I'm confused about junction box rules

[PotatoSoup]

If (as I think we both do) we believe that the OP has told us the truth,

Thanks for assuming I'm telling the truth, JohnW2 I am. I'm not quite sure what the point of lying or omitting relevant information would be, given I wanted to check I was within my rights to ask the electrician to correct it, so I would need anyone reading my post to have an accurate understanding in order to advise me for the best

I'm fascinated by the conversation it's sparked although I am wondering if Blup is just mischievously winding everyone up? Anyway, I very much appreciate the help from you all, as always.

Re the junction box being safe - if it had always been there, I wouldn't mind it being there. However, I did pay this chap a fair amount of money so I feel a bit grumpy that he put in a junction box that isn't in line with the regulations (regardless of whether they're OTT or not). Also, it's shaken me a little because I really like this electrician - he's a lovely chap - but I'm a little worried he may have made a mistake somewhere else. I'm now thinking it would probably be prudent to get the electrics checked over by another electrician before I do any more plastering. If anyone can point me in the right direction for what kind of test (assuming there's maybe a standard test) I can ask a third party electrician to do, I'd be grateful?

I've very gently pointed out to the electrician that this junction box is an issue. He's looking into his paperwork for me (as I spoke about in the thread JohnW2 referenced above) and I'm hoping he'll come back and give me a link to the paperwork or a copy of it or something and that he'll bob over and sort out the junction box and that that'll be that I'll let you know.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would go further and say the 'guidance' is just plain wrong.

No mention is made of larger, or indeed smaller, cable being used for the spur.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for assuming I'm telling the truth, JohnW2 I am. I'm not quite sure what the point of lying or omitting relevant information would be, given I wanted to check I was within my rights to ask the electrician to correct it, so I would need anyone reading my post to have an accurate understanding in order to advise me for the best

Quite so, and that's how I've always taken it.

I'm fascinated by the conversation it's sparked although I am wondering if Blup is just mischievously winding everyone up? Anyway, I very much appreciate the help from you all, as always.

As I've said, I really don't understand why Blup has been doing all this 'defending' - he's not one of those who usually engages in 'winding people up'!

Re the junction box being safe - if it had always been there, I wouldn't mind it being there. However, I did pay this chap a fair amount of money so I feel a bit grumpy that he put in a junction box that isn't in line with the regulations (regardless of whether they're OTT or not).

That's all fair enough.

Also, it's shaken me a little because I really like this electrician - he's a lovely chap - but I'm a little worried he may have made a mistake somewhere else. I'm now thinking it would probably be prudent to get the electrics checked over by another electrician before I do any more plastering. If anyone can point me in the right direction for what kind of test (assuming there's maybe a standard test) I can ask a third party electrician to do, I'd be grateful?

It's a sad situation to have to contemplate that just after a professional electrician has undertaken work, but if you'd feel more comfortable, what you would have to have done is an "EICR" (Electrical Installation Condition Report) - done properly that could take betterpart of a day, so would cost you a few bob.

I've very gently pointed out to the electrician that this junction box is an issue. He's looking into his paperwork for me (as I spoke about in the thread JohnW2 referenced above) and I'm hoping he'll come back and give me a link to the paperwork or a copy of it or something and that he'll bob over and sort out the junction box and that that'll be that I'll let you know.

Yes, please do keep us informed.

 

[JohnW2]

I would go further and say the 'guidance' is just plain wrong. ... No mention is made of larger, or indeed smaller, cable being used for the spur.

I wouldn't personally say it is particularly 'wrong' but, rather, that it is 'too limited' - as you say, there are a number of possible (and perfectly 'OK') possibilities which are not considered in Appendix 15 - so I suppose one thing which is 'a bit wrong' is that it is not made clear that approaches other than those considered n App 15 may also be acceptable.

 

[PotatoSoup]

Quite so, and that's how I've always taken it.

Thank you

As I've said, I really don't understand why Blup has been doing all this 'defending' - he's not one of those who usually engages in 'winding people up'!

I hope he's not my electrician!!

That's all fair enough.

Thank you

It's a sad situation to have to contemplate that just after a professional electrician has undertaken work,

It would probably be an overreaction just because of the junction box but I'd like my electrics checked anyway to make sure all of them are ok (not just to check this chap's work) but this has made me prioritise getting a check up while everything is accessible rather than it being something I leave on my "to do down the line" list. My guess would be that everything else he's done will be absolutely fine. As someone said, the junction box is probably safe - just not regulation. Also - this is probably a silly thing to base anything on but it's in my head - this electrician is definitely a perfectionist normally. The way he aligned the wires coming out of the consumer unit was a work of art!! It was honestly soothing to watch him work lol. And he's clearly intelligent. It's why I came on here to check if there was something I was missing because he just didn't seem the type of person to fumble. But, I'm not an electrician, so for all I know he's made loads of mistakes and I'm just blissfully unaware.

but if you'd feel more comfortable, what you would have to have done is an "EICR" (Electrical Installation Condition Report) - done properly that could take betterpart of a day, so would cost you a few bob.

Thanks so much - I appreciate it I'll go find another electrician.

Sorry, last question on this, which professional body is the best one to look for when searching for an electrician, please?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

If anyone can point me in the right direction for what kind of test (assuming there's maybe a standard test) I can ask a third party electrician to do, I'd be grateful?

As important, or maybe more important than tests, is the standard of workmanship. Maybe post photos of the work done, for an opinion.

 

[blup]

I hope he's not my electrician!!

You’re safe! I only do my own work as a diyer and stuck rigidly to the regs. And ensure any sparky I use is qualified to do the work and informs building control. But it is easy to make a mountain out of a mole. If your sparky has done work to a high standard what difference does it make whether it is an mf or non mf jb? If either overheats and cause a fire you have a much bigger problem than technical compliance with the regs. I doubt it would be picked up on an eicr just because the box is mf.

 

[JohnW2]

As important, or maybe more important than tests, is the standard of workmanship. Maybe post photos of the work done, for an opinion.

I agree, but we have already been told some pretty positive things about what is visible, so the photos would probably tend to 'reassure' us (rightly or wrongly!) ...

...... Also - this is probably a silly thing to base anything on but it's in my head - this electrician is definitely a perfectionist normally. The way he aligned the wires coming out of the consumer unit was a work of art!! It was honestly soothing to watch him work lol. And he's clearly intelligent. It's why I came on here to check if there was something I was missing because he just didn't seem the type of person to fumble.

 

[JohnW2]

.... I only do my own work as a diyer and stuck rigidly to the regs.

Fair enough. I, too, only do my own work as a DIYer, although I have to say that I do things in a manner that I regard as 'sensible', which is not always 'sticking rigidly to the regs'. For example, in the OP's case, I would not get excited (or worried) about the fact that I had a non-MF JB that was not (sensibly) 'accessible'. However, this discussion is about regulation-compliance, and what a professional electrician has done.

But it is easy to make a mountain out of a mole. If your sparky has done work to a high standard what difference does it make whether it is an mf or non mf jb?

As above, if it were me doing work for myself, I would not worry about that at all. However, when it comes to a paid professional electrician, I would say that "doing work to a high standard" mean, at the least, fully complying with the regs (plus a fair bit more).

I doubt it would be picked up on an eicr just because the box is mf.

That, of course, is one of the ironies. If a JB (or other 'joint') is not "accessible for inspection and testing" (which is the wording the regs usually use) then is is "not accessible for inspection and testing" - and so, essentially by definition, cannot ever be 'picked up', by an EICR inspector or anyone else. That, of course, is one of the reasons why some people are obsessed with 'strict compliance with regs when installed' since, in cases like this no-one will subsequently be able to tell!

 

[securespark]

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

Yes, in the 14th Ed.

 

[pete01]

Yes, in the 14th Ed.

Why did it change, do you know? Was there loads of accidents and fires when two singles were allowed?

 

[securespark]

I don't know. But I guess the two singles got swapped by folk to two doubles and got overloaded, so the rule changed to prevent overloading.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know. But I guess the two singles got swapped by folk to two doubles and got overloaded, so the rule changed to prevent overloading.

As has been discussed, that seems to be the most credible explanation of the thinking which resulted in the change. However, to echo the spirit of what Pete asked, I wonder whether it was because of a perceived theoretical risk of overloading, or because there really were "loads of accidents and fires when two singles were allowed". I think I can guess the answer to that one

 

[EFLImpudence]

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

Yes, in the 14th Ed.

To clarify for anyone who is reading this and wondering what exactly is meant.

Two sockets on a single spur cable is not allowed by the guidance.

However two sockets, or possibly more, each on its own spur cable - spurred from a single point - is still allowed.

 

[SUNRAY]

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.

Are you saying a DSSO on a 32A radial cannot be done with 2.5mm²?

I believe we have established several times that it is permissible