I'm confused about junction box rules

[ebee]

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

Yes but it was found, in practice, that some of them got changed to twins, therefore 3 or 4 outlets possible from one if the initial 2 x single socket was a one spur in the first place, so another rule was added/amended to reduce that risk.

 

[JohnW2]

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

Yes, I think we both feel that it seems very odd to see this 'defending of bad practices' going on!

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes but it was found, in practice, that some of them got changed to twins, therefore 3 or 4 outlets possible from one if the initial 2 x single socket was a one spur in the first place, so another rule was added/amended to reduce that risk.

Is that really the reason - or one of the myths?

Why did they just not prohibit more than two actual sockets?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes but it was found, in practice, that some of them got changed to twins, therefore 3 or 4 outlets possible from one if the initial 2 x single socket was a one spur in the first place, so another rule was added/amended to reduce that risk.

Yes, that seems very credible as the thinking behind the 'change in regs' (actually, I think,probably just a change in 'guidance', since I'm not sure that this issue was ever the subject of an actual regulation, was it?).

However, as always, there is a need to decide how far regs (or even guidance) should go in anticipating 'incorrect changes' that could be made in the future. Let's face it, even with today's guidance (one double OR one single), someone could, in the future, spur a second socket off the one initial one!

 

[JohnW2]

Is that really the reason - or one of the myths?

It's very hard to think what other reason they could have had in their minds, given that the change made no electrical sense.

Why did they just not prohibit more than two actual sockets?

Quite so [assuming you mean 'socket outlets' (places into which to plug a plug) ] !!

 

[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.

I’m not suggesting the OP is being economical with the truth but we’ve had no feedback on what the “electrician” said, not an explanation of how he came across his further knowledge after the installation. I note you are referring to bad practices now rather than breach of the regulations. Sundays experience of defective mf job’s demo states that no system is perfect. Is a properly terminated jb under pb and carrying a few watts really going to be an electrical hazard?

 

[pete01]

Sooooo to sum up, just use a maintenance free junction box every time......

 

[mikehammer69]

Is that really the reason - or one of the myths?

Why did they just not prohibit more than two actual sockets?

The problem with ring final socket circuits in general is that they’ll be branched off in various ways regardless of regulation

At least with a radial final circuit the fixed wiring is protected

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I’m not suggesting the OP is being economical with the truth but we’ve had no feedback on what the “electrician” said, not an explanation of how he came across his further knowledge after the installation. I note you are referring to bad practices now rather than breach of the regulations. Sundays experience of defective mf job’s demo states that no system is perfect. Is a properly terminated jb under pb and carrying a few watts really going to be an electrical hazard?

You pay a professional, you expect a professional and proper job to be done, which meets the regulations in all respects.

 

[SUNRAY]

The problem with ring final socket circuits in general is that they’ll be branched off in various ways regardless of regulation

How so?
Does it not have the same 'rules' as a radial, other than the backbone is a ring of 2.5mm² Vs a radial of 4mm² with the additional difficulty of getting more bulk in the backbox and terminals?

 

[mikehammer69]

The problem then with the accessible joins is that you basically need a map showing their location when troubleshooting

At least if you walk into ANother unknown installation and everything is terminated at points ie; socket , switch ,light , you can troubleshoot by working with the clearly visible points

 

[JohnW2]

I’m not suggesting the OP is being economical with the truth but we’ve had no feedback on what the “electrician” said ...

If (as I think we both do) we believe that the OP has told us the truth, I really don't think that what the 'electrician' said (or didn't say) is relevant. Yet again ... in the very first post, the OP told us ....

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).

.... and as for ...

.... not an explanation of how he came across his further knowledge after the installation.

... I don't think that was the case, since, in that very first post, the OP went on to write ....

... I thought ye old style junction boxes had to remain accessible and that putting them into a ceiling which is going to be plastered over was therefore a no-no?

.... so he probably thought that at the very start, and since (we are told) the electrician knew that the location was going to be 'plastered over', probably assumed that the 'electrician' would therefore use a type of JB appropriate for the location which was going to be non-accessible. However, it seems that (understandably) the OP was not certain about the regulations, and therefore, after seeing what the 'electrician' had done, came here to ask (continuing the quote from the very first post ...

... I'm confused - is it sometimes ok to use junction boxes in ceilings that are due to be plastered if certain conditions are met? Please can someone demystify me?

I note you are referring to bad practices now rather than breach of the regulations.

I'm not sure what sort of wriggling that is meant to represent, but I use wording fairly loosely and on the occasion the reason for the 'bad practice' is that it represented 'a breach of the regulations'.

Is a properly terminated jb under pb and carrying a few watts really going to be an electrical hazard?

That's a totally different question and nothing to do with the issue of compliance with regulations we are discussing. As you may be aware, I've always been very doubtful, perhaps 'sceptical', about the need for MF JBs. Like so many others, my house is full of essentially 'inaccessible' (e.g. under floorboards) 'tried-and-tested' non-MF JBs that have been there without problems for many years or decades. I'm therefore far from convinced that the reg in question really 'needs to exist' - but it does exist, and we are discussing compliance with it - not 'common sense'.

I still keep coming back in my thoughts to ....

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

 

[JohnW2]

How so? ... Does it not have the same 'rules' as a radial, other than the backbone is a ring of 2.5mm² Vs a radial of 4mm² with the additional difficulty of getting more bulk in the backbox and terminals?

The 'rules' (guidances) differ in that if, as with a ring final, all of the wiring of a radial uses cable of the same CSA then, unlike the situation with a ring final, there are no restrictions as regards what may be attached to 'branches' ('unfused spurs' in the case of the ring final) of a radial.

 

[PotatoSoup]

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

Yup - a shorts video on YouTube.

 

[PotatoSoup]

@PotatoSoup
Did you get in touch with the electrician?

Yes, he's coming back to me about it. I'll keep you updated