inaccessible Junction Boxes

[adamr7747]

Hi All,

My understanding is that the regs require that joints in inaccessible locations (which presumably includes ceiling voids?) should be crimped, and specifically, not made using screw-down terminals.

This seems (to me) to imply that a traditional "junction box" system for wiring lighting circuits (as opposed to "loop-in") is forbidden. Is this right? It seems surprising, especially as places like this forum still talk about junction-box systems. Presumably it also means spurs from ring mains in ceiling voids can't be formed using junction boxes?

This theoretical issue leads on to a practical one for me - as part of joining two rooms I've removed the ceiling and had a steel installed. This has revealed an extensive lighting junction-box system and a ring main with various spurs (and which I've had to cut to get the steel in). Do I need to replace that whole lot?

Thanks a lot,
Adam

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Hi,

The whole hidden junction box theme has been thrashed out many times here before. Try using the search function with the words 'maintenance free'

If you have had to rip the ceiling out to get the steel in, it would seem like a perfect opportunity to get rid of all those potential failures now with the minimum of disruption.

 

[plugwash]

My understanding is that the regs require that joints in inaccessible locations (which presumably includes ceiling voids?)

Afaict the regs never give an explicit definition of accessible but the general consensus seems to be that a location where you have to lift carpets, floorboards etc is not accessible. OTOH a loft with an unboarded floor probably would be considered inaccessible by most.

should be crimped, and specifically, not made using screw-down terminals.

There are a number of methods allowed for inaccesable joints, crimping is one, soldering is another, the new maintinance free junction boxes (with spring based terminals) are another.

This seems (to me) to imply that a traditional "junction box" system for wiring lighting circuits (as opposed to "loop-in") is forbidden. Is this right? It seems surprising, especially as places like this forum still talk about junction-box systems. Presumably it also means spurs from ring mains in ceiling voids can't be formed using junction boxes?

Ordinary junction boxes can be used providing they are accessible and there are other acceptable methods of joining wiring in inaccessible locations.

This theoretical issue leads on to a practical one for me - as part of joining two rooms I've removed the ceiling and had a steel installed. This has revealed an extensive lighting junction-box system and a ring main with various spurs (and which I've had to cut to get the steel in). Do I need to replace that whole lot?

Personally i'd say using maintinance free junction boxes is your best bet.

 

[adamr7747]

The whole hidden junction box theme has been thrashed out many times here before. Try using the search function with the words 'maintenance free'

Yes, I've read some of it but lots just seems like slightly pedantic arguments about exactly whether a certain type of box is certified to what standard and so on!

If you have had to rip the ceiling out to get the steel in, it would seem like a perfect opportunity to get rid of all those potential failures now with the minimum of disruption.

Personally i'd say using maintinance free junction boxes is your best bet.

Thanks both, I'll go with that.

Adam

 

[ericmark]

Jurying the building of Sizewell "B" power station items where transported into rooms then the wall was built after it was installed. (Not nuclear part) I asked about what happens should the item fail! Answer simple knock down the wall.

I say this because the whole idea of accessible varies and some people would consider rolling back the carpet and removing a hatch in the floor as reasonable and therefore it is accessible.

The problem arises when the carpets are replaced with some other covering which is not as easy to remove for maintenance. Even rewiring from below lifting out sections of ceiling could also be a valid method.

We should plan on checking junction boxes in a domestic every 10 years and to lift the carpets every 10 years is reasonable.

The big problem is not using the screw terminal junction box but the lack of as built plans so that one can find the boxes.

 

[shedbang]

I had my first encounter with one of those Wagobox things recently and I have to say I was impressed. Having cocked the wiring up at one point I had to 'de-wire' one of the terminals and it took the strength of Samson, some pliers and a degree of swearing to get the wire out again. Yes - I could have cut the wire, but by then it was a sort of personal thing between me and the wagobox.

So they get my vote, not just on the accessibility front, but the ease of use ticket. However, I do think the grey boxes they sell to put the little connectors in could be better with very little thought.

 

[333rocky333]

I had my first encounter with one of those Wagobox things recently and I have to say I was impressed.

Not sure the wagos and the wagobox are classed as M/F, are they

 

[shedbang]

Their website seems to think so...

https://www.wagobox.com/how/

I sort of assumed that meant from a regs perspective they were. It's not especially well defined is it?

 

[JohnW2]

Their website seems to think so...I sort of assumed that meant from a regs perspective they were. It's not especially well defined is it?

It's pretty well defined now. If it bears BS 5733 markings (implying BS 5733 compliance) and the (MF) symbol ('MF' inside a circle), as far as BS7671 (Amd 1) is concerned, it's OK to be inaccessible. By implication, in the absence of those markings, it's probably not. Last time I saw a wagobox, it didn't have such markings - but maybe they do now.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Their site makes no mention of BS 5733.

And since Wagoboxes are empty, They can't comply with BS 5733, or be marked MF, because there's no guarantee of what will be inside them, if anything.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I had my first encounter with one of those Wagobox things recently and I have to say I was impressed. Having cocked the wiring up at one point I had to 'de-wire' one of the terminals and it took the strength of Samson, some pliers and a degree of swearing to get the wire out again. Yes - I could have cut the wire, but by then it was a sort of personal thing between me and the wagobox.

"To remove the connector simply pull on the conductor whilst twisting the connector block left and right. The connector can then be reused."

 

[JohnW2]

Their site makes no mention of BS 5733. And since Wagoboxes are empty, They can't comply with BS 5733, or be marked MF, because there's no guarantee of what will be inside them, if anything.

OK, I was a bit loose in my choice of words! I was (I would have thought fairly obviously) talking about the wago connectors, not the box itself - whatever I may have typed!

Kind Regards, John

 

[shedbang]

"To remove the connector simply pull on the conductor whilst twisting the connector block left and right. The connector can then be reused."

The word 'simply' is ill chosen in their literature. And by the time I had finished with it, 'reused' would also have been somewhat inadvisable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK, I was a bit loose in my choice of words! I was (I would have thought fairly obviously) talking about the wago connectors, not the box itself - whatever I may have typed!

"Equipment complying with BS5733 for a maintenance-free accessory and marked with the symbol (MF) ['MF' within a circle] and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions"

Wago don't say that the actual connector blocks comply either.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's pretty well defined now. If it bears BS 5733 markings (implying BS 5733 compliance) and the (MF) symbol ('MF' inside a circle), as far as BS7671 (Amd 1) is concerned, it's OK to be inaccessible. By implication, in the absence of those markings, it's probably not. Last time I saw a wagobox, it didn't have such markings - but maybe they do now.

No, they still don't. And after so many years I do not think it would be unreasonable to decide that they never will.

And the maker (which is not Wago, BTW) still make vague (and IMO false) claims about achieving BS 5733 'compliance' by using specific connectors (i.e. not all of the Wago range, and none of the new 221s), which have to be de-rated, and then securing the lid with a cable tie.

Wago connectors are, I'm sure, excellent little things, but allowable as MF connections in inaccessible locations they are not.

So pretty much all wrong.