Thread: Under-Cabinet Lighting Splitter

Kitchen under-cabinet lighting is tied into a splitter that is plugged into the outlet. The microwave is plugged into the other plug at the duplex outlet in the cabinet above the microwave.

1) Is this splitter an "approved" device?

2) The under-cabinet lighting is ungrounded (two wires) and is not GFCI-protected in locations near the sink. Would you recommend repairs or removal?

(Yes, I noted the open splice in the one wire.)

Similar Threads:

• Lighting Rod or decoration?
• Low voltage lighting.
• Flex gas connector through cabinet wall
• Garage lighting
• Outlet in FP cabinet

Bruce,

Boy, that is pretty weird looking. I would certainly recommend corrections.

Looks like a flexible multi-tap adapter that you can buy at the hardware store.

If the microwave instructions called for a dedicated circuit you would have a technical violation as it is now being shared with the lighting.

There is no requirement for the lighting to be GFI protected.

Those stupid line-voltage puck lights are bad on many levels, but hey, they are easy for Harry Homeowner to install.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

Those stupid line-voltage puck lights are bad on many levels, but hey, they are easy for Harry Homeowner to install.

Yes, would you call it an amateur installation and recommend an upgrade to the low voltage lights? I think I would.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Yes, would you call it an amateur installation and recommend an upgrade to the low voltage lights? I think I would.

John,

I'm confused here ... why would you call replacing something which is not right with something which is an "upgrade"?

I call that a "correction" or "repair".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

John,

I'm confused here ... why would you call replacing something which is not right with something which is an "upgrade"?

Cuz that is what an upgrade is? Are we speakin the same language here?

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Cuz that is what an upgrade is? Are we speakin the same language here?

Huh?

An "upgrade" is not a "repair" or a "correction".

Like this:
- I'd like to buy that car but with a radio which has a CD player.
- No problem, that is just a simple UPGRADE, it only costs ... more.

Or this:
- I'd like you to repair my car radio, it is not working.
- No problem, and if that radio is not repairable we can replace it with the same thing.
- Well, if you are going to replace it, I would like one with a CD player.
- No problem, we can UPGRADE the radio to one with a CD player when we replace it, it only costs ... more.

You are in Canada, so I'm not sure what language you are speaking.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Huh?

An "upgrade" is not a "repair" or a "correction".

The light's not broken, how can it be repaired? To "correct" that installation, plug it into another outlet that is not designated for the MV.
To improve that temporary situation, "upgrade it".

You are in Canada, so I'm not sure what language you are speaking.

Neither am I, eh?

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Yes, would you call it an amateur installation and recommend an upgrade to the low voltage lights? I think I would.

Jerry, did you read what he wrote?

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Jerry, did you read what he wrote?

Jim,

I did, and what he should have said was to have it repaired.

That is a deficiency and reportable.

THEN he could have added something about an "upgrade", but by simply stating to "upgrade" it, there is no deficiency to report, and if there is no deficiency, why "upgrade" something which is okay?

The only way the client benefits is for home inspectors to report deficiencies as such, not to call them "maintenance" or "upgrades".

I have seen reports where EVERYTHING was an "upgrade", even the leaky roof with shot shingles.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

what he should have said was to have it repaired.

That is a deficiency and reportable.

I concede, that installation needs to be grounded and GFCI protected in the US. MY bad.

Since when is something that needs maintenance a deficiency?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Since when is something that needs maintenance a deficiency?

I don't think JP said that it was, just that we should not call for maintenance (or an upgrade, either ) when there is a deficiency.

This plug-in lighting does not meet code standards of today, so Jerry says it is a deficiency, repair it.
I am not sure when the lighting was installed, and if it was ever acceptable in that jurisdiction, so I am backing away slowly.

We don't tell people they need to repair the wiring if the installation was code compliant when installed. However, if they were to unplug these lights, they're apparantly not allowed to plug them back in! I'm outta here.

John Kogel, your post dated: 09/07/09

"This plug-in light does not meet code standards of today".

What light are you talking about?

I look at Bruce Breedlove photo, and saw no luminaire.

And what code are you talking about?

How you don't mine my questions, but I am on this site to learn, so a
little help here, please.

Originally Posted by Robert S. Mattison

I look at Bruce Breedlove photo, and saw no luminaire.

I did not take a photo of the under-cabinet light fixtures. (I saw no need.) They were similar to the one shown in the photo below.