Rate this Job! - Cooker Hood / Extractor Install

[EFLImpudence]

If it is accessible enough for you then it is accessible.

Inaccessible is presumably when it is not accessible enough for you - or when someone may not even realise there is something there.
If you have a sticker on your carpet on an easily lifted area stating access to junction box below, then that would be alright.

 

[333rocky333]

Whats the thing looks like a plugtop for on top of the right hand unit.

 

[SirLancelot]

Drill - resting ontop of the cabinet.

 

[JohnW2]

FCU or socket makes little odds.

I agree.

Looking at the pics, I fail to see how that socket could become boxed in.

If there is no "top cover", I cannot understand how on earth the OP could have thought that the front panel alone would prevent kitchen grease/muck/dirt getting to the space behind it, or why he was seemingly surprised when he found grease/muck/dirt there....

Canopy hood inside a box - sealed on all sides. Why would I think to to clean inside it?

... although I suppose it's possible that the new situation is different from the previous one (in which case the space behind that ('only') front panel will certainly have to be regularly cleaned from now on).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If it is accessible enough for you then it is accessible.

As a generalisation about compliance (or conformity! ) with regs, that simply is not true. There are umpteen aspects of my electrical installation which are 'acceptable enough/safe enough for me', but which either are, or might be argued to be, non-conformant with regs, so I would not normally talk about them here, or advise others to 'do as I do'.

Interestingly, given today's date, and your recent reminder of the new definition of "non-compliance" which we believe will have been published today, many of the things I am talking about (which are 'acceptable enough/safe enough for me') could well be examples of things which are non-conformant with regs but could be argued to not be "non-complaint" (per the new definition, assuming it appeared). I foresee a fair bit of discussion about this over the coming weeks and months.

Inaccessible is presumably when it is not accessible enough for you - or when someone may not even realise there is something there. If you have a sticker on your carpet on an easily lifted area stating access to junction box below, then that would be alright.

Needless to say, I have never had 'stickers on my carpet'. The existence of the junction box, and access thereto, will always have been documented elsewhere, but there has never been any 'local labelling'. Would you regard that as 'accessible'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Needless to say, I have never had 'stickers on my carpet'. The existence of the junction box, and access thereto, will always have been documented elsewhere, but there has never been any 'local labelling'. Would you regard that as 'accessible'?

As I said, If someone would have no idea it might be there - i.e. when inspecting the installation - then I would not consider that as accessible even if you could get at it with screw driver. I know you will say that is not what the word means but if one doesn't know to (I don't mean 'know how to') access it, then...

However, if it is documented and reasonably easily accessed then obviously that is accessible and acceptable - but would one see the documents?

It could be said that some CUs I have encountered are inaccessible even though they are visible.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said, If someone would have no idea it might be there - i.e. when inspecting the installation - then I would not consider that as accessible even if you could get at it with screw driver. I know you will say that is not what the word means but if one doesn't know to (I don't mean 'know how to') access it, then... However, if it is documented and reasonably easily accessed then obviously that is accessible and acceptable - but would one see the documents?

That was really my point/question - does the fact that its existence is recorded in documents allow one to regard it as 'accessible' (even though not visually apparent), even though the person who was writing the documents could not be certain that a person inspecting the installation in the future would see the documents ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know then.

With no requirement, other than 'accessible for inspection', it must be impossible to say.
I would say it is common sense but where do people access that?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know then.

That makes two of us, then. Despite what some people seem to think, this 'accessibility' issue is far from straightforward/clear-cut.

I have seen electricians undertaking EICRs decline to look at documentation relating to the installation ("because they did not want to be influenced/biased")!

Kind Regards, John

 

[opps]

Like this stuff, you mean?

View attachment 144114

Erm, you circled the bit about temporary exhaust pipe repairs. I suspect that they might mean car exhaust pipes. Then again I could be wrong. Their products are sold in PoundLand (speaks volumes).

Unfortunately they don't even bother listing the specs for their products on their own website (again, speaks volumes), hell they don't even bother listing their products.

http://www.151.co.uk/

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Erm, you circled the bit about temporary exhaust pipe repairs. I suspect that they might mean car exhaust pipes.

I share your suspicion.

And I contend that a product which can be used, even temporarily, on car exhausts can probably cope with the temperature of a cooker hood duct.

Their products are sold in PoundLand (speaks volumes).

Of what does it speak volumes?

 

[JohnW2]

Never thought such 'job' can happen in the UK. The buy should return you the money paid, but I hope you didn't pay in advance.

Maybe, but if any money were going to be returned, it would have to have been about 2½ years ago!

Kind Regards, John