regs

Does that mean that all those installations done before 16th are dangerous because they had no 30mA RCD or supplementary earthing?

 

[1ManRiot]

Does that mean that all those installations done before 16th are dangerous because they had no 30mA RCD or supplementary earthing?

No, but it means they're "potentially dangerous" or else why would the regs have been changed?

 

[Mike66]

Something that was installed under a previous reg & was ok at that time can not becombe potentially dangerous over night. This would be a C3 IMO no more, no less.

Regarding why would the reg change they do that all the time. once upon a time you had to earth bond a stainless steel kitchen sink & all sinks came with little tag to fix your earth cable to, then over night they stopped fitting the little tag & earthing was no longer required so what was that all about.

 

[Rampantchilli]

unfortunately the ESC BPG says its C2 and id give it a C2, cause if you only say C3 and someone gets zapped, it wont be the IET who get BUTT F***ed when bending over in the shower lol