Exterior receptacle is it legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Should be no problem to add four or five extensions and pigtail the wires if you can get them apart in the first place. ;)

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
JFLOAT said:
Well here's an update. State Electrical inspector showed up and said there's no way in hell he will allow them. Says there not accessible and no way to service
Click to expand...

Good, finally someone showed up with some common sense.
 
He's not going to let them splice there going to have to pull new wire. He wants 6" beyond box. He just about popped a vein when he saw them
 
Last edited:
JFLOAT said:
Wants them flush
Click to expand...
He won't accept a larger or bigger recess?
He got to see it first hand rather than by a photo, but I'm surprised there are no other options.

Did he provide a code reference?

Who is he going to issue a citation to, if the 'repair' is not done?
As I recall from the OP an electrical contractor was not involved in creating this situation.
 
JFLOAT said:
Well here's an update. State Electrical inspector showed up and said there's no way in hell he will allow them. Says there not accessible and no way to service
Click to expand...

JFLOAT said:
He's not going to let them splice there going to have to pull new wire. He wants 6" beyond box. He just about popped a vein when he saw them
Click to expand...

Popping a vein may be a bit extreme! :thumbsup:
 
The receptacle is accessible in the sense that you can plug something into it but its not accessible in the fact that it would be hard to maintain if need be. If you added enough wire to get it out past the siding as it is now there would be too much to stuff back into the box to put it back in. Common sense would be to enlarge the blockout to where you could service the receptacle with the amount of wire thats attached to it already or move the box and wiring out to the face of the siding where it should be. If this was actually under inspection instead of a just so happened, this should have been discussed and carried out one way or the other prior to the new covering being installed.
 
I want to know how this state inspector (boy this must a been a big deal) is going to force the HO to have this work to be done. What's he going to do, have them forcibly removed until his whims and wishes are complete? As I said earlier, I would tell him to take a hike or go after those who licensed and allow a siding contractor to create these problems.

Roger
 
jap said:
The receptacle is accessible in the sense that you can plug something into it but its not accessible in the fact that it would be hard to maintain if need be. If you added enough wire to get it out past the siding as it is now there would be too much to stuff back into the box to put it back in. Common sense would be to enlarge the blockout to where you could service the receptacle with the amount of wire thats attached to it already or move the box and wiring out to the face of the siding where it should be. If this was actually under inspection instead of a just so happened, this should have been discussed and carried out one way or the other prior to the new covering being installed.
Click to expand...
Most of what you have said is only assumption. Unless you actually removed the receptacle in the OP, you really don't know just how easy it is or isn't to change that receptacle. And nobody has yet produced a code section that specifically prohibits what is in the OP.

The receptacle is simply mounted in an "alcove, nook,or niche" in the wall. If you don't think it is code compliant please cite a section that would limit the size of the "alcove, nook or niche". All I can think of would be if the opening would be smaller than the receptacle and trim plate - then that would be infringing on accessible. I'm not saying it wouldn't possibly be a pain to change the receptacle, but still feel there is no code violation either. I have changed receptacles inside cabinets or appliance garages or even in side whirlpool tub enclosures that may be more difficult to access than this one.
 
JFLOAT said:
I'm going with 314.20 Heck there's only 31 of them to fix and the temperature should climb into the -20s this week
Click to expand...

roger said:
I want to know how this state inspector (boy this must a been a big deal) is going to force the HO to have this work to be done. What's he going to do, have them forcibly removed until his whims and wishes are complete? As I said earlier, I would tell him to take a hike or go after those who licensed and allow a siding contractor to create these problems.

Roger
Click to expand...

kwired said:
Most of what you have said is only assumption. Unless you actually removed the receptacle in the OP, you really don't know just how easy it is or isn't to change that receptacle. And nobody has yet produced a code section that specifically prohibits what is in the OP.

The receptacle is simply mounted in an "alcove, nook,or niche" in the wall. If you don't think it is code compliant please cite a section that would limit the size of the "alcove, nook or niche". All I can think of would be if the opening would be smaller than the receptacle and trim plate - then that would be infringing on accessible. I'm not saying it wouldn't possibly be a pain to change the receptacle, but still feel there is no code violation either. I have changed receptacles inside cabinets or appliance garages or even in side whirlpool tub enclosures that may be more difficult to access than this one.
Click to expand...

Note that there are 31 so I doubt that a HO is involved.

Since a State Inspector was involve and decided it was a violation it is a violation. None of us offering an opinion was there. Since is head almost exploded, my words, he must have thought that is was totally unacceptable. I would love to see someone debate this with the Inspector involved. :lol:
 
jxofaltrds said:
Note that there are 31 so I doubt that a HO is involved.

Since a State Inspector was involve and decided it was a violation it is a violation. None of us offering an opinion was there. Since is head almost exploded, my words, he must have thought that is was totally unacceptable. I would love to see someone debate this with the Inspector involved. :lol:
Click to expand...
Send him here, I may not win but will take the challenge. This is assuming he is not one of those that thinks he is right and nobody is convincing him otherwise, inspectors are just as human as installers is the first thing he needs to realize or there is no point in even starting any debate.

I've seen inspectors that would literally come unglued when seeing such a thing, and I have seen inspectors that would maybe say "Ok, we need to look more into just what do we have here", instead of just lashing out on their first impressions.

Having a poor attitude about it gives me even more motivation to try to prove him wrong, even if I thought I was leaning toward his opinion before he erupted.
 
Last edited:
jxofaltrds said:
I would love to see someone debate this with the Inspector involved. :lol:
Click to expand...
I would love to have him here Mike. If he is so clueless that he would require rewiring all these receptacles instead coming up with another solution he wouldn't be hard to debate.

We have asked that you as an inspector to tell us how big the opening needs to be and you can't tell us so, if I were the owner and a correction did in fact need to be made I would tell you (and any state inspector) that you would get something in the area of a 12" X 12" opening with a hinged door at the siding contractors expense.


The only thing the inspector could substantiate his call with would be the old "I'm the inspector and that's the way I want it" :roll:


Roger
 
kwired said:
Send him here, I may not win but will take the challenge. This is assuming he is not one of those that thinks he is right and nobody is convincing him otherwise, inspectors are just as human as installers is the first thing he needs to realize or there is no point in even starting any debate.

I've seen inspectors that would literally come unglued when seeing such a thing, and I have seen inspectors that would maybe say "Ok, we need to look more into just what do we have here", instead of just lashing out on their first impressions.

Having a poor attitude about it gives me even more motivation to try to prove him wrong, even if I thought I was leaning toward his opinion before he erupted.
Click to expand...

roger said:
I would love to have him here Mike. If he is so clueless that he would require rewiring all these receptacles instead coming up with another solution he wouldn't be hard to debate.

We have asked that you as an inspector to tell us how big the opening needs to be and you can't tell us so, if I were the owner and a correction did in fact need to be made I would tell you (and any state inspector) that you would get something in the area of a 12" X 12" opening with a hinged door at the siding contractors expense.


The only thing the inspector could substantiate his call with would be the old "I'm the inspector and that's the way I want it" :roll:


Roger
Click to expand...

We debate the code here. The Inspector looked at this real life installation. The siding contractor took a code compliant installation and made it non-compliant.

I see this no different than running a new DWV pipe in violation of 110.26.

His reason for failure is stated above. I have seen no code sections listed that allow this installation. What proves him wrong?
 
jxofaltrds said:
I have seen no code sections listed that allow this installation. What proves him wrong?
Click to expand...
And I have seen no code sections listed that proves him right.

Once again, he is clueless if he can't come up with a better solution. The majority if not all of these receptacles are most likely not required in the first place and I have to wonder if he pointed this out to anyone.

Roger
 
kwired said:
Arlington's "In box" is not much different than what the OP has when it comes to accessibility and is a listed product:slaphead:

http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/inbox/low-profile-in-box-for-new-vinyl-siding-construction/DBVS1C
Click to expand...

jap said:
Its a lot different since I doubt the wiring behing the OP's receptacle is long enough to allow it to come out past the siding to be able to work on/
Unlike the installation where the Arlington In Box is used from the start.
Click to expand...

I measured the setback from the front edge of Arlington's In Box and it is about 3 inches - making it almost exactly the same thing when trying to change a receptacle as the situation in the OP. I have used many of these In Boxes before and you do not leave much for excess conductor or you will have a hard time tucking it all in with the receptacle. I also don't see how an inspector can fail a listed product either though.


Only difference between the OP photo and Arlington's In Box is the In Box has a weatherproof while in use cover, which could still be considered an issue with the OP, but there may still be ways to provide that and still have the receptacle" recessed" as much as it is.
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
Most of what you have said is only assumption. Unless you actually removed the receptacle in the OP, you really don't know just how easy it is or isn't to change that receptacle. And nobody has yet produced a code section that specifically prohibits what is in the OP.

The receptacle is simply mounted in an "alcove, nook,or niche" in the wall. If you don't think it is code compliant please cite a section that would limit the size of the "alcove, nook or niche". All I can think of would be if the opening would be smaller than the receptacle and trim plate - then that would be infringing on accessible. I'm not saying it wouldn't possibly be a pain to change the receptacle, but still feel there is no code violation either. I have changed receptacles inside cabinets or appliance garages or even in side whirlpool tub enclosures that may be more difficult to access than this one.
Click to expand...

Everything about this post is assumptions since we never got a picture far enough back to get the whole picture.
and the State Inspector thing doesnt add up either. is this on some kind of federal building?
if so we're all going to be paying for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top