I'm confused about junction box rules

[JohnW2]

Gosh!! That looks a little eccentric but is it ok in terms of the regs?

There's nothing in the current regs which says that one cannot have a ring circuit which is entirely made up of JBs, with each socket as a spur from one of the JBs.

 

[JohnW2]

Did the regulations once permit, up to two single sockets, spurred off from a single point of the ring?

I believe they did (before, for some reason, it changed to one double or one single) - but in what bernard illustrated, it would seem that there is only one socket (be it single or double) spurred from each 'point' on the ring (JB), doesn't it?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I believe they did (before, for some reason, it changed to one double or one single)

If I was correct, then I would suspect it was changed, to avoid any confusion over whether the first spur, was part of the ring, or not as in B, below

[A on ring]____{B}_____[C]

 

[blup]

From what I can make out, I don't think he did know at the time (and couldn't be expected to know, anyway) but, in any event ...

Firstly, I rather doubt that the quote/contract will have explicitly mentioned a "non-MF JB" - much more likely that, if it mentioned the JB at all, it simply said 'JB', with a reasonably expectation that the electrician would use an appropriate and compliant type of product (given that we are told that the electrician knew that the JB would not be accessible).

Secondly, as above, even if the quote/contract had explicitly specified a 'non-MF JB', the customer cannot be expected to know that such would not be acceptable (given that the electrician knew that the JB would be inaccessible), the expectation being that a competent electrician would quote for, and undertake, work that was compliant with regs.

That's different, since there is a ('bureaucratic') obligation on the property owner to get planning permission, which is different from an (unreasonable) expectation that a customer would have technical knowledge. For example, if the builder quoted for, and undertook, work which was structurally inadequate (maybe 'unsafe'), one could not expect the customer to have necessarily been aware of, and prevented, that problem.

The regs are not statutory, and a small single piece of plasterboard can be deemed a removable panel. The sparkie can argue he did what he was asked to in the circumstances prevailing.

 

[JohnW2]

The regs are not statutory ....

True, but that's not the point. The OP had every reason to expect that the electrician would do the work in compliance with the Wiring Regulations, even though they are 'non-statutory'.

.... and a small single piece of plasterboard can be deemed a removable panel.

only if it is removable non-destructively (and, even then, some might argue), and that clearly was not the case, given ...

.... the electrician I've just used has connected an outside light via an old style junction box. The junction box is in the ceiling of the under the stairs cupboard, which I'm about to plasterboard and then plaster over (he knew that was the plan).

The sparkie can argue he did what he was asked to in the circumstances prevailing.

"What he was asked to do" was very probably "install an outside light", without any technical details, and, as above, the OP had every reason to assume that a competent electrician would do the work in a manner than was compliant with the Wiring Regulations.

I'm really not sure why you are seemingly so keen on defending this 'electrician'.

 

[SUNRAY]

I'm really not sure why you are seemingly so keen on defending this 'electrician'.

Perhaps...?

 

[blup]

I'm really not sure why you are seemingly so keen on defending this 'electrician'.

I’m defending the argument that a removable panel is within the regs

 

[JohnW2]

I’m defending the argument that a removable panel is within the regs

Yes, that's the basis of your most recent attempt to defend the 'electrician'. Prior to that you were defending him on the basis that he probably "did what he was asked to do" (by a lay member of the public, who says he was not aware of the regs), and hence had a contracted agreement to install an inaccessible non-MF JB!

... and, as for "the argument that a removable panel is within the regs", as I said, there's surely no way that what the OP tells us the 'electrician' actually "knew (that the JB would end up above plastered-over plasterboard on the ceiling) constitutes a 'removable panel", is there?. Yes, as you suggested, the OP theoretically could have created a 'removable panel', but that was clearly not his intent, since we are told that the 'electrician' knew that that was not going to happen.

Assuming that this 'electrician' was aware of the regs regarding non-accessible JBs (maybe he wasn't?), it just doesn't make sense to me that he should do something which he had been told would end up non-compliant.

 

[blup]

Yes, that's the basis of your most recent attempt to defend the 'electrician'. Prior to that you were defending him on the basis that he probably "did what he was asked to do" (by a lay member of the public, who says he was not aware of the regs), and hence had a contracted agreement to install an inaccessible non-MF JB!

... and, as for "the argument that a removable panel is within the regs", as I said, there's surely no way that what the OP tells us the 'electrician' actually "knew (that the JB would end up above plastered-over plasterboard on the ceiling) constitutes a 'removable panel", is there?. Yes, as you suggested, the OP theoretically could have created a 'removable panel', but that was clearly not his intent, since we are told that the 'electrician' knew that that was not going to happen.

Assuming that this 'electrician' was aware of the regs regarding non-accessible JBs (maybe he wasn't?), it just doesn't make sense to me that he should do something which he had been told would end up non-compliant.

The OP became aware at some point, so there was something that triggered his investigating the rules about mf fittings and accessibility.

 

[scousespark]

@PotatoSoup
Did you get in touch with the electrician?

 

[JohnW2]

The OP became aware at some point, so there was something that triggered his investigating the rules about mf fittings and accessibility.

AsI wrote ...

... I'm really not sure why you are seemingly so keen on defending this 'electrician'.

If it were a DIYer who had done this, there would probably be a lot of criticism flying around, so why do you continue in your attempts to defend the 'electrician' who did it?

 

[JohnW2]

@PotatoSoup
Did you get in touch with the electrician?

Good to see you. I hope all is well with you and yours.

I'm sure that the OP will be contacting the electrician, since there are clearly wider issues than the one being discussed here that need to be resolved. See ...

Question about paperwork

Hi there, Thank you for reading this. I had an electrician so some work on my house (same electrician as referenced in my last post). He hasn't given my any paperwork other than an invoice. Please can I check if I should have had any other paperwork? He did the following: Replaced the...

www.diynot.com

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

AsI wrote ...

If it were a DIYer who had done this, there would probably be a lot of criticism flying around, so why do you continue in your attempts to defend the 'electrician' who did it?

Sorry John I feel a correction was due

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry John I feel a correction was due

I think I must be having a '(very!) senior moment' A 'correction'? Do you perhaps mean that I forgot to use large bold text?

 

[SUNRAY]

I think I must be having a '(very!) senior moment' A 'correction'? Do you perhaps mean that I forgot to use large bold text?

Possibly, Or perhaps I just have a stronger opinion on the matter.