halogen bulbs

[folliard]

folks
ive alighted on this forum (no pun intended) by accident so forgive me if the question i pose is not appropriate

My downstairs neighbour has installed halogen bulbs in his bathroom ceiling - the gap between his ceiling and my bathroom floor is about 3 inches - his lights are now shining up between the flooboards in my bathroom (im having some work done so my flooring is up)

it strikes me as  a huge fire risk to have these lights simply cut into the ceiling space when all around them is dust and building debris  so my question is

Is there something he should be doing to fire proof his ceiling and my floors?

[Brian Catton]

I think you need to talk to your neighbour and find out A are the bulbs direct mains or transformed down to a low voltage and B  have they been installed by a competent person in accordance with manufacturers instructions. Some halogen lights require a minimum distance between the lamp and combustible materials or require a fire resistant backing.

[wee brian]

Folliard

He's adverserly affected the fire resitance of the compartment floor seperating the two flats. This is a breach of building regulations and the Local authority can/should do something about it.

There are products available specificaly for this purpose.

Speak to somebody in the Building Control Department.

[Brian Catton]

now steady on Wee Brian. you are correct of course but what about the good neighbour principle before bringing in the cavalry. These problems can sometimes be solved by arbitration rather than prosecution or threat of such action. Also I do not think that it has been confirmed that these are flats. Could be a HIMO!!! where is your compartment theory then?? Still the same??

[Graeme]

Building control would not pass a site that has down lighters installed in the only break between the floors,unless they have fire hoods fitted.If they are installed in a false ceiling they are okay,but as you describe the lights are installed in the ceiling which must have no fire hood as you can see light.(praise the Lord)
These should be fitted with Fire hoods.Too many people fit down lights and never bother with fire hoods or take notice of the minimum clearance they need.

If this is a d.i.y job in an existing house,you would be better talking to your neighbour with your concerns and ask him to consider fire hoods.

The lights require a certain all round clearance to disperse of heat,especially halogen.
I have came across a lot of older buildings with no insulation between floors,so have more than enough clearance for the fittings to rid of heat,unless thet are hard up against a joist.

[Fishy]

A few misconceptions, here:

1) If the works did not fall within the scope of the Building Regulations, (i.e. they were not Building Works, as defined in those Reg's), my understanding is that no breach of the Regulations would have occurred, even though they may not be in accordance with the relevant Approved Document guidance;

2)  It is not true to say that non-fire protected downlighters will automatically reduce the fire resistance of floors below that recommended for domestic properties.  TRADA did some tests that demonstrated that integrity, insulation and loadbearing capacity of a well-constructed floor was not unacceptably reduced (details are available on their website);

3) Having said all this, if I were the original enquirer I would consider pulling up a floorboard to see whether the cavity is full of cr*p and, if it is, see if the neighbour would be amenable to getting it cleared out.  If he's worried about the gaps between the floorboards, he could fill them in himself... and, of course, fit smoke alarms, if they're not there already.

[Graeme]

Fishy

Point 1

If the installation was from new,Building control would not be happy.This i know because i went through it all when i did alterations to my house two years ago.



Point 3

The cavity between floors is meant to be full of "crap" to act as sound insulation.
The room in which he can see light through the floor is a bathroom,so no to the smoke detector.


easiest way is to ask the neighbour nicely to fit fire hoods.
Unless his neighbour is like mine and a complete plonker.

[Gel]

Re Trada test quoted, look at P2 of attached re its shortcomings, and result of better test carried out elsewhere
http://www.envirograf.com/acrobat/newsletter2005-02.pdf

[Fishy]

1)   Even if it “were from new”, if Building Control accepted it then it’s my understanding that they have no enforcement ability after that time.   In any case, it’s my view that the TRADA test could be used to satisfy the Building Reg’s requirement, without ‘hoods’ being necessary provided that the floor above is sound – if you can see light through the floorboards then it most likely wouldn’t give you 30 mins whether the downlighters were there or not. If my flat was new, and I could see light through the floorboards, I’d be onto the NHBC pronto!

2)   Re: the Envirograf data.  Comparing apples and oranges, my friend.  The TRADA test was on a floor construction used in residential buildings – and is only applicable to that type of construction (and don’t forget that TRADA publishes the Approved Document relevant to that type of construction, so there’s some pedigree there)!  The Envirograf blurb talks about suspended ceilings – these are typically only used in commercial properties and are a completely different animal (suspended ceilings usually have no fire separating function anyway).  It’s not necessarily a “better” test – just different.  Interesting datasheet though – full of mistakes!

3)   I don’t see the point re: sound insulation – if it’s mineral or glass fibre then this would be very unlikely to ignite.  I’d be concerned about organic stuff – either left in there during construction / installation or drifted in through those lovely gaps we’ve been told about. Re: the smoke alarms – I wasn’t suggesting they be installed in the bathroom!

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t consider these hoods to be a bad thing, its just that they’re often unnecessary.

[wee brian]

Fishy

The stat time limit on enforcement can be overcome with an injunction (see s 36 of the Building Act).

I agree that these things (hoods etc) are unnecessary in (most) houses but with flats its a different matter. The majority of floors between flats need 60 mins+ FR and the TRADA stuff didnt go so far as to say that downlighters will be OK above 30mins.

[Graeme]

3)I don’t see the point re: sound insulation –

Fishy

You like me want to try living underneath someone who has no sound proofing between floors and see if you still can't see the point.

To top it off the above aslo has a laminate floor.

[Fishy]

Wee Brian - very interesting - I didn’t know about the section 36 Notice (the things you learn on this Forum). Does the 12 month Section 36 limitation apply, in these cases?

Graeme:

You misread my post - I said that I don't see the point RE sound insulation – i.e. the risk of it igniting, not OF sound insulation!

[wee brian]

There are three ways of enforcing the Building regs.

Section 35 - prosecuting person responsible - fine up to level 5 (£5k) - 6 month time limit (as set down by the Magistrate's Courts Act)

section 36 - notice requiring works - or the LA does the work and charges for it - 12 Month time limit.

section 36 - Injunction requiring works - no time limit.

[Graeme]

Wee Brian - very interesting - I didn’t know about the section 36 Notice (the things you learn on this Forum). Does the 12 month Section 36 limitation apply, in these cases?

Graeme:

You misread my post - I said that I don't see the point RE sound insulation – i.e. the risk of it igniting, not OF sound insulation!

oops so i did.

Sorry Fishy

[colin todd]

Interesting. The neighbour has provided free uplighters. Very chic, but its a bit like when you can smell your neighbours food. Chances are smoke and possible fire can follow the same path as the food odour--big prob even in an HMO (sorry to disagree with you Brian).