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.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

No what it states is that junction boxes with screw terminals must be accessible for inspection, testing & maintenance or, alternatively, use maintenance-free terminals/connections (Regulation 526.3).
Which one of the joint methods listed in 526.3 do these Wagos, Ashleys etc. come under?

 

[el-sparko]

I think it can only be 526.3
(v) A joint forming part of the equipment complying with the appropriate product standard.

But typical to a majority of the regs a degree in legal speak is needed to interpret it.

 

[truckster]

I think it can only be 526.3
(v) A joint forming part of the equipment complying with the appropriate product standard.

Agreed

And as an aside, how the **** are we expected to function as an industry when a simple question of whether a JB is compliant can cause so much debate

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No one is arguing that an enclosure is not compliant, just that the use of one is not recognised as being suitable to be inaccessible.
I don't understand what the reference to equipment complying with the appropriate product standard is about.
A consumer unit complies with the appropriate product standard, a 3 pin plug complies with the appropriate product standard, safety boots comply with the appropriate product standard.
Are any of these suitable as inaccessible joints?

 

[topquark]

No one is arguing that an enclosure is not compliant, just that the use of one is not recognised as being suitable to be inaccessible.
I don't understand what the reference to equipment complying with the appropriate product standard is about.
A consumer unit complies with the appropriate product standard, a 3 pin plug complies with the appropriate product standard, safety boots comply with the appropriate product standard.
Are any of these suitable as inaccessible joints?

I do have trouble doing my boots up sometimes

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The screw terminals in service heads and meters for the meter tails are inaccessible. However as these items of equipment meet their relevant product standards, and the terminals are intended to be inaccessible, they meet the requirements of 526.3(v).
An item that meets the requirements of the product standard for an enclosure where the terminals are not meant to be inaccessible, does not meet the requirements of 526.3(v).

 

[el-sparko]

No one is arguing that an enclosure is not compliant, just that the use of one is not recognised as being suitable to be inaccessible.
I don't understand what the reference to equipment complying with the appropriate product standard is about.
A consumer unit complies with the appropriate product standard, a 3 pin plug complies with the appropriate product standard, safety boots comply with the appropriate product standard.
Are any of these suitable as inaccessible joints?

Agreed the 536.3 (v) is ambiguous but non of your examples are "joints" therefore totally unsuitable as inaccessible joints.

The way i read it is the spring type joints used by the Ashley are part of the equipment with the appropriate product standard.

 

[malcolmsanford]

(vi) Equipment complying with a product standard with specific requirements to confirm that access for inspection,
testing and maintenance is not required, including for connections to the equipment made by the installer.

When the DPC came out last year there were several proposals that I highlighted to the IET. The above was a proposal to regulation 526.3 and it was a (vi) part to it. I asked if this was meant to include the WAGO type connection as an inaccessible joint, my answer was that it was still under discussion at the time of my enquiry.

I would interpret the above to include the WAGO and Ashley connections as being now inaccessible and like the rest of us await the new regulations to see if it is included.

Note The above amendment to the regulations was not copied but taken from an email I sent regarding the DPC consultation

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are there no joints in a Consumer Unit?
That aside, the product standard that these Ashley terminals meet the requirements of, is the one for enclosures. Where live parts are not accessible without the use of a tool.
The same product standard that JBs and adaptable boxes meet the requirements of.
Basicly the plastic part of the Ashly is acting as an enclosure.
Now if they met the requirements for BS EN 50393, which applies to low voltage cable jointing methods, then they would be suitable for inaccessinle jionts. However they don't as they're not water tight.
At present, they can only be a departure from BS7671.

 

[el-sparko]

Hi All,

as promised my reply from Hager.

"Dear Lee

Thank you for your enquiry. There has indeed been much discussion! To aid installers to identify products which are truly suitable for maintenence free installation two changes to our electrical standards are coming in to place;

British Standard BS 5733 has been amended to describe the tests required to demostrate that a product is maintenance free. Products which are compliant will then be identified with an 'MF' logo.

Amendment 1 of the 17th Edition will reference this change and also describe the 'MF' mark.

Hager are happy to comfirm that our maintenence free junction boxes, J803 and J804, have always been compliant with the tests, and we are adding the MF mark to them on their lids. I notice that you are based in Dunstable. I recently attended a meeting of the NICEIC at their headquarters there, and was asked the same question that you have raised. If you are registered with them, perhaps this would be another way of satisfying yourself? We also plan to attend the Elex shows at Rugby and Sandown where we will be promoting these changes and distributing free Technical Guides and samples, so I hope we may see you at one of these.

I hope that this is of assistance

Regards
Jane"


Interesting eh!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It would be very useful to have sight of the Technical Guide. Is it available on-line?

 

[nickblake]

The push fit terminals on the ashley junction boxes are made by WAGO and have been tested to destruction by BAE systems
thats what the guy was telling me at the wago stand at harrogate

 

[el-sparko]

It would be very useful to have sight of the Technical Guide. Is it available on-line?

I'll get back on to Jane and ask if we can get a copy

Lee

 

[el-sparko]

Here's the latest from Hager

"Hi Lee

We havent got the new one ready to go yet, but I am sending you the original one together with our wiring accessories catalogue, which has some details of the MF mark.

I have also heard today that the ESC website is being updated on the 1st July with the following;

Q43. Can I use an electrical connector having ‘push fit’ connections that the manufacturer claims are maintenance free in an area that will be inaccessible when the installation is complete?

Not necessarily. Not all types or designs of push fit (screwless-type) clamping units comply with the requirements of Regulation 526.3 (vi).

If the connector will be inaccessible when the installation is complete, it must comply with BS 5733 for a maintenance-free accessory, be marked with the ‘MF’ symbol indicated in Regulation 526.3 (vi), and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

BS 5733 requires, for example, tests for resistance to ageing, cyclic loading, overload, fault current and vibration.

I hope this helps

Best wishes

Jane"

Lee

 

[nickblake]

I have had a conversation with the ESC regarding maintainance free connectors , we know they are not as yet listed in the regs , all to change as far as the conversation goes push fit connectors will be acceptable in the new amedment but will have to be accessible unless they are marked with MF (maintainance free) this includes junction boxes and push fit connectors