Missing grommets

[skiandy]

Hi,

What are people coding missing grommets on Galv backboxes. I was thinking a Code 2. This makes it a fail now as the Electrical Safety Council recommend that you put "unsatfactory" if there Codes 1 or 2. 80's the orignal wiring checks out with the other tests.

Andy

 

[WarrenG]

Hi,

What are people coding missing grommets on Galv backboxes. I was thinking a Code 2. This makes it a fail now as the Electrical Safety Council recommend that you put "unsatfactory" if there Codes 1 or 2. 80's the orignal wiring checks out with the other tests.

Andy

If the cables are sheathed probably a 'code 4' - ' Does not comply with BS7671'

 

[Spudnik]

Sorry chaps but could one point out the specific reg for this?

As long as the sheath enters the box before the conductors are visible then its fine.

Its good practice to fit them but if they are missing it doesnt warrant any code at all.

 

[randyrat]

Are we talking surface mounted boxes, or buried in wall types? If they are surface mounted they have to be non-penetrable by a BS standard finger.....

 

[WarrenG]

Sorry chaps but could one point out the specific reg for this?

As long as the sheath enters the box before the conductors are visible then its fine.

Its good practice to fit them but if they are missing it doesnt warrant any code at all.

Possible regs 522.8.1 / 522.8.11 although can't say I have coded it before.

 

[skiandy]

Ok guys thanks for your reply, when I did my 2391 we were all told that it was a code 2 by the instructor. The boxes are burried in the wall cable is double insulated where it enters.

Andy

 

[Tiger]

Sorry chaps but could one point out the specific reg for this?

As long as the sheath enters the box before the conductors are visible then its fine.

Its good practice to fit them but if they are missing it doesnt warrant any code at all.

Try leaving them out on your inspection, don't think you will be passing somehow

 

[Guest123]

Hey there.

I have to admit I've always coded them as 2. I was taught this also, and Mr NIC said the same at my last inspection.

Cheers.

 

[WarrenG]

Ok guys thanks for your reply, when I did my 2391 we were all told that it was a code 2 by the instructor. The boxes are burried in the wall cable is double insulated where it enters.

Andy

I don't think I would regard it as unsafe as a 'code 2' down to inspector though.

Here's an ESC PIR Guide:

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG4_08.pdf

 

[Jono Pashley]

Snag and Solutions 32: Grommets at metal back boxes - Voltimum UK - Electrical Installation Products and Contracting

 

[WarrenG]

Snag and Solutions 32: Grommets at metal back boxes - Voltimum UK - Electrical Installation Products and Contracting

Well I got the Reg right at least!

 

[Tiger]

Snag and Solutions 32: Grommets at metal back boxes - Voltimum UK - Electrical Installation Products and Contracting

thats a handy little webite

 

[slocm3105]

i think a shallow single switch box 16 mm maybe has no provision for a round grommett due to its oval hole which is allready smoothed and rounded around the edges

Put an oval one in then

 

[Spudnik]

Try leaving them out on your inspection, don't think you will be passing somehow

I did and i did.

Only on one tho.

Typical he chose that one, but he just confirmed what i said earlier.


Reg 522.8.1(if we are being really picky) does not specifically say that they must be used.

"Failure to provide a grommet whare a cable, such as a twin and cpc flat cable, enters a metal black box is not, in its own right, a deficiency, providing the cable sheath is adequately protected against damage from any sharp edges."

 

[WarrenG]

LOL.......like it!

 

[Tiger]

I did and i did.

Only on one tho.

Typical he chose that one, but he just confirmed what i said earlier.


Reg 522.8.1(if we are being really picky) does not specifically say that they must be used.

"Failure to provide a grommet whare a cable, such as a twin and cpc flat cable, enters a metal black box is not, in its own right, a deficiency, providing the cable sheath is adequately protected against damage from any sharp edges."

fair enough, i wouldnt be that lucky. Ive had some right jobs worths

 

[skiandy]

No code required then. The cables are in plaster and can't go anywhere. I still believe its poor practice. I have a printed copy of the ESC PIR Codes and there is nothing written about it. That's why I checked here.

Andy

 

[Des 56]

Its good practise to fit them during installation
If there are none on an existing installationm and there is no sign of damage then there is no code
What are you people thinking when recomending a code for something like this You would probably incur more damage trying to have them fitted than ever would occur otherwise
Start thinking for yourselves instead of being guided blindly without common sense

 

[Guest123]

Its good practise to fit them during installation
If there are none on an existing installationm and there is no sign of damage then there is no code
What are you people thinking when recomending a code for something like this You would probably incur more damage trying to have them fitted than ever would occur otherwise
Start thinking for yourselves instead of being guided blindly without common sense

If you read my post correctly you will see that I was told by my NICEIC inspector at my last inspection to code missing grommets as 2. Despite what I think I have to comply otherwise Mr NIC goes back to head office with a reccomendation for a another inspection in 6 months which then costs me, and if I still dont do it he goes back to head office again with a reccomendation for removal from the role of approved contractors.

Also there is nothing wrong with my thinking, and I have plenty of common sense.

 

[Spudnik]

What are you people thinking when recomending a code for something like this You would probably incur more damage trying to have them fitted than ever would occur otherwise
Start thinking for yourselves instead of being guided blindly without common sense

People come on the forum for advice and guidance in situations that they may be unfamiliar with.

I dont think there is any need for posts like this.

Its a discussion, not an ear bashing.

 

[WarrenG]

What are you people thinking when recomending a code for something like this You would probably incur more damage trying to have them fitted than ever would occur otherwise
Start thinking for yourselves instead of being guided blindly without common sense

Maybe you could provide a full list of official PIR codes to eliminate any confusion?

It doesn't mean that people are not thinking for themselves because they are asking what other electricians would do in a particular situation. This is what the forum is all about.

Common sense should tell you that posting comments like 'start thinking for yourselves' to qualified people isn't going to go down very well.

 

[Des 56]

Maybe you could provide a full list of official PIR codes to eliminate any confusion?

It doesn't mean that people are not thinking for themselves because they are asking what other electricians would do in a particular situation. This is what the forum is all about.

Common sense should tell you that posting comments like 'start thinking for yourselves' to qualified people isn't going to go down very well.

My sincere and humble apologies for the way the reply came over

In all honesty it wasn't meant to slag off or demean anyone

My snap reply was meant more to encourage the individual to assess the current danger, rather than code the bad practise which I believe may cause greater danger when trying to rectify (The think for yourself line was not justified when reread by myself )
I am far from being a know it all and enjoy giving an opinion and recieving contrary opinions
Sorry for any offence to any of the previous contributors

 

[Tiger]

fair play

 

[mrloy99]

I did and i did.

Only on one tho.

Typical he chose that one, but he just confirmed what i said earlier.


Reg 522.8.1(if we are being really picky) does not specifically say that they must be used.

"Failure to provide a grommet whare a cable, such as a twin and cpc flat cable, enters a metal black box is not, in its own right, a deficiency, providing the cable sheath is adequately protected against damage from any sharp edges."

"in its own right"--of course meaning alternatives are also acceptable,why not bring the conduit into the box?De burring might work.The problem is that when the circuit is put into use,the cable can heat up causing the sheath to become softer and the sharp edge can then cut thru to the copper.I was told that this was a code 2.Repairing decorations etc should not come in to it.On your inspection report you have to tell it the way it is.Repairing the deficiencies is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Spudnik]

I agree, however, i have seen many installations where they have not been used and they have all been ok, but i have seen some that are not, mainly due to three t&e's in a back box, which makes it more tricky to get the faceplate back, but i do understand what you are saying.

Another one of those fab grey areas that we all love.