Installing down lighters downstairs

The boarder

Hey guys. Hope I'm in the right place. Moved into a standard 3 bed new build about 3 years ago. Looking into replacing the standard lighting downstairs with down lighters. A few questions comes to mind.

1. Would it be a big job to do?
2.would an electrician be bothered with the work as it could be a small job?
3. Would the ceiling be Swiss cheese at the end of the process?
4. Would it be a waste of time?

Malcomex

I'd go for 4. waste of time tbh

Theres a few things to consider when you install them

The fire rating, acoustics and the air tightness at least , maybe more

The amount of holes depends on whether you can lift floorboards or have to work from below

2011

The boarder wrote: »

1. Would it be a big job to do?

That depends on how easily cables can be routed. Is it a bungalow? If not can the floor upstairs be lifted easily?

2.would an electrician be bothered with the work as it could be a small job?

For the right price, yes. Also it may not be that small a job. If proceeding I would use the opportunity to run any other cables that may be needed. For example ethernet cables, satellite cabling, alarm cabling, cabling for additional smoke / CO2 detectors.

3. Would the ceiling be Swiss cheese at the end of the process?

There would be a hole for each downlighter that would be filled by the downlighter.

4. Would it be a waste of time?

My personal view is that too many downlighters look ugly and date a house. Rows of downlighters are a real nineties thing, however a few carefully placed can look great.

Malcomex

Quite a few consideration with downlights...

-Suitable for mounting on normally flammable surface( not the same as fire rated)?

-Insulation can be laid directly over it?

-ip rating

-Acoustic, fire rated and air tightness?


They've certainly improved a lot since the early days when the open halogen type weren't suitable at all for domestic installations

Overall drilling holes in the ceiling slab is not a great idea imo

2011

Downstairs in a two story house will not be a concern from an air tightness perspective. Modern downlighters when properly installed are not a fire hazard.

Malcomex

2011 wrote: »

Downstairs in a two story house will not be a concern from an air tightness perspective. Modern downlighters when properly installed are not a fire hazard.

Of course , was just listing all the factors

Some not relevant

I would agree with.your point though , from an aesthetic perspective few is good

meercat

These new downlights will have to be rcd protected so it’s not such a straightforward job as it used to be.

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

These new downlights will have to be rcd protected so it’s not such a straightforward job as it used to be.

New work has to comply with ET10101 then?

What would you do there , change the existing circuits to RCBO?

That's not ideal either as you're taking some level of responsibility for the existing work

meercat

Malcomex wrote: »

New work has to comply with ET10101 then?

What would you do there , change the existing circuits to RCBO?
rk

It won’t be as simple as installation of rcd in existing circuits as neutral may be borrowed from other light circuits (landing lights for example). Although this shouldn’t be done in practice I’ve come across it numerous times. IMHO most rec will avoid this type of work now.

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

It won’t be as simple as installation of rcd in existing circuits as neutral may be borrowed from other light circuits (landing lights for example). Although this shouldn’t be done in practice I’ve come across it numerous times. IMHO most rec will avoid this type of work now.

Installation a few years old?

Surely there's no borrowed neutrals nowadays?

Changing MCBs to RCBOs is definitely problematic though, unlikely to get callbacks but not ideal

meercat

Malcomex wrote: »

Installation a few years old?

Surely there's no borrowed neutrals nowadays?

Changing MCBs to RCBOs is definitely problematic though, unlikely to get callbacks but not ideal

There’ll be too many nuisance calls when replacing mcb with rcbo. Outside lights etc. “It worked fine till you were here “.

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

There’ll be too many nuisance calls when replacing mcb with rcbo. Outside lights etc. “It worked fine till you were here “.

Pretty much imo

If it trips after u install it , it becomes your problem

2011

meercat wrote: »

There’ll be too many nuisance calls when replacing mcb with rcbo. Outside lights etc. “It worked fine till you were here “.

Just put in new circuits for the new downlighters and only accept responsibility for that work. Existing outside lights that are not part of your scope should not be “owned” by you if you have not worked on them. This can be clearly spelt out on the quote ahead of starting the work.

Malcomex

2011 wrote: »

Just put in new circuits for the new downlighters and only accept responsibility for that work. Existing outside lights that are not part of your scope should not be “owned” by you if you have not worked on them. This can be clearly spelt out on the quote ahead of starting the work.

Which makes the work economically unviable and pretty much impossible anyway without major disruption in a 3bed semi

Malcomex

The actual risk of nuisance or otherwise trips would be quite low if you retrofitted RCBOs

There's also the potential for hazard to be taken into consideration

Also ET101 required separate bathroom RCBOs which reduces the potential hazard here if fitting RCBOs on general lighting circuits.

For some bizarre reason ET10101 seems to have removed this requirement.

meercat

2011 wrote: »

Just put in new circuits for the new downlighters and only accept responsibility for that work. Existing outside lights that are not part of your scope should not be “owned” by you if you have not worked on them. This can be clearly spelt out on the quote ahead of starting the work.

It’ll make it un economical as Malcolmex said. Rec will be pricing against someone who can do this under scope of minor works for less than half the price

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

It’ll make it un economical as Malcolmex said. Rec will be pricing against someone who can do this under scope of minor works for less than half the price

Is it allowed as minor works though?

What about et10101 and Rcd protection?

2011

Malcomex wrote: »

Which makes the work economically unviable and pretty much impossible anyway without major disruption in a 3bed semi

For the homeowner maybe, the alternative is the REC takes a hit (clearly this is not acceptable).
So if the homeowner won't pay, walk away, it is that simple.

Wiring downlighters in downstairs in a two story house will be disruptive, there is no getting away from that.

2011

Malcomex wrote: »

Is it allowed as minor works though?

What about et10101 and Rcd protection?

That depends on a lot of factors. Maybe they can argue that they are replacing some lights and adding on point to an existing circuit. Also new rules can't be applied retrospectively.

Malcomex

2011 wrote: »

That depends on a lot of factors. Maybe they can argue that they are replacing some lights and adding on point to an existing circuit. Also new rules can't be applied retrospectively.

Does new work have to comply with new rules?

I would assume it does , which means Rcd protection for the new points and therefore not minor works either.

2011

Malcomex wrote: »

Does new work have to comply with new rules?

I would assume it does , which means Rcd protection for the new points and therefore not minor works either.

A new circuit would have to comply with the new rules.

But if for example working in an existing installation you would not be expected to ensure that a lighting circuit was protected with by an RCD if you were simply replacing a light fitting. Should you install an RCD for the addition of a lighting point? Maybe, but I expect that many would not bother. It gets a bit grey and many DIY people may not care and would just plough on regardless. I'm not condoning this, but it is the reality.

meercat

2011 wrote: »

Should you install an RCD for the addition of a lighting point?.

If a rec installs a new cable then it has to be protected to current regulations.

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

If a rec installs a new cable then it has to be protected to current regulations.

That means the addition of socket outlets remains minor works

The addition of lighting points is no longer minor works unless the circuit is currently Rcd protected?

meercat

Malcomex wrote: »

That means the addition of socket outlets remains minor works

The addition of lighting points is no longer minor works unless the circuit is currently Rcd protected?

Where did you see that

Once a rec installs a cable(socket/light cooker or whatever) then it has to be protected by current regulations

Malcomex

meercat wrote: »

Where did you see that

Once a rec installs a cable(socket/light cooker or whatever) then it has to be protected by current regulations

I'm agreeing with your post

Socket outlets don't require the addition of Rcd protection, it's already there

Your point that new cabling must meet et10101 generally means the addition of Rcd protection therefore no longer minor works?

2011

meercat wrote: »

If a rec installs a new cable then it has to be protected to current regulations.

It would seem that anyone (including non REC’s and DIY people) can add a single point to an existing circuit without making any alterations or additions to the protective devices. This would require a new cable to link from the existing point to the new one. This part of the minor works definition is quite clear.

So are you suggesting that REC’s would have to go above and beyond what anyone else is required to do?

meercat

2011 wrote: »

So are you suggesting that REC’s would have to go above and beyond what anyone else is required to do?

Yes. If a rec installs a new cable then it has to be protected to current regulations


“Minor Electrical Works generally involve the “like for like” replacement of switches, sockets, lighting fittings and/or additions to an existing circuit. The work must be in compliance with the National Wiring Rules. See document CER/13/147 for a definition of Minor Electrical Works.”

2011

meercat wrote: »

“Minor Electrical Works generally involve the “like for like” replacement of switches, sockets, lighting fittings and/or additions to an existing circuit. The work must be in compliance with the National Wiring Rules. See document CER/13/147 for a definition of Minor Electrical Works.”

I don't think it is that black & white. I think it measn in compliance with the rules that were in place at the time.

I'm sure that we both agree that a non-REC can't work on a distribution board, yet a non-REC can add a single point to an existing circuit?
Assuming the circuit can safely accommodate an addition point I can't see it being legal force additional more costly requirements to a professional than an amateur. This would be anticompetitive.
Generally upgrading existing lighting circuits even when new points are added reduces the load as LED’s are now the norm.

We both agree that a new circuit must fully comply with new rules.

On another note new rules can not retrospectively be applied to an existing installation. They should comply with the rules as they were at the time that the installation was installed.

So for example an installation with red, yellow and blue phase colours does not have to be rewired to the new phase colours. One of the largest electrical installations in Ireland has the old red, yellow and blue phase colours (no company names permitted but most will guess who this is). In existing parts of this installation they stick with these old phase colours when making alterations (as this is the safest and most logical thing to do).

Malcomex

This problem of course originated with allowing the non rec to add wiring without testing

Never made any sense at all

meercat

2011 wrote: »

I don't think it is that black & white. I think it measn in compliance with the rules that were in place at the time.

That’s not how I read it. If a rec does minor work then it must comply to current wiring rules
“Minor Electrical Works generally involve the “like for like” replacement of switches, sockets, lighting fittings and/or additions to an existing circuit. The work must be in compliance with the National Wiring Rules. See document CER/13/147 for a definition of Minor Electrical Works.”

The boarder

Interesting responces and some things I didn't think of. By the sounds of it, it's not worth the hassle for a reletivly new house. Unless your renevating.

2011

Malcomex wrote: »

This problem of course originated with allowing the non rec to add wiring without testing

Never made any sense at all

I sent an email to CER (now the CRU) for clarification. See link to emails here. Once you have raed this please tell me if you are more or less confused

Malcomex

The boarder wrote: »

Interesting responces and some things I didn't think of. By the sounds of it, it's not worth the hassle for a reletivly new house. Unless your renevating.

If.you had access to the floorboards and can wire.in to the existing circuits its probably doable

Otherwise not.reslly

The boarder

Malcomex wrote: »

If.you had access to the floorboards and can wire.in to the existing circuits its probably doable

Otherwise not.reslly

Would be the easiest option. But unfortunately have carpet down.

meercat

The boarder wrote: »

Would be the easiest option. But unfortunately have carpet down.

Not necessarily easiest option as it involves moving furniture lifting carpet lifting boards(including danger of drilling wires/pipes) and refitting everything. The floor never goes back 100% even whilst screwed.
Depending on the existing cable run and the size of downlight holes it’s possible that this works could be done without lifting floor boards. No guarantees however until the holes are drilled. There may be a few small holes needing patching and repaint.
I’ve occasionally used existing cabling through joists as fish wires to install new wiring.