Maintainance free JB's e.g. Ashley J803

[truckster]

Am I right in thinking that these forms of JB's do not require to be accessible as per BS EN 60670-22?

 

[malcolmsanford]

More importantly does the BS 7671-2008 regard them as non accessible.

 

[truckster]

In the brb Appendix 15 page 363 it says (to me at any rate) that any JB conforming to 60670-22 does not need to be accessible. Am I reading it right?

 

[malcolmsanford]

The appendix then points you back to Reg 526.3 and in that reg the ashley box does not comply to any of the sections. It does not use screws granted but it also does not use compression by a tool like a crimper.

I have discussed this and the nearest that I can be persuaded is by the use of regulation 120.4 new inventions, but I'll reserve judgement on them until the amendment comes out in July, and see if these type of boxes are included in it.

 

[truckster]

OK Malcolm,

I'll raise you with:526.3 (v) A joint forming part of the equipment complying with the appropriate product standard

This covers it, no?

 

[malcolmsanford]

Is a JB classed as part of a piece of equipment ? If an ashley box is being used to join several T + Es together and then your using a piece of flex to continue into say a downlighter or light fitting, would that JB be considered part of the equipment.

I think it is a bit of a tenious link.

 

[el-sparko]

According to the Hagar website, the Ashley JB's are 17th Edition compliant, (they do use the term "equipment" in the brochure) see:
Junction Boxes & Ceiling Accessories Hager

The last page has a junction box selection chart and it clearly shows the maintenance free jb's J803 and J804 as "suitable for use in inaccessible locations"

Surely Hagar couldn't make these claims if they aren't compliant.

It'll be interesting to see what the new regs have in store.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So called maintenance free terminals are not at present accepted as such by BS7671.
526.3 lists the types of joint that are accepted as being maintenance free.
As far as I'm aware they meet the requirements of BS EN 60670 which is the standard for enclosures. In other words, the terminals do not have to be in a separate enclosure, because they are deemed to be one.
As such they meet the requirements of the 17th edition, just as do JBs adaptable boxes and other enclosures.
Meeting the requirements to be an enclosure, does not then mean they are acceptable as a maintenance free joint under the 17th edition.
Departures from the Regulations are allowed, if they afford the same degree of safety as would be achieved by compliance with the Regulations.
If you have evidence from the manufacturer's that these 'maintenance free' terminals are as safe as other acceptable forms of maintenance free joints, then they can be used, as long as their use is detailed in the section for departures on whichever Certificate is being used.

 

[el-sparko]

I'm still confused with the conflicting views.

The PDF on Hagar site clearly states that the J803 and J804 are maintenance free and as such can be used in inaccessible areas. Here follows a direct quote from the pdf:

"The Maintenance Free junction box provides a secure and maintenance free means of
connecting fixed wiring in any indoor application, whether it be under floor situations, between
ground and first floor in houses, or where jointing of cables is used to aid rewiring.
BS 7671 (Wiring Regulations) recognises equipment complying with an appropriate British
Standard without further qualification. Therefore, a junction box marked MF is identified as a
maintenance free accessory, which does not require further inspection, testing or maintenance
after installation in a circuit."

As mentioned in my earlier post, surely Hagar can't just make claims like this up. If these JB's are not compliant with 17th Ed many sparks who have used them have may have done so incorrectly and it could be argued need to do remedial work to rectify. If that's the case is it reasonable that Hagar pay for additional works?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Nothing there actually states that it can be used as an inaccessible joint?
It states that it can be used in places where JBs would normally be used.
It then states that it is recognised by BS7671, as are JBs.
Then states that it is identified as a maintenance free accessory.
Nowhere does it actually state that it meets the requirements of BS7671 for an inaccessible joint.

 

[malcolmsanford]

I'm with Spin here, it does not at the moment comply with the regs for a non accessible joint, the literature stops short at saying there is no need for it to be inaccessible, but that it does not need maintenance, inspection and testing after installation.

They maybe correct and that after fitting it there is no need to check it again, but until it complies to reg 526.3 IMO I would not use it as an inaccessible joint.

 

[el-sparko]

Interesting how this information can be interpreted. I am going to email Hagar and try to get a definitive answer to this. Don't know if and when they will reply but I'll report back if they do.

Lee

 

[truckster]

The 17th Edition, BS 7671:2008 Corrigendum (July 2008

Clearly states joints must be accessible or alternatively use maintainance free terminals/connections. So I am going to put my money on that it does comply

 

[Des 56]

I like the advise of Spinlondon and Malcolm

Further to that and speaking with out ever having seen these joints,so from total ignorance

I have yet to have faith in any push fit joint that I have seen, to even consider for a moment using them where access could not be absolutely assured


So whether they are permitted or no,I would always advise a proper connection

 

[malcolmsanford]

Well it would make sense if the IET think that these types of termination complies to regulation 526.3, I'm sure all will be revealed.