Plug sockets on skirting

[sparkyspike]

I'd like to know exactly what 526.3(v) actually means. It could mean pretty much anything you want, if you interpret it right.

Other than that, I can't see how JBs or Hager/Wago boxes can be exempt from accessibility.

Hopefully, these self gripping terminals will prove to be compliant with 526.3, because they're really neat and quick to fit. Perhaps we'll see an amendment or clarification sometime.

 

[securespark]

My parents had a house with sockets in the skirting . . .

The skirting was about 15" high and the sockets about 10" off the floor.

in the old days this was permitted as where wooden backboxes both are now old school!!

sockets should now be 450mm off floor but it is accepted that existing systems may use the old average of 25mm above skirtings

What's wrong with having sockets mounted in skirting this high? The 450mm rule only really applies to refurbs or new builds, not rewires.

 

[RF Lighting]

Is the fact that they are quick and easy to install really justification for them becomming a joint which is suitable to be concealed with no hope of accessing them for maintenance if one of them fails?

Who cares if it takes a little bit longer to do the job properly?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The 450mm rule only really applies to refurbs or new builds, not rewires.

Not refurbs.

 

[securespark]

I stand corrected.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'd like to know exactly what 526.3(v) actually means. It could mean pretty much anything you want, if you interpret it right.

I think if you read 559.6.1.1 (viii) you get a clue.

I think that 526.3(v) means that you're exempt from the accessibility rule if the connections are inside a <thing> where the <thing> complies with the standards that apply to <things>.

I don't think that it allows those Wago junction boxes to be inaccessible (and I think that Hager have a sneaking suspicion that it doesn't either), unless there's a BS EN standard for screwless junction boxes with which the product complies. But then if there was such a standard, wouldn't 526.3 have a sub-section saying something like "A joint contained within a junction box to BS EN xxxxx"?

 

[tSpark]

Has anyone read this,

http://www.hager.co.uk/files/download/0/2281_1/0/JunctionBoxGuide.pdf

I cant see how they could publish something like this if it wasn't compliant, also I have noticed that they have been mentioned in NIC and Elecsa seminars as being acceptable.

One good thing is that connections into the terminals are under constant pressure (self tightening i suppose)
Where as crimp terminals dont self crimp over time and nobody seems to be bothered about heatshrinking them and concealing them in walls etc.

I have used both methods but avoidance to do so is always better in my mind

 

[RF Lighting]

Crimping produces a cold weld, so there is no need for them to be re-tightened or whatever.

 

[tSpark]

ok RF point taken. But that does depend on quality crimps, and a proper ratchet crimper as you know. oh and the quality of copper you crimp.

 

[sparkyspike]

I think that 526.3(v) means that you're exempt from the accessibility rule if the connections are inside a <thing> where the <thing> complies with the standards that apply to <things>.

Ok, so if we are to assume that the regs are referring to accessories such as BS 1363, then that leaves no scope for push fit terminal boxes to be inaccessible. Not at the moment anyway. If NICEIC etc are approving their use, then it's surely just a matter of time.

 

[Zambezi]

Appendix 15 in the 17th, page 362. Bottom left hand corner...

 

[securespark]

Which, for those without the benefit of the latest good book reads:

Junction box to BS EN 60670-22 or BS 6220. Junction boxes with screw terminals must be accessible for inspection, testing & maintenance or, alternatively, use maintenance-free terminals/ connections (Regulation 526.3).

 

[Zambezi]

I guess that I will be ordering some of them snake oil Ashley junction boxes tomorrow

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hmmm... Interesting.

Bit of a major snag though - Appendix 15 is headed "Informative", and although there is that footnote about maintenance-free terminals and 526.3, 526.3 itself makes absolutely no mention of maintenance-free terminals.

And it could so easily, so why doesn't it?

I cant see how they could publish something like this if it wasn't compliant,

They're relying on that footnote in Appendix 15...

also I have noticed that they have been mentioned in NIC and Elecsa seminars as being acceptable.

Oh well, that must be fine then - those two organisations never get anything wrong do they.

 

[securespark]

Oh, Ban, you're so twitter & bisted...