All joints must be accessible?

thirdtimelucky · 10 Feb 2016

Can you define accessible for me?
A ring main joint in a back box with a blanking plate over with 2 screws is visible and accessible. A junction box under a short floorboard screwed down with 4 screws is accessible but not visible.
Does accessible mean visible as well as accessible?

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

thirdtimelucky said:
Can you define accessible for me? A ring main joint in a back box with a blanking plate over with 2 screws is visible and accessible. A junction box under a short floorboard screwed down with 4 screws is accessible but not visible. Does accessible mean visible as well as accessible?

Opinions will undoubtedly vary. Visible, per se, is not the issue, but visible will virtually always qualify as 'accessible' in most people's eyes. As a generalisation, under floorboards (or within walls) would usually be regarded as not accessible, although there is clearly scope for debate if it is below an easily removed small piece of floorboard. What sort of floor covering, if any, will be over the floorboard?

I take it that you are talking about a new junction box? There is no requirement for existing 'non-accessible' ones to be made accessible. Also, as you probably know, you can have new inaccessible JBs if they are 'maintenance free' ones, which then removes the need for any debate/arguments!

Kind Regards, John

thirdtimelucky · 10 Feb 2016

John,
I have an instance where the ring cable L and N wires have been stripped but not cut and a spur cable has been connected via a round jb. Unfortunately the earth wire from the ring cable has been cut short, consequently the two ends have been pieced out using two earth blocks. I.e. the spur earth and the ring earth are attached to one block and a strap has been taken to another block to which the other end of the earth wire has been attached. There is no slack in the cable to allow the cable to be pulled closer together.

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

thirdtimelucky said:
John, I have an instance where the ring cable L and N wires have been stripped but not cut and a spur cable has been connected via a round jb.

Fair enough - that is an acceptable practice.

thirdtimelucky said:
Unfortunately the earth wire from the ring cable has been cut short, consequently the two ends have been pieced out using two earth blocks. I.e. the spur earth and the ring earth are attached to one block and a strap has been taken to another block to which the other end of the earth wire has been attached. There is no slack in the cable to allow the cable to be pulled closer together.

Provided that the earths are all satisfactorily connected together, I see no particular problem with that.

Is this the JB you have below a screwed down small piece of floorboard? How long has it been like that?

Kind Regards, John

PBC_1966 · 10 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
As a generalisation, under floorboards (or within walls) would usually be regarded as not accessible, although there is clearly scope for debate if it is below an easily removed small piece of floorboard.

Indeed. I remember when my father rewired the house we moved into when I was young it involved fitting several junction boxes in the first/second floor void. But everything went back with the relevant floorboards screwed down rather than nailed, and the locations marked on them for future access. I think it could be argued that such junctions are more accessible than some which are in a loft where access involves getting out the steps, clambering into the loft, across rafters, etc.

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
Indeed. I remember when my father rewired the house we moved into when I was young it involved fitting several junction boxes in the first/second floor void. But everything went back with the relevant floorboards screwed down rather than nailed, and the locations marked on them for future access. I think it could be argued that such junctions are more accessible than some which are in a loft where access involves getting out the steps, clambering into the loft, across rafters, etc.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree, but I do not doubt that there would be dissenting opinions. Indeed, one can even question the 'accessibility' of a joint which is in a back box, behind a blank plate which was fully visible, and easily accessible by any definition, before some extremely heavy bit of difficult-to-move furniture was placed in front of it - but most people would probably accept that as 'accessible'.

Kind Regards, John

PBC_1966 · 10 Feb 2016

Perhaps "accessible" should have been defined (like "non combustible!") then it wouldn't be open to such wide-ranging interpretation.

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
Perhaps "accessible" should have been defined (like "non combustible!") then it wouldn't be open to such wide-ranging interpretation.

Yes, but it would be much more difficult, probably, verging on the impossible, to produce a definition which catered for all possible situations - I don't think I'd personally even try! "Non-combustibility" is far more straightforward - they merely need to specify what 'flammability' (or whatever) test(s) the material needs to pass.

Kind Regards, John

PBC_1966 · 10 Feb 2016

How does this sound?

Accessible Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish, or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building.

Of course, we could then argue about what "permanently" means!

ban-all-sheds · 10 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Opinions will undoubtedly vary. Visible, per se, is not the issue, but visible will virtually always qualify as 'accessible' in most people's eyes.

Yes, well, my opinion would vary wrt the aircraft warning lamp(s) atop the KVLY-TV mast

ban-all-sheds · 10 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
How does this sound?

Accessible Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish, or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building.

Of course, we could then argue about what "permanently" means!

We could probably argue about anything.

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
How does this sound? Accessible Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish, or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building.

Full of uncertainties

As I said, I personally probably wouldn't even attempt a definition!

Kind Regards, John

JohnW2 · 10 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
Yes, well, my opinion would vary wrt the aircraft warning lamp(s) atop the KVLY-TV mast

I believe that the implied context was "within buildings" and, in view of the nature of this forum, probably primarily domestic ones!

Kind Regards, John

ban-all-sheds · 10 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 · 10 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Full of uncertainties As I said, I personally probably wouldn't even attempt a definition!

I think that's the problem with these sort of definitions where there are so many shades of gray between what is obviously easily accessible and what is not (the definition I used above is from the NEC, by the way).

If you want to take it to the extreme, anything is accessible - It just depends how much effort you want to go to in order to access it and how much remedial work you want to do afterwards to repair whatever was damaged in gaining access!

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

All joints must be accessible?

Similar threads