Safely removing wall lights

[ThePinkPanther]

Hi

I am redecorating a bedroom and would like to remove two wall lights. This is probably quite a simple one for most of you but I would appreciate it if you could confirm whether my proposal is OK.

The wall in question has a low level double plug socket and a FCU next to it, which isolates the lights. Having undone the face plates, there was one more cable than I was expecting. Here is a sketch:

Untitled

• ThePinkPanther
• 14 Feb 2013
• 1

The nearest wall light has two cables and the next one has one. I have checked that there is continuity between L5 and the L from one of the cables at the first light (although I already knew that the FCU controlled the lights!).

Next I removed the three cables from the L connection behind the socket (L1, L2 & L4). There was continuity between L4 and L1 so I presume that cables 1 & 3 are the cables in and out for the ring (socket isolated by B32 MCB). There is one other double socket in the room which has only one cable behind; there is continuity between the L of this cable and L2. So it looks to be like this is a double socket on a ring with two spurs: one to another double socket (cable #2) and one to the FCU for the lights (cable #4).

Unfortunately removing the cables to the lights doesn't seem to be an option as the cables go through the wall (single skin brick) and the other side is completely tiled (bathroom).

My plan is to:
1. Remove cable 4.
2. Disconnect cable 3 from FCU, cut it back and connect it to double socket.
3. Disconnect cable 5, terminate in a choc block, wrap it in a plastic bag or similar and plaster over where the FCU was.
4. Terminate the cables for the lights in a choc block, wrap in a plastic bag or similar and plaster over.
5. Decorate.

This way, nothing is live, everything is safe and I could always reinstate the lights at a later date if I want. Sound OK?

Thanks in advance.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the accessories are at low level, do you need to go through all the aggro of trying to waterproof a choc-block, plastering etc?

Wouldn't a blanking plate next to the socket be perfectly acceptable?

 

[EFLImpudence]

1. Remove cable 4.

Yes.

2. Disconnect cable 3 from FCU, cut it back and connect it to double socket.

Yes.

3. Disconnect cable 5, terminate in a choc block, wrap it in a plastic bag or similar and plaster over where the FCU was.

Put ALL three conductors in ONE terminal block and with a length of green&yellow wire (or bare g&y sleeved wire) connect to earth terminal in the back box and similarly connect both back boxes.

4. Terminate the cables for the lights in a choc block, wrap in a plastic bag or similar and plaster over.

At the lights connect all conductors together in the same manner.
Wrapping in self-amalgamating tape would be better but not essential.

This way, nothing is live, everything is safe and I could always reinstate the lights at a later date if I want. Sound OK?

Yes - in effect ensure all unused conductors are connected to earth.

 

[empip]

FWIW We almost completely got rid of a pair of disused 'oldy fash' lounge wall lights.
Replaced with two cheap and cheerful plain uplighters each with 11watt CFCs provide a nice alternative to main lighting.

-0-

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Have you proved the ring circuit?
At this time you are making assumptions, do the correct tests of the ring final circuit firstly.
As this could quite easily be a radial that has been spurred from at the socket outlet and at the MCB.
End to end continuity at consumer unit and r1=r2 test for confirmation required.

 

[ThePinkPanther]

Thanks ELFI - I have now finished this and I made sure that all disused burried conductors were earthed. I didn't bother water proofing in the end since if I ever want wall lights there in the future I would re-run some fresh cable.

BAS - thanks for the suggestion but the walls needed some other remedial work so I plastered over whilst I was sorting the other bits.

PrenticeBoyofDerry - thanks for your post. I don't quite understand what other possibility you think I may have rather than a ring. Neither do I understand what the r1=r2 test is. I would be very grateful if you could elaborate. In any case, I don't think it can make any difference what the circuit is for what I want to do (other than satisfying my curiosity) since I have maintained all connections as they were other than removing the fused spur to the lights.

empip - thanks for the suggestion. This is not a lounge but a bedroom - we're removing a double bed (used to be spare room) and putting in bunk beds against the wall in question (now kid's room) so don't want any lights at all.

Ta

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

.
I don't quite understand what other possibility you think I may have rather than a ring.

You tell me why you think it is a ring final circuit and then I will tell you why your assumption could be wrong.

.Neither do I understand what the r1=r2 test is. I would be very grateful if you could elaborate.

The r1+r2 test, confirms continuity of the line and circuit protective conductors r1=line/phase (commonly expressed as live) r2=circuit protective conductor/CPC (commonly expressed as earth).
It is a vital test the in proving a ring final circuit. The ring is connected at opposing legs at the CU and measured at the outlets.

In any case, I don't think it can make any difference what the circuit is for what I want to do (other than satisfying my curiosity) since I have maintained all connections as they were other than removing the fused spur to the lights.

It makes a difference in determining what the circuit is, not what it is for and the ring is arranged differently than a radial and altering legs of the circuit without the knowledge of what they are, could in effect then make the ring incomplete. So it is possible by making errors, that a safe circuit has become unsafe.
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/8.4.4.htm

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.Neither do I understand what the r1=r2 test is. I would be very grateful if you could elaborate.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/8.4.1.htm