Is this wiring correct?

[Longclough]

I removed the skirting boards in a bedroom to allow for fitted units. I noticed that 2 of the 3 sockets on the wall only have 1 wire going in to them. I took up a floor board to have a look and found it was wired as follows:

View media item 62455

Is this wired currently?

 

[Iggifer]

does that junction box encompass both cables that go to the middle socket and the two outer ones?

Your diagram isnt super clear, 'Ring In' splits into 3 on its own

 

[Longclough]

Iggifer thinks for the response.

Ring in goes directly to the socket. Should have drawn it in a different colour. A wire then comes out of the middle socket to the junction box. a further 3 wires are connected at the junction as follows: Wire out to Left Socket, Wire out of right socket, ring wire out

Hope that helps to clarify what is connected

 

[JohnW2]

I removed the skirting boards in a bedroom to allow for fitted units. I noticed that 2 of the 3 sockets on the wall only have 1 wire going in to them. I took up a floor board to have a look and found it was wired as follows: .... Is this wired currently?

Provided that nothing else is connected to either of those two outer sockets, then it looks as if the arrangement is probably acceptable in terms of current regulations, those two sockets being unfused 'spurs' (which can each only have one, double or single, socket) from the ring, originating at the junction box. Some people might try arguing that one cannot have two spurs originating from the same point in the ring, but there's no regulation of which I'm aware which actually says that - and it's not an uncommon practice.

If that were to be installed today, the regs would require that junction box to either be 'accessible' for inspection and testing or replaced by a 'maintenance-free' junction box - but there is no requirement to change an existing installation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Strictly according to the guidance section of the regulations. Only one spur is permitted per socket. Edit: The recommendation suggests only one spur per socket, we guess that is to distribute the loads around the ring final

As its a bedroom then its not too much to worry about as loads are usually light.

If you want to do it properly then make one of the sockets part of the ring.

Comme ça:

Untitled

• Taylortwocities
• 12 Jun 2013
• 1

If the jjunctionbox is under tthefloor, then its not now permitted unless it is accessible. If you are redoing the cabling then you should make the connection between the ring and the socket on the right, at the socket itself, not uundertthefloor.

This means that you do not have to rip up your new carpet should a fault occur in the JB (it often does)...

 

[JohnW2]

Strictly according to the guidance section of the regulations. Only one spur is permitted per socket.

?

Do you mean that the informative information in Appendix 15 doesn't include an example of two spurs originating from one JB, or is this some reference to the OSG, or what? Where does it say that this is not permitted.

I don't disagree that moving one or both of the spurred sockets into the ring would be a 'nicer' arrangement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

App 15 is guidance/informative. And I used the word guidance deliberately.
I'll add a not to my post to slacken up the word "permitted".

App15 does show only a single socket outlet spurred from a JB, but who is to know the real meaning behind this, or anything.........(waits for the inevitable reply).

 

[JohnW2]

App 15 is guidance/informative. And I used the word guidance deliberately. I'll add a not to my post to slacken up the word "permitted". App15 does show only a single socket outlet spurred from a JB, but who is to know the real meaning behind this, or anything.........(waits for the inevitable reply).

As you say, it's just guidance, and I doubt it's meant to be 'exhaustive' in the examples it shows. For example, it does not show a spur originating in the CU, although I think most of us accept that such is 'permitted'. In any event, if one wanted to be pedantic, two spurs originating from separate JBs on the ring, a couple of inches apart, would be fully consistent with Appendix 15!

Regs aside, the only theoretical electrical problem with two (or more) spurs originating at one point on the ring is the possibility that it could, in some situations, result in a large load very near to one end of the ring resulting in overloading of one leg of the ring. In the situation we're talking about, not only is (as you have said) the loading in a bedroom likely to be very light but, with most house layouts, it's very unlikely that sockets in a bedroom will be anywhere near 'one end of the ring'. Hence, the only real sense in which I would be at all unhappy with the arrangement described is, as you've said, that leaving an inaccessible JB could possibly (but fairly unlikely) lead to the need for 'excavation' in the future.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

I removed the skirting boards in a bedroom to allow for fitted units. I noticed that 2 of the 3 sockets on the wall only have 1 wire going in to them. I took up a floor board to have a look and found it was wired as follows:
Is this wired currently?

Have your verified it is a ring final circuit (rfc)?
If it is an rfc then it possibly did meet the requirements of BS7671 when it was fitted - it doesn't meet current guidance but that is not necessarily an issue.

If it is radial final circuit then there is nothing wrong with the current arrangement apart from potential access issues.

Is it your intention to disconnect these three sockets or leave them in place behind the new fitted units?

 

[JohnW2]

If it is an rfc then it possibly did meet the requirements of BS7671 when it was fitted - it doesn't meet current guidance but that is not necessarily an issue.

Why do you say this? Are you taking the same view as TTC that it does not 'meet current guidance' because it does not appear as an example in Appendix 15, or something different? (I think we are agreed that the 'access issues' of the JB would not be compliant with current regs, were it installed today, but that's true whether it is a ring or a radial).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Junction box apart, if the second leg from the middle socket were not a ring but a continuation of a radial (cpd being correct, of course) then it would be perfectly acceptable so how can it not be acceptable electrically if it is a ring (as has been said - light loads and unlikely to be near one end)?

 

[Taylortwocities]

For example, it does not show a spur originating in the CU, although I think most of us accept that such is 'permitted'.

By chnce i came upon a reference to this practise in the OSG. The last para in 8.2.4
As usual, what is in the guide does not seem to be written in the regs.

 

[EFLImpudence]

11. Thou shalt ignore the OSG and apply the actual regulations, good design, knowledge and common sense.

Appendix 8.2.4, now H.2.4 - you should have bought a green one by now.

 

[Taylortwocities]

I have green one but its in the van, and I was in my nightie. The red one was handy. But the words are the same

 

[JohnW2]

For example, it does not show a spur originating in the CU, although I think most of us accept that such is 'permitted'.

By chnce i came upon a reference to this practise in the OSG. The last para in 8.2.4 ... As usual, what is in the guide does not seem to be written in the regs.

Thanks (it's actually the penultimate paragraph). This time, the OSG is not incompatible with the regs, since the regs nowhere say, or even suggest, that such an arrangement is not acceptable - they are silent on the issue. It's not included in the 'examples' given in Appendix 15 - but, as I've said, I don't think that's meant to be exhaustive.

Indeed, nor is OSG exhaustive. The paragraph you cite appears only to refer/relate to non-fused spurs - so we've seen nowhere (regs or OSG) which says that one can have a fused spur starting at the origin of a ring - although most of us would believe that to be acceptable.

Kind Regards, John