Blanking plate

[SUNRAY]

Came across this in a resonable hotel gents a few weeks back

reckon it is classed as accessible?

 

[SUNRAY]

Oh and in the same hotel in UK

 

[blup]

That CT1 is strong stuff

 

[sparkwright]

It might be acceptable if it's there to simply cover a hole in the tiles that doesn't house any electrical wiring or connections.

 

[Adam_151]

It might be acceptable if it's there to simply cover a hole in the tiles that doesn't house any electrical wiring or connections.

Yes...However.... The thing is, you don't find out thats what it is for until you're struggling with a fault on a circuit, have convinced yourself that it probably has connections behind that blank plate, and have struggled for 15mins with a stanley blade trying to separate it from the tiles, only to realise that it was a fantstic waste of time, you have gained nothing and now you have got to go and get something to stick it back with.

 

[Risteard]

Just a toilet?

 

[Murdochcat]

It might be acceptable if it's there to simply cover a hole in the tiles that doesn't house any electrical wiring or connections.

What makes you say that ?

Perfectly acceptable imho with cables behind

 

[JohnW2]

What makes you say that ? .... Perfectly acceptable imho with cables behind

Indeed - I would think that 'cables behind', per se, would be no problem at all.

However, as Sunray said/asked in his OP, if there are 'joints' behind', then (in terms of BS7671) the question then arises as to whether those joints are"accessible for inspection and testing" - and that is an issue which will undoubtedly result in debate and differing opinions.

If if the plant were attached 'conventionally', one would still 'need a tool' to gain access to any joints. The question may therefore come down to whether people regard a Stanley knife to be different, in this respect, to a screwdriver.

 

[SUNRAY]

Indeed - I would think that 'cables behind', per se, would be no problem at all.

However, as Sunray said/asked in his OP, if there are 'joints' behind', then (in terms of BS7671) the question then arises as to whether those joints are"accessible for inspection and testing" - and that is an issue which will undoubtedly result in debate and differing opinions.

If if the plant were attached 'conventionally', one would still 'need a tool' to gain access to any joints. The question may therefore come down to whether people regard a Stanley knife to be different, in this respect, to a screwdriver.

In which case I'd argue there is no such thing as inaccessible.

 

[JohnW2]

In which case I'd argue there is no such thing as inaccessible.

As so often, we're suffering from a lack of clarity/definition.

"Inaccessible", like "non-combustible" is, literally speaking, virtually always untrue. It's therefore a matter of degree, - i.e. a need to decide where to draw the line - and I suspect that no two people will have exactly the same view about that!

 

[SUNRAY]

As so often, we're suffering from a lack of clarity/definition.

"Inaccessible", like "non-combustible" is, literally speaking, virtually always untrue. It's therefore a matter of degree, - i.e. a need to decide where to draw the line - and I suspect that no two people will have exactly the same view about that!

Indeed. if that glued on plate requires significant tools to effect entry through a fixing intended to be permanent (glued on) is deemed to be accessible then I'd argue putting a hammer through a plasterboard wall or ceiling is also classed as accessible.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. if that glued on plate requires significant tools to effect entry through a fixing intended to be permanent (glued on) is deemed to be accessible then I'd argue putting a hammer through a plasterboard wall or ceiling is also classed as accessible.

As I said, in the absence of any definitions, rules or guidance, different people will have different views of where 'the line is drawn' Some might even say that having to use a screwdriver to remove a blank plate or accessory faceplate would render the joints behind them 'inaccessible'!.

I think I personally would say that any situation in which gaining access required destruction of the fabric of a building ((such as you suggest) was one of 'non-accessibility', but that leaves an awful of of scope for debate and differing opinions about 'lesser' situations.

For example, if having to remove faceplate screws is an acceptable degree of 'accessibility', what about a JB under a bit of floorboard secured by a small number of screws (I have examples of that in my house) ??

 

[ebee]

Well if it`s glued on etc it is PP Practice anyway.
Like folk who tile round sockets and switches etc then grout the things in, you often have to smash them to get them off the wall.
Tiling should be completed before accessory in (or away from the wall. You could use a "Yoozy Box etc.
Folk who tile/grout/glue stuff into walls are stark raving mad. Stark raving mad just like folk who try to get rid of acne with sandpaper. Bonkers they are! - Why do they do it?

 

[Murdochcat]

In which case I'd argue there is no such thing as inaccessible.

Under floorboards, under carpet is definitely inaccessible.

Behind a blank plate which can be removed by undoing screws is definitely accessible

And this needs clarifying once and for all in the big book

 

[JohnW2]

Under floorboards, under carpet is definitely inaccessible. Behind a blank plate which can be removed by undoing screws is definitely accessible

Many would probably agree with that. However, what about "under floorboard, not covered with any floor covering, accessible by undoing four screws" (I have examples of that in my house) ?

... And this needs clarifying once and for all in the big book

Some attempt at definition/clarification/guidance in the big book would certainly be a step forward, but since there are countless possible situations, that could never be comprehensive, so I think there will always be scope for debate and differing opinions,