This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR - does bathroom lighting outside zone 2 need to conform with IP rating and additional rcd protection?

Hi, I have received an EICR certificate with 2 C2s on bathroom lighting 1) Bathroom lighting does not conform to IP rating (note the lighting outside the zone based on published zoning guidance (low voltage spot light) but inspector insisted on ignoring the zoning guidance) 2) Bathroom lighting circuit is not connected to an RCD also supplementary bonding is not visible. 

Questions- 1) Are the C2s legitimate? As a layman, I find it difficult to understand why the inspector insisted on ignoring the bathroom zoning regulation (my ceiling is actually higher than most of the newer flat) . 2) Also how do I find out whether there is supplemental bonding in the bathroom lighting circuit (nothing is visible outside) - does it really warrant a C2 if I cannot prove that there is supplemental bonding (the lighting in my bathroom is low voltage (I don’t know what is the voltage but it is very dim) and is located outside zone) . 3) If the C2s are legitimate, how can I fix the issue with minimal cost? 

many thanks for your time in advance.

Parents
  • Many thanks for all your responses. The lighting is only 12 V and substantially away from the shower/bath or the water basin. The engineer argued that bathroom zoning guidance is not mandatory and that it is better to assume that an average height person can touch the light (and know what, no one of average height could because the ceiling is actually quite high!) Personally I won’t risk the safety of my tenant for this lighting but I really don’t think the lighting poses a C2 risk.

    The issue I have now is that the engineer said he cannot see visible supplemental bonding and hence he assumes  it doesn’t present and so the lighting needs a RCD protection. The fact was some other engineers did inspection on my friends flats in the same development and our flats have never been altered (ie similar lighting) and the supplemental bonding issue didn’t even arise (nor rcd protection).  My development has a lot of flats, if the supplemental bonding/rcd protection for bathroom lighting is really an issue, I can imagine that all flats will need to undertake repair work and this would have been highlighted by tenants to the management office and clearly this is not the case, I’m really at lost with this - the engineer was assigned to me from a landlord service provider and the vendor doesn’t seem to care about the quality of the inspection work and the resulting conclusions. Anyone has any idea on whom to take this matter up for further resolution? 

    Many thanks.

Reply
  • Many thanks for all your responses. The lighting is only 12 V and substantially away from the shower/bath or the water basin. The engineer argued that bathroom zoning guidance is not mandatory and that it is better to assume that an average height person can touch the light (and know what, no one of average height could because the ceiling is actually quite high!) Personally I won’t risk the safety of my tenant for this lighting but I really don’t think the lighting poses a C2 risk.

    The issue I have now is that the engineer said he cannot see visible supplemental bonding and hence he assumes  it doesn’t present and so the lighting needs a RCD protection. The fact was some other engineers did inspection on my friends flats in the same development and our flats have never been altered (ie similar lighting) and the supplemental bonding issue didn’t even arise (nor rcd protection).  My development has a lot of flats, if the supplemental bonding/rcd protection for bathroom lighting is really an issue, I can imagine that all flats will need to undertake repair work and this would have been highlighted by tenants to the management office and clearly this is not the case, I’m really at lost with this - the engineer was assigned to me from a landlord service provider and the vendor doesn’t seem to care about the quality of the inspection work and the resulting conclusions. Anyone has any idea on whom to take this matter up for further resolution? 

    Many thanks.

Children
  • If the person carrying out the report is a member or approved entity of a scheme and if they are also listed as being competent to carry out inspection and test by that scheme then your first port of call might well be with that scheme (NICEIC, ECA, Napit etc etc)