Double socket spur from MCB?

[dishman]

Just had a few remedials done in the house. Some single to doubles on the downstairs ring.

One socket was added in the back room (spurred from another socket).

I also decided to add a new second double in the hallway.

The electrician said he would spur it from the MCB.

I just wondered why this was preferable to spuring from another socket or making a junction box. There is another single socket in the vacinity.

So, just curious.

 

[chivers67]

Is the single already a spur?

 

[dishman]

Don't think so. He certainly did not check (or not that I saw). I got the impression he thought it was just the easiest option.

The consumer unit is quite near to where the new double is going to be located, prehaps only 1.5m. But the single socket is also around 1.5m from the new double location. It is just on the other side of the hallway, so a less useful position.

 

[JohnW2]

Don't think so. He certainly did not check (or not that I saw). I got the impression he thought it was just the easiest option.

'Spurring' from the CU is certainly a perfectly acceptable method - so, if the electrician thinks that it's the easiest option, I see no reason not to go with that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The consumer unit is quite near to where the new double is going to be located, prehaps only 1.5m. But the single socket is also around 1.5m from the new double location. It is just on the other side of the hallway, so a less useful position.

There you are, then.

 

[dishman]

Ahh, I ment it terms of usability (hence the new socket). The house has a substantial subfloor space so wiring to the MCB or the existing socket are both quite easy (or as acessible as each other) from under the floor.

Hence, I was purely wondering what advantage (if any) or reasoning there would be from creating a new socket from the MCB.

Answer seems to be that it is just a choice he made (six of one....etc) . Which is fine by me.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Very likely the existing single socket in the hallway, is part of the ring final, having both cables there. Adding another cable to a single socket, can get very tight and claustrophobic in the backbox with a third set of cables to terminate. So I would assume a direct spur from the CU, was less hassle. Could also be less work with regards to chasing/routing cables. With regards to junction boxes, they should be avoided if possible.

 

[kenbox]

hi, when you spur off a ring main to supply another socket you are supposed to use a fused spur unit to protect the radial cable. therefore the electrician has to chop in / fix two back boxes hence doubling work.

 

[JohnW2]

hi, when you spur off a ring main to supply another socket you are supposed to use a fused spur unit to protect the radial cable.....

No .... it is permissible to supply one socket (single or double) via an "unfused spur". If one wants to have two or more sockets on the spur then, as you say, one would have to have a "fused spur" fed via an FCU.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

hi, when you spur off a ring main to supply another socket you are supposed to use a fused spur unit to protect the radial cable.

Not necessarily.

Do you think that an FCU is always required?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If one wants to have two or more sockets on the spur then, as you say, one would have to have a "fused spur" fed via an FCU.

Not necessarily.

 

[sparkwright]

Not necessarily.

Trying to think of circumstances where you could have two or more sockets from the same spur from a ring without using a FCU.

Possibly using 4.0mm2 cable?

 

[JohnW2]

Not necessarily.

I really don't think it is helpful to confuse someone who seemingly already has an imperfect understanding of the regs with (what will almost certainly be to him) a 'cryptic' statement such as that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Trying to think of circumstances where you could have two or more sockets from the same spur from a ring without using a FCU.

Possibly using 4.0mm2 cable?

That would do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I really don't think it is helpful to confuse someone who seemingly already has an imperfect understanding of the regs with (what will almost certainly be to him) a 'cryptic' statement such as that.

But it is helpful to tell him things which are not necessarily true?