Junction box socket spur

[JohnW2]

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

Indeed - and, as you have been told, the same remains the case today.

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.

Any club can impose whatever requirements it wishes on its members, but no electrician is forced to join any self-certification scheme.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

2004 was when the final amended version of the 16th edition was published.

Sorry, I should have said 2006.

It still is, and always has been.

It's more than that now though.

For private rented properties, it's explicitly cited in the law. For other domestic properties it's not mentioned in the law itself, but it is mentioned in "approved document P" which is government advice on how to follow the law.

Any club can impose whatever requirements it wishes on its members, but no electrician is forced to join any self-certification scheme.

To offer the full range of services, they either have to join a self certification scheme or they have to tangle with building control. This was especially true with the original version of the notification requirements.

 

[JohnW2]

To offer the full range of services, they either have to join a self certification scheme or they have to tangle with building control.

It's not really anything to do with how full a range of services an electrician can offer but, rather, is just about money.

Anyone who cares to call himself/herself 'an electrician' (and, indeed, anyone who makes no such claim) can offer and/or undertake whatever electrical services/activities they wish (encompassing the entire range of electrical activities), provided only that, when notification is required, that notification is undertaken, and the appropriate fee paid.

The clubs (together) created a situation in which their members had a competitive advantage over non-members, by providing a much cheaper method of notification, thereby resulting in reduced cost for their customers.

Unfortunately, and seemingly at least partially by design of the Scheme operators, a lot of the general public seem to believe that Scheme members are necessarily more competent than electricians who are not members of a Scheme - and, at least in my experience, that is by no means necessarily true as a generalisation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

provided only that, when notification is required, that notification is undertaken, and the appropriate fee paid.

My understanding was that "notification" involved not only notifying building control but also convincing them that the work meets building regulations.

Is that understanding incorrect?

 

[JohnW2]

My understanding was that "notification" involved not only notifying building control but also convincing them that the work meets building regulations. Is that understanding incorrect?

It's just a 'process'. Once one has notified BC of one's intention to commence some electrical work, then one has satisfied the law about notification. It is then for BC to view the situation however they wish (which presumably includes taking into account who is doing the work and what his/her qualifications and experience are') and then to take whatever steps (e.g. sending in 'inspectors') to satisfy themselves that the work "meets building regulations".

A big problem, of course, is that the only relevant part of the Building Regs which has to be satisfied, is "Part P", which is just that one sentence which essentially just says that the work must be done 'safely'. That means that there is tremendous scope for individual BCOs to interpret that in almost any way they wish - and presumably why we hear of some who impose what many would call 'unreasonable' requirements.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Louis.]

Turns out that junction box was infact for the lights downstairs, not the sockets.

Classic.

I instead ran a spur off the socket opposite which was part of the ringmain. I clipped this onto the joists under the floorboards parallel with the other cables.

For filling the chase, can I just use sand and cement? I'm not intending on running it in conduit as I don't have any.

 

[securespark]

Undercoat plaster will do.

 

[Louis.]

Undercoat plaster will do.

I'm only intending on running this single chase so didn't really want to buy a full bag of anything.

I have sand and cement, premixed interior filler and powdered fillers.

Will any of these be suitable?

 

[securespark]

Re the "accessible" argument, I always took the view that if the junction box was under an easily liftable floor covering, it was accessible.

There's no way electrical work can be designed to take account of any future changes in the building and I believe it is unreasonable to expect an electrician to try.

Edited for clarity.

 

[securespark]

I'm only intending on running this single chase so didn't really want to buy a full bag of anything.

I have sand and cement, premixed interior filler and powdered fillers.

Will any of these be suitable?

Yes. Fill the chase to just below the surface with SaC, let it go off well, then finish with filler.

 

[JohnW2]

Re the "accessible" argument, I always took the view that if the junction box was under an easily liftable floor covering, it was accessible.

As I said, one needs popcorn and time for that discussion, since opinions will vary widely.

However, I suspect that not many people would agree with you. Both the word and spirt of the requirement is that non-MF joints must be accessible "for inspection and testing", so I would say that it's not unreasonable to think in terms of what an 'inspector' would probably do - and I don't think that (m)any people undertaking, say, an EICR would go around lifting floor coverings in a search for possible buried electrical joints.

In fact, in terms of common sense, the requirement probably should be in relation to "obviously present and accessible", since no inspector is going to lift every floor covering in a house (even if "easily liftable") 'just in case' there was some evidence of possible hidden joints somewhere (even if they were 'easily accessible' {once the floor covering was lifted} through, say, a screwed access panel).

There's no way electrical work can be designed to take account of any future changes in the building and I believe it is unreasonable to expect an electrician to try.

I agree, within reason. Some of the things that people advise "in case some future person does XYZ" are really pretty ridiculous - anything might happen 'tomorrow'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I was talking about past editions of the regs, not the recent ones, IE pre-MF regs.

 

[JohnW2]

I was talking about past editions of the regs, not the recent ones, IE pre-MF regs.

As flameport has said (and I think he's probably right) I don't think that the "MF regs" have changed anything. In fact they have 'made life easier' in that they have introduced something new ("MF" JBs) which are (in addition to soldered etc.) allowed to be non-'accessible' - but, as he's said, I think that the requirement for joints to be accessible has always been there. Isn't that the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

My argument is that I have always treated underfloor voids as accessible if overlaid with easily removable floor covering. IE not laminate or similar

 

[JohnW2]

My argument is that I have always treated underfloor voids as accessible if overlaid with easily removable floor covering. IE not laminate or similar

I understand what you were suggesting but, as I said, I suspect that many would not agree with you that joints in such places were "accessible for inspection and testing". As I said/asked/implied, do you really think that someone undertaking, say, an EICR would go around lifting all the floor coverings 'just in case'; they revealed evidence of a possible underfloor JB which should be "inspected"?

Kind Regards, John