Junction box socket spur

[securespark]

No. But if there was a high resistance joint, it would show itself in the test results.

Plus, generally, you don't inspect everything on an EICR. You wouldn't inspect other areas of the installation "just in case", UNLESS you found something bad, or got an unexpected result, then you might increase the scope of your inspection/ testing.

 

[Taylortwocities]

It’s not really a problem for a EICR. There are lots of hidden things that you cannot be expected to uncover.

The main issue is when there is an actual fault.
How many hours have we all spent in some customers houses trying to find a disconnected wire? Eventually, after lifting carpets and floorboards the rogue screwed junction is found with a wire hanging out of it.…

 

[JohnW2]

No. But if there was a high resistance joint, it would show itself in the test results. .... Plus, generally, you don't inspect everything on an EICR. You wouldn't inspect other areas of the installation "just in case", UNLESS you found something bad, or got an unexpected result, then you might increase the scope of your inspection/ testing.

That's all true, but I don't think that alters my point - that IF we are to have a regulation which requires certain types of joints to be accessible "for inspection and testing", then it would seem to make sense for that to mean that they were ('fairly easily') "inspected" should anyone ever wish so to do.

Even in the case of "fault finding" (as mentioned by both you and TTC), detecting a fault by testing doesn't necessarily give much of an indication of where the fault may be, so it would seem to make sense for there to be a requirement for the most likely points of failure (including some types of 'joints') should be 'reasonably accessible' (rather than to potentially need extensive lifting of floor coverings, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It’s not really a problem for a EICR. There are lots of hidden things that you cannot be expected to uncover. The main issue is when there is an actual fault.
How many hours have we all spent in some customers houses trying to find a disconnected wire? Eventually, after lifting carpets and floorboards the rogue screwed junction is found with a wire hanging out of it.…

I agree. That's exactly my point, and the reason I don't think that many people would agree with secure that under floorboards (even if they are under "easily-liftable floor coverings") qualify as 'accessible' in this context. Do you agree with him?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

I agree. That's exactly my point, and the reason I don't think that many people would agree with secure that under floorboards (even if they are under "easily-liftable floor coverings") qualify as 'accessible' in this context. Do you agree with him?

Kind Regards, John

No I don’t agree with him. The junction may start out as “accessible”. Back in the day, many houses had a couple large central octopus junction boxes where all of the lighting came together.
Usually there was one in the loft (that’s accessible) and one under the landing floorboards. That could have been accessible in the days when a floor rug was the norm. Then along came home improvements which removes the accessibility:
Lino
Fitted carpets
Laminate flooring
Engineered wood flooring

Oh yes, and to get rid of those radiators, a wet underfloor heating system has been installed.
Now our accessible JB can only be accessed by ripping out the ceiling. Assuming anybody knows of its existence!

And yes, I have been faced with all of those challenges!

 

[securespark]

But you can't allow for what may be.

And as for access, it may be easier to cut into the ceiling.

You could argue that even MF JBs are not infallible. They are bound to go wrong sooner or later.

If junction boxes are bad, maybe the best solution would be to ban joints anywhere on a circuit except for accessory boxes or consumer units.

 

[flameport]

maybe the best solution would be to ban joints anywhere on a circuit

Not quite banned but pretty close.
6th edition, 1911.

 

[JohnW2]

No I don’t agree with him.

As I said, I don't think many people would.

The junction may start out as “accessible”. Back in the day, many houses had a couple large central octopus junction boxes where all of the lighting came together.

In those cases, one might have been able to make a reasonable guess as to where those JBs might be, but when (as 'usual') it's a matter of individual 3/4-way JBs, they would, if under floorboards, rarely have been 'accessible' (to my thinking) even at the start - so one doesn't really need to speculate about how much 'less accessible' they may become in the future (which, as has been said, one really can't predict).

So, IF one feels (as the regs do) that screw-terminal JB's must be 'accessible for inspection and testing', then my personal view is that they should then be "really" accessible (in a fairly everyday sense of the word).

However, speaking 'personally', there's a fairly big IF in what I've just written. My experience is obviously very limited, but I've personally never encountered, or even been aware of from 'contacts', a problem resulting from an undisturbed non-accessible (e.g. under floorboards) screwed joints, even when they have been in service ('undisturbed' throughout) for decades. It's with recently-installed screwed joints, or ones which have been 'disturbed' in the name of I&T (or 'maintenence') that I have sometimes seen issues.

Nevertheless, the regs are the regs, which constrains what we can say/advise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You could argue that even MF JBs are not infallible. They are bound to go wrong sooner or later.

... and, as you are aware, I not infrequently make that point.

If junction boxes are bad, maybe the best solution would be to ban joints anywhere on a circuit except for accessory boxes or consumer units.

As an extension of what I wrote in my previous post, IF one thinks that JBs (or, at least, ones with screwed-joints) are "bad", then what you suggest would be a logical step. However, as I also said, I have to wonder how 'bad' they actually are, if undisturbed (which is more-or-less inevitable if they are 'non-accessible') - since, in my limited experience, I've never encountered any such 'badness' (in undisturbed' screwed terminals).

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Nevertheless, the regs are the regs, which constrains what we can say/advise.

Kind Regards, John

Not true. The so called regs are not statutory.

 

[ericmark]

Not true. The so called regs are not statutory.

They may as well be for scheme members, the scheme member has to agree to follow the regulations to be a scheme member so not to follow them leaves them open to a court case due to breaking the agreement, although in real terms they would just loose the scheme membership if the non compliance was serious enough.

 

[Louis.]

What have I begun

Filled my chase for anyone wondering.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Ok. The outer sheath needs to be trimmed back to the grommet.
And you are going to wish that you had left the three conductors much longer. That’s going to be a PITA to connect.

 

[JohnW2]

Not true. The so called regs are not statutory.

Who said they were? I merely said that they "constrain what we can say/advise", which I true - at least for me. Although I often make my personal views (which sometimes differ from the regs) known, I would never (particularly 'in public') suggest/advise anyone to contravene the (non-statutory') regulations.

 

[Louis.]

Ok. The outer sheath needs to be trimmed back to the grommet.
And you are going to wish that you had left the three conductors much longer. That’s going to be a PITA to connect.

They're the exact same length as the socket on the other wall opposite so im struggling to see why itll be a pain? I even offered up the new socket before clipping.

I'm also aware the PVC needs trimming back, but I'll wait until the s&e has gone off.