Well I suppose if you go back before 1882... Seriously for as long as I can remember joints are supposed to have been suitably enclosed. You can use building fabric for that in some circumstances (e.g. backless light fittings onto non-combustible walls, or even the old backless Wylex CUs), but I can't see an ordinary floor void (timber joists, possibly timber floorboards over) really doing the job. Also consider the accessibility of live parts covered with only basic insulation...

   - Andy.

Thanks Andy. I couldn't see how it could have been but it was how I was shown as a trainee hence the question.  I have rectified most now but still a few to do Monday ( Golf tomorrow )

Gary

I don't think that there is anything unusual about a householder changing an ordinary pendant lamp fitting for something more elegant. My father showed me how to do it, and yes, a chock-block was poked into the ceiling void.

In fact, I think that such an arrangement sits above my head right now. 

The modern way is to enclose the junction block in an upturned plant pot just below the ceiling, How ugly!!!

Chris Pearson said:

The modern way is to enclose the junction block in an upturned plant pot just below the ceiling, How ugly!!!

I'm not sure that meets BS 7671 (Regulation 526.5), unless the 'upturned plant pot' is supplied as part of the accessory or enclosure to an appropriate product standard per 526.5 (i) or (ii), or alternatively the 'upturned plant pot' can be classed as 'building material which is non-combustible when tested to BS 476-4' according to 526.5 (iii).

Morning Graham,

As long as there is good earth in that plant pot we should be ok!

GTB

I came across 2 china saucers taped together a few years ago with some chocolate blocks in :)

Gary

I didn't expressmyself very well. The plant pot is the correct way up. AFAIK, it is intended as an enclosure for the chock-block (or other form of junction).

Like this:

You have rectified all the dodgy connections you have done since you were an apprentice and still found time for a round of golf? Respect

The answer has to be that its not great, but it is clearly common and experience suggests it's  not usually a matter of life and death in an inaccessible location.

Why is a floor ceiling void not making something inaccessible ? I'd argue in many cases  it is.

It is a lot better than just twisting - and the old ceramic screwits were common floating about in ceilings and floor voids in 1950s and earlier work.

I think its never been strictly 'correct' but rather like leaving the CPC off, which used to be common, especially on lights, the tolerance for doing so has become less over time, and the relative cost of materials to labour makes it harder to justify.

Mike.

mapj1 said:

but it is clearly common and experience suggests it's  not usually a matter of life and death in an inaccessible location.

For protection against electric shock, I'd agree it's more than likely no great shakes.

For protection against fire, I'm not so sure. There are two considerations:

1. 'pollution degree' ... the terminal block is designed for the level of dust and detritus in a suitable enclosure, not whatever is floating around in the ceiling void. This of course varies, but older properties were not as well sealed etc. etc.
Contamination has two general effects. First, it might accelerate corrosion (and many screw terminal blocks these days, for example, use steel screws). This could lead to overheating in the terminal block itself. Second, pollution is important to considering the effectiveness of insulation, and if the detritus does become damp for any reason (e.g. humidity in winter) this could cause the insulation to fail, and ignite fluff etc.

2. Electrical enclosure or appliance casings usually have some degree of tests to demonstrate they help reduce the risk of fire (e.g. glow wire tests). So, if there is a 'bad connection' there is more chance of being contained in the enclosure, than causing a smouldering fire in the void.