Is it compulsory to use the flex outlet on a fused spur?

Riomtaster · Apr 1, 2021

Hi all,
BS1363 Switch fused spur with flex outlet has been installed. But the installer hasn't used the flex outlet, they've used singles in conduit and the cable grips are still in place on the spur. However the client has challenged this, implying it should be changed out to a standard spur without flex outlet.
Can anyone confirm if the client is right here, that it should be changed? And if so, is there a BS ref to support this?

Thanks everyone / anyone in advance!

SJD · Apr 1, 2021

I guess you mean one with a hole in the front for the flex, rather than a removable insert in the bottom edge. That being so, I'd say it is a bit rough, leaving a hole with no cable, presumably because it was all the installer had available. Possibly might comply if the hole is at least IP2x and not on the top surface, assuming no live parts could be touched by pushing in something metallic, but I'd not be happy with it.

Julie. · Apr 1, 2021

Yes and no!

There is usually a blanking piece in the flex outlet, if this is in place then it is fine as is.

If it is missing, then not really as something could be pushed through - but this is more bad practice than anything else.

Vertical surfaces need to be IP 2x, horizontal (down) IP 4x

westward10 · Apr 1, 2021

Can you show a picture.

Riomtaster · Apr 1, 2021

Wow thanks everyone for your comments. I don't have a picture of the spur in question, but it is MK K932 ALM as pic. The flex grip is still in place, so it is IP2X...
We are the designer and we spec these on the Material Take Off as a bit of a catch all, to provide the installer with options, and figured that with the flex grip still in place it was compliant. But as the client has picked this up as a bad practice, and you've all basically backed that up, we'll look to spec straight switch fused spurs in future.
I suppose my question was one way or another was there a BS reference which states you must use a flex outlet if provided.
Thanks again everyone.

Lucien Nunes · Apr 1, 2021

Regarding compliance I would check with the manufacturer as to whether they approve this mode of use and whether they have tested it for ingress protection without the flex. However, given that there is a 'correct' item available, I would also consider it a bad choice even if technically compliant. It looks unfinished, or like a point that was installed but never used, or that whatever was installed has since been removed.

Julie. · Apr 1, 2021

You need the k962 --- (alm in your case)

Darkwood · Apr 1, 2021

On the simple fact it looks a dogs dangly bits without utilising the flex outlet alone would be enough for me to not fit that in the first place and fit one without the front entry point, I suspect it was ordered in error as I cannot see someone deliberately picking a front entry when they do not intend to use that entry point.

Riomtaster · Apr 1, 2021

Again huge thanks for all input. Sounds like we'll have to bite the bullet and request the installer change them out.
Always good to bounce these things off those in the know

Julie. · Apr 1, 2021

Riomtaster said:
Again huge thanks for all input. Sounds like we'll have to bite the bullet and request the installer change them out.
Always good to bounce these things off those in the know

Ip2x is basically a finger size, so it would at all times be compliant, just doesn't look too good.

Dustydazzler · Apr 2, 2021

Literally a 5 min job to change the front plate for one without the flex outlet , will look better once they are changed to non flex outlet

brianmoooore · Apr 2, 2021

Whether it meets IP2X or not, I consider this unacceptable on safety grounds. OP doesn't state where this fitting is, but in a domestic situation, it might well be at 'child height', unlike a CU, and a small hole like that is just the kind of thing a curious 5 year old might feed a bit of flexible wire of some kind into.
Regs are a minimum requirement, not a maximum.

Riomtaster · Apr 2, 2021

Dustydazzler said:
Literally a 5 min job to change the front plate for one without the flex outlet , will look better once they are changed to non flex outlet

Yeah the trouble is its on a Gas Pressure Reduction Station in the North of Scotland. Contractors are based in Wales. Client also needs to arrange for site isolations so it becomes a bit more than a 5 min job.
Certainly bigger picture I'll just be spec'ing the Switch Fused Spur with no flex outlet and they can use an M20 stuffer if they have a flex cable to install.

Riomtaster · Apr 2, 2021

brianmoooore said:
Whether it meets IP2X or not, I consider this unacceptable on safety grounds. OP doesn't state where this fitting is, but in a domestic situation, it might well be at 'child height', unlike a CU, and a small hole like that is just the kind of thing a curious 5 year old might feed a bit of flexible wire of some kind into.
Regs are a minimum requirement, not a maximum.

Thanks for this. Its industrial setting but I agree with your sentiment toward the regs.

DefyG · Apr 2, 2021

I presume when you say singles in conduit, these enter the back box directly (set in the wall) as this flat plate design does not allow for flex entry from other than the front of the plate, and certainly not 'singles'.

westward10 · Apr 2, 2021

Riomtaster said:
Yeah the trouble is its on a Gas Pressure Reduction Station in the North of Scotland. Contractors are based in Wales. Client also needs to arrange for site isolations so it becomes a bit more than a 5 min job.
Certainly bigger picture I'll just be spec'ing the Switch Fused Spur with no flex outlet and they can use an M20 stuffer if they have a flex cable to install.

Stuffing glands don't really offer correct cord restraint, if a cord is being employed the accessory should incorporate the cord outlet.

Riomtaster · Apr 2, 2021

DefyG said:
I presume when you say singles in conduit, these enter the back box directly (set in the wall) as this flat plate design does not allow for flex entry from other than the front of the plate, and certainly not 'singles'.

Surface Mounted backbox with supply via 20mm conduit entry in the top of the MK metalclad backbox knockout.

Riomtaster · Apr 2, 2021

westward10 said:
Stuffing glands don't really offer correct cord restraint, if a cord is being employed the accessory should incorporate the cord outlet.

Cheers Westward. I fear this thread has grown legs from my initial query.
The Spur is surface mounted on metalclad backbox. Conduit entry in the top. I'm saying it could have a plastic stuffing gland PG13.5 or similar in the bottom M20 knockout for the flex to the appliance.
My query was initially have we inadvertantly designed a non-compliant outlet by not utilising the flex outlet on the fascia of the spur.
Which I think the general consensus is that while it may or may not be compliant, its certainly bad practice.
Again thanks all.

Is it compulsory to use the flex outlet on a fused spur?

Riomtaster

SJD

-

Julie.

westward10

Riomtaster

Attachments

Lucien Nunes

-

Julie.

Darkwood

Riomtaster

Julie.

Dustydazzler

-

brianmoooore

-

Riomtaster

Riomtaster

DefyG

-

westward10

Riomtaster

Riomtaster

Similar Threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

YOUR Unread Posts