16th ed unsheathed cables

[Pelly1]

Trying to find relevant reg in 16th ed that covers unsheathed cables exposed from jboxes

 

[snowhead]

There won't be one if you mean Permits the situation.
Do you mean the normal round Ashley type brown box where the sheath has been cut beyond the cutout in the box.?

 

[Octopus]

Trying to find relevant reg in 16th ed that covers unsheathed cables exposed from jboxes

Covers it in which way?

 

[kingeri]

Why the 16th??

 

[Pelly1]

History .Doing condition report on block of 90 flats put all downlights in corridors down as c2 100mm of unsheathed cable into clip type connectors and someone has just used connector strip in places no jbox ,noted relevant regs from 17th ed .what client is trying to do is hold main contractor who gave 10yr warranty on building to task .just wanted to get in front as I am expecting reply from them to be it was installed to 16th ed.

 

[KEV 1 N]

No regulation would allow that! Past or present!
C2 for all.
Don't know the exact numbers off hand but all live connections should be adequately enclosed and no basic insulation should be visible outside the enclosure

 

[HandySparks]

Try 526-03-03.
Cores of sheathed cables from which the sheath has been removed and non-sheathed cables at the termination of conduit, ducting or trunking shall be enclosed as required by Regulation 526-03-02.

And 521-07-03.
Non-sheathed cables for fixed wiring shall be enclosed in conduit, ducting or trunking.

BS 7671 : 1992

 

[Risteard]

It wasn't permitted by the 16th Edition.

That said you are carrying out your inspection and testing taking cognisance of the requirements of BS7671:2008 (2015) and not any withdrawn Standard.

 

[westward10]

Good luck anyone trying to prove that was how it was installed ten or how ever many years ago.

 

[Pete999]

Trying to find relevant reg in 16th ed that covers unsheathed cables exposed from jboxes

I have to ask, why the 16th, is this a historical problem? pre 17th

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The OP has said, that the client wants to take advantage of the builder’s 10 year warranty.
Obviously, if the work did not comply at the time of construction, the client can make a claim.

 

[123]

Sadly still see downlights done like this all the time. The connectors supplied on many fittings don't help one bit either.

 

[I2C]

I agree with previous comments, why the 16th edition?
Previous work carried-out which was compliant under old regulations is deemed satisfactory by current regulations, however any work that you perform now can be subject to the current regulations despite warranties.
Regardless, I'd advise my clients to change any old wiring systems to meet the current standards and explain why the standards where changed... safer for them and better business.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I agree with previous comments, why the 16th edition?
Previous work carried-out which was compliant under old regulations is deemed satisfactory by current regulations, however any work that you perform now can be subject to the current regulations despite warranties.
Regardless, I'd advise my clients to change any old wiring systems to meet the current standards and explain why the standards where changed... safer for them and better business.

I think you are missing the point.
The wiring is not satisfactory, and the OP wishes to know if it complied with the Regulations in force at the time of it’s design/construction.
If it did comply, the OP’s client may not be able to ask the builder to rectify under the terms of the warranty.
If it did not comply then the client will be able to ask the builder to rectify.
What you personally would do is neither here nor there.
All the OP needs to know, is whether the work complied.

 

[Risteard]

Previous work carried-out which was compliant under old regulations is deemed satisfactory by current regulations

Not necessarily. It may or may not be satisfactory, but the simple fact that it no longer complies is not what makes it unsatisfactory.

Would you consider fused neutrals to be satisfactory if you came across them?

 

[Pelly1]

Thanks for replies .i think spinlondon got jist,if I didn’t comply with 16th at time of completion and signing off of test sheets then client going after builder to put things right.wouldnt have same firm in test sheets were a joke ,written out in cafe /pub me thinks

 

[I2C]

I think you are missing the point.
The wiring is not satisfactory, and the OP wishes to know if it complied with the Regulations in force at the time of it’s design/construction.
If it did comply, the OP’s client may not be able to ask the builder to rectify under the terms of the warranty.
If it did not comply then the client will be able to ask the builder to rectify.
What you personally would do is neither here nor there.
All the OP needs to know, is whether the work complied.

I see what you mean, sorry for the confusion.
As Spinlondon said, if it wasn't satisfactory when installed then the warranty should take care of it.

 

[davesparks]

Previous work carried-out which was compliant under old regulations is deemed satisfactory by current regulations,

Which particular regulation would you use to support this statement?

 

[Octopus]

Such work practices are going on today ....

 

[westward10]

Not very often we see your work Murdoch