Metal lamp holder not earthed - pendant pedant

[sparkwright]

It is true that we haven't literally seen it, but the OP wrote ...
As most of us have said, it does seem that the most likely explanation is that the lampholder is Class II, whereas the rose is Class I.

This begs two questions - firstly, in such a 'mixed' (Class I + Class II) situation, what would we expect to be written on the box? In at least some senses, "Class I" would seem to be the 'safer' option?

Secondly, as already mentioned and discussed, is it actually compulsory that a Class II 'component' (i.e. the lampholder) must bear a Class II symbol/marking? - and I don't know the answer to that one. I had always assumed that if a product had exposed-conductive-parts and was not marked as being Class II, then it had to be regarded as Class I, and hence those exposed-c-ps earthed. However, as has been pointed out, such marking might be impractical in some cases (but not, I would have thought, for a lampholder) - so it will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with any 'chapter and verse' as regards what the relevant Standard says about this.

Kind Regards, John

Class I+Class II = Class I

It's got an earth terminal to the base where the ceiling wires connect in, hasn't it?

And the lampholders happen to be double insulated. That's no problem.

Since the installer won't be working on the lampholders, does there need to be a Class II marking? I don't see why, in fact such a label could confuse an installer into thinking the whole fitting does not need an earth connection.

 

[JohnW2]

Class I+Class II = Class I .... It's got an earth terminal to the base where the ceiling wires connect in, hasn't it?

Whilst I can sympathise with that view, I think it becomes less straightforward when, as in this case, the item consists of two distinct components, either of which might subsequently be 'worked on' or replaced, separately, in the name of maintenance.

And the lampholders happen to be double insulated. That's no problem.

Indeed. On the contrary, it's probably the reason why the product as a whole is 'OK'. It's the 'marking' we are discussing.

Since the installer won't be working on the lampholders, does there need to be a Class II marking? I don't see why, in fact such a label could confuse an installer into thinking the whole fitting does not need an earth connection.

As above, whilst the installer will not be working on the lampholder, a subsequent 'maintainer' might be. Indeed, if any part of the total product subsequently needs to be replaced, it is far far more likely to be the lampholder than the rose.

Whilst one would hope that anyone doing such maintenance would have enough knowledge/sense to understand what was needed, if they were replacing a (metal exterior) lampholder which bore no Class II marking, some might 'assume' that they could replace it with another (metal exterior) lampholder which didn't have a Class II marking (but in this case because it was Class I), yet still just connect it to the 2-core flex.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

I remember an insulated (plastic) consumer unit I had to fit some years ago, it had a double insulated marking on it (square in a square). That to me seemed a stupid and misleading thing to put on it.

 

[JohnW2]

I remember an insulated (plastic) consumer unit I had to fit some years ago, it had a double insulated marking on it (square in a square). That to me seemed a stupid and misleading thing to put on it.

That brings us back to the question I have asked umpteen times (here and elsewhere), with no-one ever having been able to give me much of an answer ...

... if a product obviously cannot be Class I (since it has no exposed metal parts), but its insulation is neither 'double' nor 'reinforced' (so cannot qualify as Class II), then what on earth IS it - "not allowed", "Class X" or what?

As for your CU, I presume that the insulation must have been "double or reinforced", so that it would, indeed, qualify as Class II. That is not really any different from the Class II markings which exist on many of the items I have in my house which have no exposed metal parts (wall-warts, laptop chargers, hair dryers etc. etc.), is it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As such a product does not require any steps to be taken to prevent electric shocks, then designating it Class I or Class II, can it not simply be unclassified?

Much like things which do not present a medical or biological hazard do not have to be designated or classified as such.

 

[JohnW2]

As such a product does not require any steps to be taken to prevent electric shocks, then designating it Class I or Class II, can it not simply be unclassified?

That's effectively the question I have asked countless times, without anyone really having an answer.

One problem with what you are suggesting is that we would need to define who was to decide that a particular product "does not require any steps to be taken to prevent electric shocks", and by what criteria they would make that decision.

One might argue that anything totally enclosed in plastic came into that category, and hence could be 'unclassified' - but, as I just wrote, many/most of the totally-plastic-enclosed products I have do bear a Class II marking - which I suspect they wouldn't if they didn't 'have to'.

Furthermore, if one said (without qualification) that anything 'totally enclosed in plastic' could be treated as 'unclassified', that would not preclude the plastic enclosure being so flimsy that one could 'put ones finger through it' (or suchlike) - and it seems hard to believe that would be allowed ... so, again there would seemingly be a need to define a person, and criteria, for deciding that a particular product was 'non-flimsy enough' to not 'require any steps to prevent electric shock'?

Much like things which do not present a medical or biological hazard do not have to be designated or classified as such.

Well, since you mention that ....

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Aren't those labels just for information when vehicles are involved in road traffic accidents?

Who decides which products require those labels?

Why is everything not covered in labe!s?

 

[JohnW2]

Aren't those labels just for information when vehicles are involved in road traffic accidents?
Who decides which products require those labels? Why is everything not covered in labe!s?

It was, as you must realise, just a tongue-in-cheek response to what you have written (hence the smiley). I agree that, in general, 'negative labelling' is not often required (and even more rarely 'mandated').

Having said that, the 'code numbers' ("2" and "30XY") on a couple of those signs seems to imply that they probably are official designations and therefore might possibly be 'required'. I have no idea.

However, my important ('serious') points/questions were in the earlier part of that post - do you have any comments/answers?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Class I+Class II = Class I ... It's got an earth terminal to the base where the ceiling wires connect in, hasn't it? ... And the lampholders happen to be double insulated. That's no problem.

Looking back, I don't think I've actually mentioned what I regard as the greatest concern ...

.. I strongly suspect that that lampholder is an 'off the shelf' one, not one specifically manufactured for that particular 'product' (rose+lampholder)

If that is the case, such that such a lampholder (and others like it) are available for purchase, then I do see a potential problem. What about the situation in which someone wants/needs a Class II lampholder with a metal exterior (i.e. not requiring any earthing, and supply-able via a 2-core flex)? If such items do not bear a Class II marking, then is a buyer safe to assume that the absence of an earth terminal is enough to 'prove' that it actually is Class II- after all, a Class I item with no provided means of earthing is one of the things we sometimes see in 'dangerous imports', isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[McKenna32]

Hi folks


Sorry for going quiet. Work’s going mental. I appreciate the helpful discussion so far. I have spoken to the store in the meantime and the team I needed to speak to were, predictably, “not picking up”. I’ve got another week or two to return them so I’ll try again next week.


They also appear to be impossible to disassemble without destroying, so nothing further on the images front.

I'm not sure that's true - I'll have to try to dig up the standard. I forsee that would be impractical or impossible in many situations.

Very interested in this if you did find anything @aptsys ?

I have looked at LED BA22d bulbs not one marked as class II.

Is there not a “fingerproof” IPxxB argument to be made for BA22D (or similar) bulbs? – if you can’t touch it, it’s not ever dangerous…

From picture can't work out if that bulb holder is metal or plastic,

I was hoping you were onto something there…i.e. perhaps just a metallised outer coating on plastic, but no – heavy enough, takes punishment like metal (have had various grips on them trying to dismantle), and even if it were plastic, when I poke probes inside the holder between the plastic inner and the metal(/lised) outer, it’s a dead conductive thing by all measurements.

Much like things which do not present a medical or biological hazard do not have to be designated or classified as such.

I get where you’re coming from – we don’t need cucumbers to be marked “non-hazardous”, but this is mostly because there are no examples of a hazardous cucumber in history (unless travelling at speed), but I don’t think that argument holds up where the object in question could quite normally be hazardous, or even hazardous in most cases i.e. a canister of unknown gas per the stickers @JohnW2 provided. Any skilled person approaching an unknown electrical install is looking for that the installation is, to the rules and regs of the land, considered “safe”, right?. If there are parts on sale that, while they may be perfectly safe, don’t bear the markings that allow it to be considered “safe” by said rules and regs, then it will always be considered non-compliant or dangerous, which for the sake of a sticker seems a bit of a silly thing to sell, right?

Will post up again when I eventually decide what to do

Take it to trading standards.

Yeah if I can’t convince myself they’re right then they will be returned and whilst I'm not about to devote my life to getting these off the shelves, I will drop TS the images and let them run with it.

Cheers

al

Edited to remove store name - not sure on diynot policies on this

 

[JohnW2]

Is there not a “fingerproof” IPxxB argument to be made for BA22D (or similar) bulbs? – if you can’t touch it, it’s not ever dangerous…

As I wrote, this is an issue which we have discussed here countless times, and I personally find the situation to be very unclear and confusing. I don't seem to be alone, since I have asked the relevant questions countless times (here and elsewhere), and no-one has ever been able to give much of an answer.

The point is that it seems that "if you can't touch it, ...", alone, is not necessarily enough - as I've said, that would allow something if whatever (in the product as manufactured) was preventing one touching live parts was so thin/flimsy/whatever that one could easily 'put one's finger through it'.

I presume that is why the situation seems to be that is that if something is not protected by an earthed metal outer (i.e. Class I), then one has to be prevented from touching live parts by "double or reinforced insulation" (not just 'by anything'), in which case it becomes Class II.

.. so, my often-repeated question - what is the situation if there is no earthed metal outer (so not Class I), but that what is between one's fingers and live parts does not qualify as "double or reinforced insulation" (hence can't be Class II)?? A simple example would be a product with which the only thing between live parts and the outside world (hence fingers etc.) were a single (hence not 'double') layer of insulation which was so flimsy that it's hard to believe that it could qualify as 're-reinforced'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

If we assume non compliant, which I am sure they are, who has made them non compliant?
There is nothing wrong with bulb holder, as if on the end of an earthed tube it would comply.
There is nothing wrong with the flex, if it were supplying a class II bulb holder it would be OK.

I bought a consumer unit populated, it states I the installer must check all connections are tight, and there are many pass the buck statements like that, and to disassemble to check tightness of screws to me is not really what you should be doing.

In the days of tungsten lamps we would never change lamps live without gloves or some thing similar as we knew it could burn us, there was no printing on the bulb to say hot surface wear gloves, but anyone with a little common sense did, specially with quartz envelopes where on energising they would heat up very fast.

I actually found a method statement for changing a bulb, and it states "Only replace a bulb if the fixture is de-energized" and it goes further into how to ensure it is de-energized. In a commercial premises the light switch may have a label DB5R15 which tells one exactly where to isolate, but this is not the case with domestic.

Now when in the control of a skilled person you can build your own distribution units, but with domestic it has to be type tested, so it could well be these lamps in commercial premises could be permitted, but not in domestic!

My son refused to accept a panel because it had schuko sockets for the laptops to program the PLC, and they were changed, but the supplier said there was an EU regulations that said items if accepted in EU country of manufacturer must be accepted in all member states. He stuck his ground and they were replaced, but who was right?