Junction box for moving socket

[sparkwright]

To create a zone, the wiring has to be connected to the accessory. A blank plate has no connections for wiring so doesn't create any zones.

A blank plate doesn't create a zone?
Is that because the blank plate could be removed without touching any electrical connections, and plastered over?
Out of interest, would a flex outlet (one that hasn't had the outlet bashed out) used to connect wires be acceptable?

 

[flameport]

Is that because the blank plate could be removed without touching any electrical connections

Yes.

A flex outlet would comply, as the cable(s) would be connected to it, and would be a 'point' as defined in BS7671.
However that would need to be accessible, which in the OPs case it won't be as it's behind a radiator.

 

[ericmark]

I don't believe that is OK because your blanking plate will not be visible and so there won't be a safe zone above it.

To create a zone, the wiring has to be connected to the accessory. A blank plate has no connections for wiring so doesn't create any zones.

Not sure if I would agree with that, it has been the standard way for years, there has always been the argument what if latter someone does XYZ, but one can hardly stop someone doing something silly in the future what ever that is. A label 230 volts do not remove should be enough.

I had sockets behind a few of my radiators, put there as I was going to fit Myson fan assisted radiators, the problem is when doing an EICR one can't get access to inspect, but sometimes one has to use common sense.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also - after a socket has been removed and where two cables are connected, would that not still be a 'point'?

 

[morqthana]

But what current-using equipment would be intended to be connected there?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Don't start.

 

[morqthana]

Logic, and syntax, etc say that unless there is fixed wiring which is not intended for the connection of current-using equipment, and that such wiring needs to be differentiated from wiring which is so intended, then "intended for the connection of current-using equipment" applies to the point, not the wiring.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Logic, and syntax, etc say that unless there is fixed wiring which is not intended for the connection of current-using equipment, and that such wiring needs to be differentiated from wiring which is so intended, then "intended for the connection of current-using equipment" applies to the point, not the wiring.

Of course it applies to the 'point'. It is the definition of a 'point'.

Now - what is your point?

 

[morqthana]

Therefore that regulation 522.6.202 talks about a cable connected to a point which is intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

As you have just agreed, "intended for the connection of current-using equipment." applies to the point. The point must be intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

Also - after a socket has been removed and where two cables are connected, would that not still be a 'point'?

So after the socket has been removed, what current-using equipment is intended to be connected there? Because if there is none, then by the definition of "Point (in wiring)" you quoted, it's not a "Point".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Bear in mind what I quoted is THE definition of a POINT.

The regulation:

Therefore that regulation 522.6.202 talks about a cable connected to a point which is intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

So - are you saying a cable cannot be connected to a termination therefore the regulations do not make sense?

As you have just agreed, "intended for the connection of current-using equipment." applies to the point. The point must be intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

Yes, it obviously was and still is intended for that purpose even if it is not used as such at the moment.

So after the socket has been removed, what current-using equipment is intended to be connected there?

But a socket is not current-using-equipment so presumably if the socket is not used then it cannot be a point either.

Because if there is none, then by the definition of "Point (in wiring)" you quoted, it's not a "Point".

But that is the definition from the regulations.

Again - are you saying the regulations regarding this make no sense?
If so, what is your view on regulations which make no sense?

 

[pete01]

If you see a blank plate you would think twice about drilling above it...

 

[Scally-Ho]

@pete01 Yes Pete, most trades would, but we do have to consider the novice wading in with his/her drill without thinking.

 

[pete01]

@pete01 Yes Pete, most trades would, but we do have to consider the novice wading in with his/her drill without thinking.

Well they should know the basics like keeping their eyes open

 

[morqthana]

Of course it applies to the 'point'. It is the definition of a 'point'.

View attachment 385387


Now - what is your point?

Let's look at how this started

Also - after a socket has been removed and where two cables are connected, would that not still be a 'point'?

View attachment 385375

I looked at the definition you quoted, and thought "Why on earth is he asking that question? It's as clear as day what the definition says, and that is that a 'point' is a termination intended to connect current-using equipment."

And you agreed. When I commented

Logic, and syntax, etc say that unless there is fixed wiring which is not intended for the connection of current-using equipment, and that such wiring needs to be differentiated from wiring which is so intended, then "intended for the connection of current-using equipment" applies to the point, not the wiring.

you agreed that is is the point which has to be intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

So what current-using equipment is intended to be connected to a junction box behind a blanking plate?

 

[morqthana]

Not sure if I would agree with that,

Unless you've got your own version of English which works differently to everybody else's I can't see how you can not agree.