Open knockout holes covered up ?

[Buzz1980]

Hi all

when doing EICRs and you open up your 10% of accessories what would you code a knockout hole that has a 20mm open grommet on a metal box with no cable coming through. Only insulating tape and duct tape over the top of the 20mm grommet. Would you even code it as if you have a 20mm open grommet with 1 x 1.0 mm t&e still a lot of room around hole. Just looking for other views to weather or not this even requires coding at all. Thanks in advance ?

 

[Dustydazzler]

Are you referring to a recessed into the wall back box which is plastered in OR a surface mounted galv box ?

 

[Buzz1980]

Hi sorry should have said, revering to the Metal knockout boxes that are behind the plasterboard. not surface mounted ?

 

[David Prosser]

If no access to a 12.5mm digit then IP rating is not compromised, then no code.

 

[Buzz1980]

Hi thanks for the reply. Yeah they are covered up with duct tape and a couple insulating tape so nothing can get through the holes.

 

[David Prosser]

The duct tape and insulation tape are not the answer, the fact that it behind a plasterboard wall is the pertinent point regarding the IP rating. look at installation with out the tapes on it, they are superfluous, is it possible to stick something in the hole ?

 

[Dustydazzler]

If you can reach the knockouts on a sunken box I would be having a word with whoever plastered the walls

 

[Buzz1980]

Hi we are not carrying out repairs just doing EICR then have to code what we find. Now this box is behind the plasterboard can’t be reached, only when open up switches noticed they have covered holes with open grommet then duct tape on one then insulating tape on another. My thinking is, no code as the hole is covered. Now if you think about a 20mm knockout with 1.0mm t&e through that hole there is still plenty of room for foreign objects to go down but no one codes them ?

 

[Taylortwocities]

The only foreign object to concern yourself is a finger. And that access has to be possible with the socket or switch plate fitted to the box.
It’s a non event. Nothing to code or even think about.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

How can you access a recessed metal back box in the wall, of course it’s no code.

 

[davesparks]

Even if its a surface box with a hole covered by gaffer tape then I don't think there's much to say about it.

Gaffer tape is harder to remove than a blind grommet and they are acceptable.

 

[Vortigern]

You could say C3 as the fire proof nature of the box is compromised. Needs fire sealant pads inside a plasterboard wall.

 

[davesparks]

You could say C3 as the fire proof nature of the box is compromised. Needs fire sealant pads inside a plasterboard wall.

Only in a wall forming a fire barrier.

Normal stud walls don't require this.

 

[Vortigern]

What do you mean normal stud walls? What is the difference?

 

[Dustydazzler]

You could say C3 as the fire proof nature of the box is compromised. Needs fire sealant pads inside a plasterboard wall.

I don’t believe these are not required in a normal stud partition wall

 

[davesparks]

What do you mean normal stud walls? What is the difference?

A stud wall designed to be a fire barrier which requires things like back boxes to be fire stopped is different to a normal stud wall.

The few I have seen have always had a double layer of 15mm plasterboard.
A normal stud wall is usually a single layer of standard plasterboard.

The internal dividing walls of a property or fire compartment don't require fire stopping for the back boxes.
Only the walls which form the dividing wall between fire compartments, such as the walls between flats, would need fire stopping.

 

[UNG]

With EICR's are we now looking for problems that aren't problems just to create a codes debate or is it a lack of experience and understanding that is showing through in the decision making process

 

[Dustydazzler]

A bit like kicking the used cars tyres...

 

[Vortigern]

Reading various docs I find it can be not so cut and dried. There is the idea of a fireproof wall needing fire pads in the socket that I can see. There is also regs which require any connection to be fireproof. I think 421 and 625 off the top of my head. Although thin metal galv can be seen as fireproof, when a hole is left in it then the fireproof nature of the containment is compromised. It is clear, among other items, that penetration of any stud wall (or ceiling/floor) with electrical connections/accessories does increase risk of fire where there is not fireproof containment. Just to distinguish the two ideas, one is the fireproof nature of the walls the other the fireproof nature of electrical accessories/connections in stud walls. I am undecided as to what is the final fact on the matter it is open to interpretation as usual.

 

[nicebutdim]

Reading various docs I find it can be not so cut and dried. There is the idea of a fireproof wall needing fire pads in the socket that I can see. There is also regs which require any connection to be fireproof. I think 421 and 625 off the top of my head. Although thin metal galv can be seen as fireproof, when a hole is left in it then the fireproof nature of the containment is compromised. It is clear, among other items, that penetration of any stud wall (or ceiling/floor) with electrical connections/accessories does increase risk of fire where there is not fireproof containment. Just to distinguish the two ideas, one is the fireproof nature of the walls the other the fireproof nature of electrical accessories/connections in stud walls. I am undecided as to what is the final fact on the matter it is open to interpretation as usual.

Would an open grommet with one or two cables through it be any more fireproof than an open grommet with no cable?