Wiring regulations. Ceiling rose pendant junctions are screwed terminals. Those in your ceiling voids are not accessible, so they should be maintenance-free junction boxes. Sorry, Fail.
Is this old ceiling rose (now in the loft) safe or acceptable?
- Thread starter Sprogginz
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The old debate about what is accessible and what is not or to what degree of access.
LOL.
There is nothing wrong in using a ceiling rose for a junction providing it is accessible like under the cup, providing it can be done safely.
To use it a gen junction box, say for lighting, is OK to providing you make the holes off and secure the cables of course.
A junction box (including a ceiling rose) can be installed properly or bodged, it`s easy to do either way.
There is even usually a way to leave the old rose base in place and use a bracket similar to the one shown but it can start to become more difficult and therefore not really worthwhile.
It`s a bit like the age old rings v radials thingy.
Rings have advantages over radials and vice versa.
I wouldn`t say either is inappropriate in all cases when compared to the other.
I was brought up on rings so I might be biased slightly that way. If they were invented today there would be an uproar.
At the time they had some merits so were adopted and became "normal". They have pretty much stood the test of time but are more readily abused by the uninitiated too. If they were just invented today I would go "WHAT!" too.
Whilst some state that using something "Not as the manufacturer intended" therefore must be wrong, must surely conflict with the regs noting that new inventions and ideas are not precluded . Using something in a way not intended but could be done so with sufficient knowledge and sound engineering judgement and therefore not always a bodge. That`s how things progress (or otherwise).
LOL.
There is nothing wrong in using a ceiling rose for a junction providing it is accessible like under the cup, providing it can be done safely.
To use it a gen junction box, say for lighting, is OK to providing you make the holes off and secure the cables of course.
A junction box (including a ceiling rose) can be installed properly or bodged, it`s easy to do either way.
There is even usually a way to leave the old rose base in place and use a bracket similar to the one shown but it can start to become more difficult and therefore not really worthwhile.
It`s a bit like the age old rings v radials thingy.
Rings have advantages over radials and vice versa.
I wouldn`t say either is inappropriate in all cases when compared to the other.
I was brought up on rings so I might be biased slightly that way. If they were invented today there would be an uproar.
At the time they had some merits so were adopted and became "normal". They have pretty much stood the test of time but are more readily abused by the uninitiated too. If they were just invented today I would go "WHAT!" too.
Whilst some state that using something "Not as the manufacturer intended" therefore must be wrong, must surely conflict with the regs noting that new inventions and ideas are not precluded . Using something in a way not intended but could be done so with sufficient knowledge and sound engineering judgement and therefore not always a bodge. That`s how things progress (or otherwise).
Last edited:
If you can pull the rose down through the ceiling hole, or access it from above, by easily lifting floorboards, then I wouldn't dispute it as being 'accessible'.
Yes Harry, lifting of floorboards depends to what extreme I think. Or to lift a modern boarded floor to get to the old T & G boards underneath.
Similar, if you can poke your head above a loft hatch and easily work on an adjacent junction box or if it is right at the end of a long walk over insulation and weak timbers over a fragile ceiling, again its all a matter of degree and who is doing it and their perception of the amount of accessibility or non.
Similar, if you can poke your head above a loft hatch and easily work on an adjacent junction box or if it is right at the end of a long walk over insulation and weak timbers over a fragile ceiling, again its all a matter of degree and who is doing it and their perception of the amount of accessibility or non.
Sponsored Links
At the time they were valid and a good solution for their intended purpose, and the limitations of the time, with the already installed cable and BS3036 fuses derating factors.
Nowadays there is just no point having them because the regulation is still written for a 30A BS3036 fuse and is not appropriate for 32A MCBs.
You could actually use 20A CCC cable as per the regulation(1.5mm²) with 32A MCB or 2.5mm² with 40A MCB but not allowed.
If they are such a good idea why can we not have 1mm² rings with 25A MCBs
Can't we?
Surely this comes down to circuit design.
I have two rings for the house, a radial for the garage & workshop, for my loft workshop, for garden, for summerhouse. I am not averse to radials, but my rings were installed in the 80's, split by floor. The ground floor ring, is the most heavily used, but simply because it includes the kitchen and utility, the rest of the load on that circuit is negligible (try spelling, or saying, that after a few pints).
Unless I misread this: The load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed the current-carrying capacity of the cable for long periods.
As long as the circuit is correctly designed I don't see the problem as long as 1mm² is capable of carrying the current the designer identifies. Subject to installation methods and derating factors.
Surely that is the whole point of 433.1.204
So you are going to ignore the rest of 433.1.204?
Yes, isn't that (sort of) what I am querying, but 433.1.204 says "No"?
What is?
Firstly, they are accessible from above and secondly, unless I’m seeing things, that box you recommend in post #3 has screwed terminals. What’s the difference?
The box in post 3 was for the OP, his is in the loft.
Your junctions are in the ceiling void with rooms above. In my experience, access from above through flooring is often impossible because of fitted carpets, engineered wood flooring, under floor heating etc etc are added later.
But never mind, you are obviously happy to bodge your way through life and advise others that is alright because your way has been working for several years.
Well I suppose we'll just have to disagree on our definitions of 'accessible'. Is there something in the regs that says if there is a carpet in the room, that makes things below it inaccessible? Is there a time limit in the regs that voids things from being accessible? What if you don’t have a loft ladder or you are too fat to fit through a small loft hatch - would that turn your suggestion into an inaccessible junction box?
I would define accessible, as whether there would be a need to destroy decoration, in order to access the joint. Move furniture out the way, lift a corner of carpet, and lifting a floorboard is 'accessible'. Attacking a decorated and plastered wall, engineered wood flooring, or destroying under floor heating - is not 'accessible'.
Agreed.
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
