Another Kitchen install

[DDouble]

I'm having my kitchen designed but I'm limited by many factors such as space, room shape and window positions which has resulted in my hob being placed directly beneath and existing mains outlet.

I realise this is poor practice but is it actually a 'fail' when it comes to part P testing/regulations etc?

I can easily remove the socket face place, crimp the wires of the ring main, make safe and make good the wall.
However, I was hoping to run a fused spur from this socket to feed my fridge freezer but I'm not certain if i can now.
Are you allowed to run a spur from any point on a ring main or does it have to be from an existing socket?

The ring main enters the kitchen from above and the offending socket is the 1st in line.

Thanks for your help in advance. Apologies if there is a similar post that I have missed.

 

[ColJack]

yes it will fail a test and inspect..

anything plugged in will have it's lead trailing over the hob..

you have to reach over potentially boiling pots and such to switch off and unplug things..

steam or plashes from pots and pans will also get into the socket and cause shorts and such..


a spur point has to be assessible and as you intend to make this a permanent joint with crimps and burrying the box then it won't be..

if you try to crimp the spur from this point then it will require oversized crimps and one side will then not be secure..

if your kitchen is being ripped apart anyway then throw in a couple hundred quid extra and re-route the electrics to suit.. ( or have them done since it's a kitchen and part P notifiable.. )

 

[DDouble]

Thanks for the quick clear up.

I fully expected your answer although the picture in the Wiki called A1 Ring Final circuit could be misleading as it shows a spur off a ring main from a junction box.

Is there a special case for when a JB can be used? Eg, not in a wall?

I'm still awaiting the council to inspect the previous work I had done (even after all this time) so I assume I can amend the wiring to comply before they visit and won't have to renotify them?

Thanks again.

 

[Spark123]

A JB can be used where it is suitable for the environment and it is accessable for inspection and testing (not under floor boards).

 

[Steve]

A JB can be used where it is suitable for the environment and it is accessable for inspection and testing (not under floor boards).

I'll bet a good 60% of all round 4-exit JBs in use are positioned under floorboards. 35% in lofts and 5% exposed (sheds / utility areas).

Sad fact that of the 60% under floorboards,
-80% are probably inaccessible,
and of these insaccessible ones,
-60% nobody knows they exist.

All assumptions, but all probable.

 

[oharaf]

Talk about bloody junction boxes being inaccessible!

When we bought our houseand begun some alterations I found (no lies here) SEVEN connecting final rings, upstairs lighting circuits and god only knows what else!!

UNDER the plaster work behind a door frame (in the old external wall which had no lintel!!) in an area about the size of my size 10 work boots!!

And to top it off they all ahd bare copper showing outside of the boxes.

But it was all okay becasue we had a marvellous PROTEUS CU made from the finest carrier bags to store the spiders web of randomly connected legs!!!

All done by Shipleys finest motor mechanic!!!!

 

[plugwash]

I'd stick a blanking plate on it, the blanking plate will indicate that there are cables in the wall and you can bring a spur out sideways for your FCU.

 

[DDouble]

Thanks everybody, I think I might just go for the blanking plate as it keeps my options open in the future.

Would it be wrong to assume a normal plastic blanking plate (like i already have sitting here doing nothing) would suffice above a hob?

And would that mean I can use a choc block for the wiring as it would be accessable?

Thanks again

 

[DDouble]

Decided I didn't want a blanking plate above the hob so i've got a fully qualified spark coming round to get the kitchen rewired to fit the layout and be done with.

In the mean time tho, i was at my parents house last week to replace a broken socket in their spare room and as the house is all on one ring main we plugged the kettle in the kitchen into the socket on the cooker outlet for convenience.

Unfortunately it only worked for about 30secs before the RCD tripped. Oddly tho, not the one marked 'Cooker', but the one marked 'Upstairs Lighting'.
I thought it was coincidence or a wrongly labelled RCD so tried it again and same thing happened. I doubled checked and true enough, all upstairs lights were off.

The kitchen was altered about 3 years ago and under cupboard lighting, an extractor hood and a few sockets were added by 'qualified spark' . Assuming he is responsible, is he obliged to fix it after such a long time?

Also, none of the sockets he added have rubber grommets in the back boxes. Are they a must or just optional??

 

[bongos]

You mean the lighting MCB tripped not the RCD.

There may only be one RCD in your parents installation. This detects earth leakages but does not detect overcurrent situations. An MCB is designed to give each individual circuit overcurrent protection which is what sounds like is tripping when you switch the kettle on (ie - it is drawing too much current).

I can't really speculate on why the lighting MCB trips when you switch this socket on but i'm sure a more qualified person will be able to on here.

Rubber grommets are a must in back boxes to protect the cables.

 

[DDouble]

You're quite right. The main RCD is unaffected, only the mcb for the upstairs lighting. Should've read the abbreviations page again.

I've not pulled their house to bits yet (a favoured pastime of mine) so can only assume that the Cooker socket is actually wired to the lighting circuit directly as the lighting and cooker circuits are radial and should therefore be impossible to cross wire....but who knows.

As for the grommets, I thought they were a must too, but a colleague of mine (who has just told me he has done 16th edition course for work requirements) says they are not .

Is it just me, or is there a substantial amount in the 16th edition that is open to some personal interpretation? Having never attended a course, I rely on qualified people telling what's ok and more importantly, what's not and I am hugely grateful for anybody's advice. But it does seem that to get a certificate for your work, you just need to have the same personal understanding as the inspector.

 

[Adam_151]

The requirement revovles around the requirement to protect the cable from damage, not the need to install grommits. If the cable is set in plaster and there is no way it can rub against the sharp edges of the box, then strictly they arn't needed, good practice is usually to fit them regardless though... they are cheap enough!

 

[dingbat]

...As for the grommets, I thought they were a must too, but a colleague of mine (who has just told me he has done 16th edition course for work requirements) says they are not .

Is it just me, or is there a substantial amount in the 16th edition that is open to some personal interpretation?

The regs are prescriptive as to what must be acheived but not how. The grommet question is a good illustration - the requirement is simply that the cable is protected from damage to the sheath/insulation. A plastered-in cable is not going to move, so a grommet would make no difference... maybe a grommet should have been installed pre-plaster, but now the cable is fixed the objective is achieved.

The moans about regs being 'open to interpretation' generally come from sparks who don't actually understand their job as well as they should.

 

[dingbat]

Adam, you cheeky young scamp... how dare you jump the queue?!

 

[DDouble]

Cheers guys. That make good sense.