Should I improve this wiring?

[MidsTW]

The image below is a layout of the electrics which power the outside lights and garage.

They are both basically plugged into the ground floor ring. With the exception that that garage light is controlled by the switch on a fused spur which is connected to the garage double socket.

Can this be improved using a method which is non notifiable? Or does it need improving?

I was thinking of something like adding a fused connector switch off the socket in the house and then another socket off that to control the garage and outside lighting?

 

[JohnW2]

They are both basically plugged into the ground floor ring. With the exception that that garage light is controlled by the switch on a fused spur which is connected to the garage double socket. Can this be improved using a method which is non notifiable?

You would be talking about additions/modifications to the existing (ring) circuit, so that would not be notifiable.

Or does it need improving?

It would certainly be 'neater' to have hard-wiring rather than the plugs/sockets - but if the 13A is adequate for your garage (socket+lights) then there's nothing actually wrong with it. Is the ring circuit protected by an RCD?

I was thinking of something like adding a fused connector switch off the socket in the house and then another socket off that to control the garage and outside lighting?

As above, it would probably be better/neater to get rid of the plugs/sockets completely, and just use fused connection units. Some people would not like taking two FCUs from the same socket (and it might be difficult getting four conductors into the terminals) - but, if your outside light is modest in power, you might run that, as well as the garage, off a single 13A FCU from the socket (with a separate switch for the outside light).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

What protection does the external cable to the garage have and how is it routed?

Is there RCD protection anywhere on the circuit?

 

[JohnW2]

Is there RCD protection anywhere on the circuit?

I've already asked that

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

We don't know from the description exactly how the existing wiring was done. It may be T&E buried directly, passed through the wall and crammed into a 13A plug, which I've seen done many times. It may be flex threaded through a piece of buried garden hose or some similar abomination. Some more details and/or photos of the existing wiring would help to give an idea as to whether what's there could just be improved upon or whether it should be ripped out and a fresh start made.

 

[securespark]

Is there RCD protection anywhere on the circuit?

I've already asked that

Kind Regards, John

Sorry...

I was procrastinating (as I often do) while you were posting and did not see your reply before I had posted mine.

 

[JohnW2]

It may be flex threaded through a piece of buried garden hose or some similar abomination.

It could be. I don't know whether it was ever compliant with the regs but I do remember, a good few decades ago, DIY-orientated publications indicating that T+E in 'garden hose' (or other plastic conduit/ducting which provided little mechanical protection) was an acceptable practice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

14th (1966) says:

B.125 Consumers' wiring intended for operation at low or medium voltage and installed underground for distribution between a building and a point of utilization(sic) not attached thereto (eg another building), shall be in the form of one or more of the following systems, using the types of cables indicated.

In ducts:

(i) metal-sheathed and served cable, or
(ii) mineral-insulated, copper-sheathed cable having an overall extruded covering of p.v.c., or
(iii) armoured p.v.c.-insulated cable having an overall extruded covering of p.v.c., or
(iv) p.v.c.-insulated p.v.c.-sheathed cable or rubber-insulated cable sheathed with p.c.p., c.s.p. or n.b.r./p.v.c.

In conduits or pipes:

(v) p.v.c.-insulated, p.v.c.-sheathed cable or rubber-insulated cable sheathed with p.c.p., c.s.p. or n.b.r./p.v.c., in heavy-guage galvanized (sic) steel conduit or galvanized (sic) steel pipe, provided that the conduit or pipe shall not be used as an earth-continuity conductor, or

(vi) p.v.c.-insulated, p.v.c.-sheathed cable or rubber-insulated cable sheathed with p.c.p., c.s.p. or n.b.r./p.v.c., in non-metallic conduit (see also Regulations B101-105).

Laid direct in the ground:

(vii) metal-sheathed, armoured and served underground cable, or

(viii) armoured p.v.c.-insulated cable having an extruded p.v.c. bedding or an overall covering of p.v.c., or

(ix) metal-sheathed and served underground cable or mineral-insulated copper-sheathed cable having an overall extruded covering of p.v.c. with mechanical protection by cable covers except where installed under a permanent surface.

Note: Cables should be installed at a depth of at least 18 inches. The use of cable covers (preferably conforming to B.S.2484) or equivalent mechanical protection is desirable for all underground cables which might otherwise subsequently be disturbed.
For current ratings of underground cables, see Items 4(f) and (g) of the Preface to Tables 1 to 35.

 

[PBC_1966]

There's a difference between cable and flex though.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All flex is cable. Not all cable is flex.

But nothing in secure's quote precludes flex from being used when "p.v.c.-insulated p.v.c.-sheathed cable" is mentioned.

 

[securespark]

With current carrying capacity, yes.

Not sure what differences there were in the 14th, but today, you can used flexible cable for fixed installations.

 

[PBC_1966]

The 14th edition made a clear distinction between "regular" cable and flexible cable/cord. Whatever the current edition might allow, I still think that using flex for fixed wiring is tacky (not counting lighting pendants, links from an FCU to a wall heater etc. where the flex is short and exposed - I'm talking about running it concealed).

P.S. The American NEC does not allow flexible cord to be used as concealed fixed wiring, now or for many decades passed.

 

[securespark]

The 14th edition made a clear distinction between "regular" cable and flexible cable/cord.

Have you got a copy to hand?

Can you quote the reg number?

 

[securespark]

The only restriction I can find is in the B section.

B12
(vi) & (vii)

Twisted twin ( fig of 8 ) can only be used for pendants where it is wholly in view or for other applications where the cord is not subject to abrasion.

 

[PBC_1966]

Have you got a copy to hand?

Not easily to hand at the moment I'm afraid; my copy is still packed away somewhere in one of dozens of boxes of books.