is this a code violation?

[stjohnbarleycorn]

they only needed one wire for the load, so they ran it up to the four gang box.

 

[raider1]

Yep a 300.3(B) violation, as well as an individual conductor like that is not installed in a Chapter 3 recognized wiring method.

Chris

 

[Dan coulstring]

they only needed one wire for the load, so they ran it up to the four gang box.

Just the romex itself could be a violation depending on what kind of building this is in.

 

[macmikeman]

Is it common in those parts to drill an extra 2 holes in the wall so you can adjust the box up or down 1/8" ?:roll:

 

[iwire]

Yep a 300.3(B) violation, as well as an individual conductor like that is not installed in a Chapter 3 recognized wiring method.

300.3(B)(3) might allow it.

Of course there is still that pesky connector and Chapter 3 issue.

 

[mxslick]

What load only needed one conductor? Was this a shortcut to avoid running a 14/3 or 12/3 NM?

The missing part of the NM clamp is a violation too.

 

[stjohnbarleycorn]

yes they ran the 14/2 to the box and then striped out a black conductor and ran it singly to the timer for the light it controlled. There were a number of DIY or lousy electricians work at the site.