Is this junction box installation acceptable?

well, yes, certainly in domestic and near domestic installations the utilization factor is very low - the installation has that many circuits for convenience of isolation for servicing, not because there is that much load. The same error occurs when folk total the breaker ratings to estimate maximum demand, when most of the day the whole house could probably be fed by a single 13A plug !

In your shoes I'd feel no great guilt about extending in the same cross-section, unless something was really undersize (like a 4mm2 shower circuit) or looking distressed, or the route was in some way unable to cool - perhaps in a boiler room ceiling, or a run in thick insulation, but I might consider a flatter trunking option or maybe a few parallel runs of the thinner stuff, so the wires are spread out sideways, and also it looks less ugly on corners. 

Let's see what others say about it though

M.

There should be a minor works certificate (example - though 'circuit details' would require duplicetion as here there are several circuits) or the equivalent information presented another way.

There may not be a full set of tests as per a full EIC, but the new work should have some sort of earth continuity tests, either dead tests before connection or a Zs afterwards, and I'd expect to see RCD trip times verified. If the EICR was done after the new work, that's OK as the test coverage and reported test results are similar (model forms), but usually it is done before, to avoid surprises when hooking on. It is true to say that there is quite wide variation in the degree to which this is taken seriously - especially the extrapolation from sampling only part of the installation rather than the whole of it.

Mike

It must be a statement of the blindingly obvious that cables will converge on a DB. Joists will bunch them up. There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, like that in UK without any problem.

Thanks for your responses Mike.

Does the person issuing the minor works certificate have to be NIC / JIB certified, and where do I confirm this on the certificate?

No to both. A 'Competent' person must complete the work and sign the certificate. No need for any Governing Body involvement.

NICEIC do not certify individual employees within a company. There is one Quality Supervisor who signs the certs and should control the work, but it is not unknown for Labourers to be doing the work. It shoudlnt be like that , but in the real world it happens.

JIB membership is individual, but there are little, if any, ongoing check on the Members work quality once the Card has been issued, usually after completing an apprenticeship.

No, the tester does not have to belong to any membership scheme, but legally they do have to be 'competent'.  (Just as well really, or folk like me, cheerfully independent, would not be allowed to pick up a meter...)

If there is any notifiable aspect to the new work - complete new circuits or new CU, or work beside a bath or shower, then either building control or use of a  self certification scheme should be in evidence. For mods to existing circuits, when not within 60cm of the bath or shower, then again, the only legal requirement is 'competence'.

The person's name or business name and address should be on the form.

Mike.

I wonder how many QS (Quality Supervisor) does a company like Octopus in the UK have?  Also how many domestic installers/labourers do they have?  I am only asking as there have been many pictures online of installs done by Octopus that are absolutely shocking and no doubt probably allow for the end customer to get a shock or even worse electrocuted.  Some picture online show that the install falls way short of complying with BS7671 as a minimum standard. 

Maybe the CPS (Competent Person Schemes) should have a maximum ratio of workers per QS and then ALL the QS should be vetted by their respective CPS providers.

I'd agree with you, or even scrap it altogether in favour of some sort of test done by the individual, rather than the company.  The monkey that turns up with a screwdriver and a box of tools does not actually need to have any qualifications at present, just his supervisor, who probably never visits most of the jobs.  A link to the person doing the job is more relevant. Given the way the fees and inspections work, the current scheme is weighted in favour of larger outfits with one or two QS and a lot of (hopefully trained) monkeys.

Some of the rates of sign off are unbelievable.

From this evidence to parliament . From a few years ago.

In my mind in Firms B and C are really not credible that there is tight supervision and control - it may be that the workers are actually very good and trustworthy, but  I suggest that is in 'spite of' rather then 'because of' the 'competent person' scheme.

Firm A – A typical micro enterprise issuing 412 notifications per annum with 1 QS and 1 employee.

.....
Firm B – A major national company issuing 24,084 notifications per annum  has 7 QS nationwide and 400 employees including sub contractors.

....
 Firm C – 1,850 notifications per annum with 2 QS operating out of one office serving East Anglia and Greater London with 80 employees.

Mike

mapj1 said:

I'd agree with you, or even scrap it altogether in favour of some sort of test done by the individual, rather than the company.

I have always found the idea of QS, as opposed to individual responsibility resting with each electrician, distinctly odd. Imagine if the same approach were possible for doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc!