Spur socket - tee into existing wiring

[Gorners]

I need to put a new socket in the middle of my room wall, basically directly in the middle of two existing sockets on either end of one wall.

I’ve had the floor boards up and the wire connecting both existing sockets runs right underneath where I need the new one. Are you allowed to tee into this with a maintenance free junction box to take feed for new socket or do you have to come from one of the existing sockets?

 

[bernardgreen]

Avoid junction boxes, add the new socket onto the ring and not as a spur.

 

[winston1]

Yes, you are allowed to use a MF junction box, but Bernard's way is better.

 

[AndyPRK]

it's probably against the regulations.
But what I would do is.

1) get a traditional junction box.
2) using a sharp knife, cut down the middle of the cable where the earth wire is, for the length of the j/box
Remove the outer grey sheaf
3) take the grub screws out the junction box and put them safe somewhere!
4) bend the wires so that the wires pass thru the terminals and junction entry.
5) with the knife, remove a small amount of the red and black insulation where they pass the terminals. (without cutting wires)
6) spur in your new cable to the terminals.

The advantage of this method is that you haven't broken the ring. You will never have a poor joint in the ring because of this junction.
The only thing that could stop working is the newly fitted socket.

You can't fit earth sleeving to the ring, but the wires aren't going anywhere.

I'm sure this will be a more reliable junction in 20 years time than some bloody MF junction

 

[JohnW2]

it's probably against the regulations. ... But what I would do is. ..... I'm sure this will be a more reliable junction in 20 years time than some bloody MF junction

I've been known to do that, quite often, but in the OP's case, if he want to be compliant with current regs, he would be stuck with a "bloody MF JB" (and I have some sympathies with that description!) since his JB (under floorboards) will not be accessible.

In terms of 'your technique', when the JB is to be accessible, MK do (or, at least, did do) a JB which is ideal for the job, and which I have not infrequently used for that very purpose in the past ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gorners]

Thanks all. Good to know this is considered acceptable practise as it will be much easier than taking a wire from one of the other sockets.

Isn’t lifting carpets and screws to the floorboard piece considered accessible? I’d consider plastered in a wall not accessible - or am I opening a can of worms here?

Any case I’ll be using MF JB.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn’t lifting carpets and screws to the floorboard piece considered accessible? I’d consider plastered in a wall not accessible - or am I opening a can of worms here?

Yep, I would say that 'a can of worms' would be a fair description

Since "accessible" is not defined anywhere, you could get as many personal opinions/interpretations as the number of people you ask! However, I think that most would regard under floorboards and carpet as 'inaccessible' (even if the floorboard access were screwed).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gorners]

Yeah fair enough. I suppose for me it’s accessible as I know it’s there, to someone who eventually inherits the house, it would not be obvious at all.

 

[JohnW2]

Yeah fair enough. I suppose for me it’s accessible as I know it’s there, to someone who eventually inherits the house, it would not be obvious at all.

Indeed. However, it's not only a question of how 'obvious it is'. Being 'accessible' is primarily about being accessible for inspection and testing - and it would probably not be reasonable to expect an electrician undertaking an inspection/testing of the electrical installation to lift carpets and remove floorboards (at least, 'for the standard price'!) in order to do that job!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

You mean the 10 year inspection?

No one actually has that done do they ?
And if they do it’s not about accessing every junction box is it?

Just a sample opening of accessories providing all looks well

 

[JohnW2]

You mean the 10 year inspection? .... No one actually has that done do they ?

Well, it's not necessarily 10 years. I agree that few have EICRs done routinely, but they do happen on change of ownership or change of tenants (ans the latter will probably become compulsory before long, if it hasn't already.

And if they do it’s not about accessing every junction box is it? Just a sample opening of accessories providing all looks well

The 'scope' of the inspection is up to the person who is commissioning it, but the less comprehensive it is, the less it's likely to be taken seriously by 'third parties' (insurers, buyers etc.). Anything approaching a "100% inspection" is probably almost unknown, but I would suspect that one that looked at 0% of JB's would be considered by most third-parties as 'lacking'!

Why do you think that 'they' introduced, quite recently, the requirement for JBs etc, to be "accessible for inspection and testing" if they weren't 'MF' if they felt that 'inaccessible' JBs wouldn't be inspected, anyway?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone asked to do an EICR is going to insist on ripping up fitted carpets and floorboards, or engineered floors, just in case there might be a junction box underneath? This is not going to happen.

 

[JohnW2]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone asked to do an EICR is going to insist on ripping up fitted carpets and floorboards, or engineered floors, just in case there might be a junction box underneath? This is not going to happen.

Obviously not ...

... but I AM suggesting that that might well be the thinking that resulted in the change in the regs - i.e. knowing that such things "were not going to happen", but also believing that non-MF JBs (etc.) should be inspected, they outlawed inaccessible non-MF ones.

Hence, in an installation fully compliant with current regs, all JBs that warranted inspection (i.e. all non-MF ones) would be 'accessible' for inspection, so that the electrician (who was not going to play around with floors, floor coverings, furniture etc.) would have no excuse for not inspecting (at least a sample of) anything that 'needed to be inspected'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

but they do happen on change of ownership or change of tenants

Do they?

No doubt some do but I don't think it is as commonplace as you seem to be suggesting.

(ans the latter will probably become compulsory before long, if it hasn't already

If so, it will just be a piece of paper to cover the letting agent (or landlord) - unless the scope is defined comprehensively, which it won't be.

 

[JohnW2]

Do they? No doubt some do but I don't think it is as commonplace as you seem to be suggesting.

I suggested nothing about "commonplace" - merely that such inspections "do happen" (i.e. sometimes) under such circumstances. The only thing I intended to 'suggest' was that inspections undertaken under those circumstances are probably appreciably more common that routine ones (i.e. undertaken 'every X years' ) undertaken by a 'continuing' ongoing occupier.

If so, it will just be a piece of paper to cover the letting agent (or landlord) - unless the scope is defined comprehensively, which it won't be.

Quite possibly true, but we are speculating on the nature of a speculated future requirement, so I don't think there's much useful mileage to be had from such a discussion!

Kind Regards, John