bad practice or acceptable?

[Davisss]

Hi guys, just a quick one. i need to install an outlet for a water softener in a kitchen. there is no near access to break into the kitchen ring. the cheapest way would be to branch off the cooker outlet. if i did this with 2.5mm T+E to a FCU would that be acceptable?
I'm thinking because the load on the cable is so little it wouldnt matter. Either that or shall i supply the FCU with 6mm aswell?

Any thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated.

 

[securespark]

Over to you, ColJack...

 

[GaryMo]

If it's adequately labelled I would consider it to be a rough as a bears arse but not dangerous.
Whether it's acceptable is down to you - it wouldn't be to me but it would be difficult to find fault if I came across that situation whilst carrying out a PIR assuming all other aspects are covered (overload, short-circuit protection, wiring zones, RCD protection).

 

[Adam_151]

I wouldn't install it unless I *really, really* had no choice

If I found it on a PIR I'd tut and shake my head, and talk myself into a code 4 for it (I know you can justify it at a push, but its not really in the spirit of the regs concerned to try and permit ad hoc arrangements like this... please you can bet your bottom dollar that its not been 'designed', just chucked in )

 

[ColJack]

Over to you, ColJack...

why me?

it has to be within 3m of the cooker outlet.. and the additional load needs to be considered with respect to the breaker size.

 

[GaryMo]

Adam, what wouldn't comply with BS7671:2008 to award it with a code 4?

 

[londonboy]

Forget all this cooker lark.

Why can't you access the ring final/cu?
Give customer a good price to do a good job, or walk away!

 

[WabbitPoo]

Hi guys, just a quick one. i need to install an outlet for a water softener in a kitchen. there is no near access to break into the kitchen ring. the cheapest way would be to branch off the cooker outlet. if i did this with 2.5mm T+E to a FCU would that be acceptable?
I'm thinking because the load on the cable is so little it wouldnt matter. Either that or shall i supply the FCU with 6mm aswell?

Any thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated.

Are you an electrician?

 

[Adam_151]

Adam, what wouldn't comply with BS7671:2008 to award it with a code 4?

*grasps at straws*

To my mind its a poor, cobbled together solution and is not good workmanship

And also, in order for overload protection for the cable to be located downstream, then BS7671:2008 requires that the designer does the calaculations to ensure the cable is adequatly protected against fault currents, this you can be sure hasn't happenwe when you find such an arrangement in a house (A spur from a RFC is A-ok, because its a standard arrangement, this is not)

Cooker outlet plate terminals are unlikely to be designed to handle this combination of conductor sizes

I suppose you could justify code 3, pending the answers to these questions, but in my mind, I don't thing the arrangement fully complies with BS7671:2008, but I don't think there is any real risk of danger there, so I'm happy enough with code 4

 

[ColJack]

how is it not a standard arrangement? it's a frickin radial..

 

[Adam_151]

how is it not a standard arrangement? it's a frickin radial..

A radial where the cable size decreases without fusing down at that point?

 

[Spark123]

Spur from a radial, poo design but is allowed sometimes, my judgement depending on the upstream ocpd size etc.

 

[GaryMo]

how is it not a standard arrangement? it's a frickin radial..

A radial where the cable size decreases without fusing down at that point?

Overload protection need not be at the point where a reduction in CSA occurs (433.2.2 whilst complying with 433.2.2 (i) or (ii))

 

[RF Lighting]

I beleive it is even shown as acceptable in appendix 13.

I personally wouldn't do it though.

 

[Stoday]

Fit a water softener that doesn't need electricity. The hydraulically operated ones are more reliable anyway.