Junction box socket spur

[winston1]

The brown junction box should be replaced with a more suitable alternative such as https://www.screwfix.com/p/wago-junction-box/7355f with the appropriate terminals in it. (terminals are supplied separately). Those have cable grips built in so the cables don't need to be clipped, although the box does need to be fixed to something.

Most likely that JB complied when it was fitted. The regs are not retrospective so no real reason to change it.

 

[flameport]

Most likely that JB complied when it was fitted.

It didn't.
It has never been acceptable to conceal screw terminals in inaccessible places.

 

[JohnW2]

It has never been acceptable to conceal screw terminals in inaccessible places.

If that's true, why did they come to be so very widely used? Did electricians simply ignore the regulations in the past?

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Did electricians simply ignore the regulations in the past?

Yes, just as many do today.
Joints being accessible has been in every edition of the Wiring Regulations since 1903.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, just as many do today.

There seems to be a massive difference between 'then' and 'now'. Today, there seems to be a fairly widespread understanding (and advice, hence presumably also practice) that new JBs with screwed terminals should not be installed in 'inaccessible locations'. However, at least in my experience, it' fairly unusual to nor find at least some if one lifts the floorboards etc. in a house with 'old wiring'

Joints being accessible has been in every edition of the Wiring Regulations since 1903.

Only ones with screwed terminals?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Sureitsoff?]

Surely that junction box was "accessible" as the flooring has a hole in it through which the junction box was probably placed years ago. Ok it's not fixed but in reality how many are?

 

[JohnW2]

Surely that junction box was "accessible" as the flooring has a hole in it through which the junction box was probably placed years ago.

We don't know when that hole was made. However, even if it were created 'years ago', I think a good few people would suggest that being under an 'access hatch' (which presumably needs 'tools' to open it - a couple of screw holes are visible), under floor coverings, does not qualify as 'accessible'.

I can sympathise with that view, given that the whole point is that (non-'MF') joints should be "accessible for inspection and testing", and I don't really think that someone undertaking, say, an EICR would even consider lifting floor coverings to look for possible 'access' to under-floor JBs, and then open up that access, would they?

Ok it's not fixed but in reality how many are?

As I said, in my experience, very few - at least, under floors. In roof spaces, one sometimes sees JBs screwed to joists etc.., but even that is (again, in my experience) not all that common.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Louis.]

I'll be replacing it anyway. Does it need fixing if a MF box is used?

 

[JohnW2]

I'll be replacing it anyway. Does it need fixing if a MF box is used?

Some might argue that, strictly speaking it does but, given that any MF JB (whether J803/804 or WagoBox+Wagos etc.) has built-in 'strain relief' for the cables, I don't really see why it should need to be 'fixed' to anything.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Only ones with screwed terminals?

In 1903 it was any joints regardless of how they were made, although at the time joints were generally soldered.
Mechanical connectors were first mentioned in the 8th edition 1924.
The list of types which can be concealed originated in the 15th edition 1981 and has had various minor changes since then with the 'maintenance free' and the MF symbol being added in the 18th edition.

 

[JohnW2]

In 1903 it was any joints regardless of how they were made, although at the time joints were generally soldered.

Thanks. That's what I suspected.

Mechanical connectors were first mentioned in the 8th edition 1924.

... but (if they had screwed terminals) still not allowed to be 'not accessible'?

I have to say I can sympathise with the idea that NO joints (other than, probably, soldered ones) should be allowed to be non-accessible but, as I have observed in the past, I'm then somewhat surprised that having crimped or 'sprung ones' which are non-accessible should be regarded as acceptable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Louis.]

I'm surprised the maintenance free boxes don't double down with both a screw fitting and a one way sprung loader.

 

[Taylortwocities]

I'm surprised the maintenance free boxes don't double down with both a screw fitting and a one way sprung loader.

Some do come with securing devices and/or can simply be screwed to backgrounds.
Here’s the one for the WagoBox

The Hager 803etc have handy screw holes provided.
PS what’s a “sprung loader”

 

[plugwash]

There seems to be a massive difference between 'then' and 'now'.

Afaict prior to 2004 the IEE wiring regs/BS7671 were nothing more than advice from a proffesional body/standards institution.

Nowdays, while there is still no explicit legal requirement to follow BS7671, electricians are practically forced to join self-certification schemes, which I believe force or at least strongly push them to work to BS7671.

 

[flameport]

advice from a proffesional body/standards institution.

It still is, and always has been.

prior to 2004

2004 was when the final amended version of the 16th edition was published.
It's been a British Standard (BS7671) since 1992, the reprint in that year amending the title to 'Requirements for Electrical Installations BS 7671' rather than 'Regulations for Electrical Installations'
It's been directly based on the IEC and CENELEC standards since the 15th edition in 1981 which was a major change from the previous editions.