25mm tails maintenance free joint

[Andy78]

Just because accessible is not defined does not mean that concealing connections that are not deemed to be MF is acceptable.
I would not consider under a floor accessible in any circumstances. You have to remove part of the fabric of the building to get to it.

 

[Risteard]

"accessible" to me is something that you can see!

Why? I can't see what's in my roofspace, but I certainly wouldn't consider it to be inaccessible.

 

[Risteard]

I would not consider under a floor accessible in any circumstances.

That's not really the point though. Can you state definitively that someone who believes that it is accessible (where marked up on as fitted drawings etc.) is wrong, and if so can you provide evidence based upon BS 7671 to justify this view?

 

[Spoon]

That's not really the point though. Can you state definitively that someone who believes that it is accessible (where marked up on as fitted drawings etc.) is wrong, and if so can you provide evidence based upon BS 7671 to justify this view?

We can all manipulate the text "Every connection shall be accessible for inspection, testing and maintenance, except for the following"

Sticking it in concrete inside an armoured box that is welded shut, 200ft under the ground can still be classed as "accessible" then... It's just a matter of time and equipment.....

 

[Andy78]

That's not really the point though. Can you state definitively that someone who believes that it is accessible (where marked up on as fitted drawings etc.) is wrong, and if so can you provide evidence based upon BS 7671 to justify this view?

Probably not.
I believe the reg should be worded "readily accessible" To avoid confusion. The IET's solution is to provide alternatives in the form of MF joints and other methods where confusion exists over an ill defined reg. Crackers !

If a joint is accessible under a floor because you can take it all up later, then by the same logic a joint under plaster is accessible because it can be dug out later, and ceilings can be taken down so that's ok too.

 

[Simonslimline]

Surely its just common sense?

 

[Risteard]

Surely its just common sense?

Without knowing the precise circumstances behind the introduction of the Regulation it would be difficult to guess precisely as to its intent.

There are commonly held views on this Regulation, but that isn't necessarily to state that it is the correct view. It will always be a matter of opinion without further clarificaftion.

 

[Simonslimline]

Without knowing the precise circumstances behind the introduction of the Regulation it would be difficult to guess precisely as to its intent.

There are commonly held views on this Regulation, but that isn't necessarily to state that it is the correct view. It will always be a matter of opinion without further clarificaftion.

BS7671 seems like an endless minefield of different opinions to be honest.

IMHO if you have to cause disruption like lifting carpets and floorboards then it is not accessible. Each to their own though i suppose.

 

[Andy78]

Without knowing the precise circumstances behind the introduction of the Regulation it would be difficult to guess precisely as to its intent.

There are commonly held views on this Regulation, but that isn't necessarily to state that it is the correct view. It will always be a matter of opinion without further clarificaftion.

The intent of the regulation is quite clear, that a connection that does not fall under the exceptions listed is available for future inspection, testing and maintenance so that the system may be maintained in a safe condition in line with the requirements of the EAWR.

 

[ruston]

The regulations are so clear that there are a proliferation of books and guidance notes with other peoples opinions that cloud the problem even more.
In the regs, one edition it's correct the next it's not. You could not make it up.

 

[Simonslimline]

The regulations are so clear that there are a proliferation of books and guidance notes with other peoples opinions that cloud the problem even more.
In the regs, one edition it's correct the next it's not. You could not make it up.

That job is solely reserved for the IET.

 

[ruston]

That job is solely reserved for the IET.

No , the cronies with the vested interest.

 

[davesparks]

You could always use a resin SWA joint for the connection

 

[Darkwood]

I would assume the term accessible within our industry would refer to the common practices done to inspect and test a property, as a whole, ripping carpets up and pulling boards up wouldn't be carried out on such an inspection so any joint that wouldn't be expected to be checked, would in my mind be classed as inaccessible, I would expect any sparky worth his salt to stick his head in the loft and check for joints etc unless its boarded out then they should be MF.

This is my opinion and based on common sense of joints that are unlikely to be checked during a routine inspection report so any chances of obvious issues that could be spotted with a visual but not picked up by testing is reduced with the use of MF joints.

 

[haj]

I believe Wago do a tails joint