Partially Covered Junction Box 314.29

[jap]

Why do you get so wound up over the personal opinions of people you don't know in a web forum?

That's just the way I am when people pick apart and dog other peoples work.

That along with questioning the color scheme, how the tile should have been finished off, and, calling someone amateurish, unprofessional, and a DIY without knowing the whole story.

To me that has nothing to do with a code opinion.

JAP>

 

[MAC702]

The problem likely began with insufficient plans or details in the scope of work for either the electrician, tile guy, or both, BUT for the tile guy to not ask first, and just put his tile over the junction box is very unprofessional and directly caused the problem to manifest itself, and left it much harder to fix.

 

[jap]

The problem likely began with insufficient plans or details in the scope of work for either the electrician, tile guy, or both, BUT for the tile guy to not ask first, and just put his tile over the junction box is very unprofessional and directly caused the problem to manifest itself, and left it much harder to fix.

I'd agree with that.

I just don't feel the installation in the picture we are looking at deserved as much criticism as it took.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

I'd agree with that.

I just don't feel the installation in the picture we are looking at deserved as much criticism as it took.

JAP>

Same here, this the kind of thing I expect to run into quite often, plus we don't know certain other details, like why tile ends at the elevation it does, maybe a ceiling goes at that level and tile guy thought it would be best to keep tile uniform and let electrician deal with whatever issues are there.

 

[jap]

Same here, this the kind of thing I expect to run into quite often, plus we don't know certain other details, like why tile ends at the elevation it does, maybe a ceiling goes at that level and tile guy thought it would be best to keep tile uniform and let electrician deal with whatever issues are there.

If nothing else, I appreciate the fact that at least 1 other person might see this the same way I do.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

If nothing else, I appreciate the fact that at least 1 other person might see this the same way I do.

JAP>

Other trades mess things up for me all the time, I didn't think it was that big of a deal for the most part.

If it were my project I might even abandon that box if that is easiest method of dealing with the problem - but we don't have enough details to know what is supposed to be done here.

I asked concrete guys to put a couple sleeves in a poured basement wall one time - was going to be my service entrance through them. Come back sometime later to install service and the sleeves were at about a 15-20 degree angle instead of perpendicular to the wall surface.

Probably wasn't intentional, just poor support of sleeve for some reason would be my guess. I abandoned them and drilled my own holes.

 

[xguard]

Agreed, but this seems to be noted now because the "inspector" is the owner, and he has to figure out who's responsible to move their box or tile, depending on the details of the scope of work he gave them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inspector" but I'm taking offence to it until I find out otherwise .

 

[xguard]

So a lot of discussion took place since I last viewed this. I read most of it. I understand the debate about when something is a violation or not but in this case I don't think there's any practical difference. I just emailed the project engineer that it was violation of the NEC, maybe that's a loaded word. We had a little back and forth with the contractor and we quickly came to a reasonable solution with a phone call.

Someone made the comment that I had already made up my mind and just came on here seeking affirmation. Certainly I prefer to be right but if I'm not I'm not. I can update my thinking for the future. My opinion though hasn't been swayed. This sucks whoever's fault it was.

Also, I stated I was the owner. By that I mean I'm our department's electrical design engineer for facilities. Thanks for the replies everyone, I do appreciate the discussion.

 

[kwired]

So a lot of discussion took place since I last viewed this. I read most of it. I understand the debate about when something is a violation or not but in this case I don't think there's any practical difference. I just emailed the project engineer that it was violation of the NEC, maybe that's a loaded word. We had a little back and forth with the contractor and we quickly came to a reasonable solution with a phone call.

Someone made the comment that I had already made up my mind and just came on here seeking affirmation. Certainly I prefer to be right but if I'm not I'm not. I can update my thinking for the future. My opinion though hasn't been swayed. This sucks whoever's fault it was.

Also, I stated I was the owner. By that I mean I'm our department's electrical design engineer for facilities. Thanks for the replies everyone, I do appreciate the discussion.

Some of us are saying that it isn't a violation until the electrician does nothing about the tile and installs the emergency light over what is there. If it didn't have the strange situation of ending the tile partway over the box and tile went higher up the wall then this probably gets cut out better, yet there would still be violation if electrician didn't install one of those "box extenders" before installing device/fixture, but kind of hard to say there is a violation until they fail to do so.

 

[jap]

I just emailed the project engineer that it was violation of the NEC. Certainly I prefer to be right but if I'm not I'm not. I can update my thinking for the future. My opinion though hasn't been swayed. This sucks whoever's fault it was.

I for one appreciate your flexibility, and, I agree it sucks that the tile layer covered half of the box.

He should have known better than that as others have said, and, most tile layers wouldn't have covered even half of the box without asking someone.

But,

I too have a hard time finding the violation at the time the photo was taken.

It wouldn't take a lot to speculate this scenario into a violation that's for sure.

But,

Just as it sits right now, the punishment of a violation doesn't fit the crime.

JAP>