2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

[mikep83]

Hi folks.

I cut one of the cables on my ring circuit, attached the 2 now separate ends to a new 30a junction box, and then run 2 additional spurs from the same junction box, using 32a twin and earth, on the end of each of these new spurs is a twin plug socket with usb.

I did the work with my father in law, who’s an avid DIYer and has been doing diy for 60 years.

We did a really good job, cables cut nice, neat, secure, tested them, and all working.

Due to a rush to get the job done before decorators, I pre installed the new sockets and cabling, ready for the junction, and only then did I realise I should have extended the ring.....it was too late, I had sealed the walls up and could not get another cable in. We used a square 30a MK box, which had ample room for the cables.

These are bedside outlets, not for heavy consuming items.

Some forums and people have now put the fear of god in me that this is dangerous, however I have read mixed opinions (e.g. apparatly 1 spur from any point is the Reg, ok.....so I have 2 on mine, but is this really much different than if I added another junction 10 inches away for my second spur)

Is this really a concern to warrant me ripping it all back out?

It’s a good tidy job.
I know there’s regulations and partP......hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Views?
Many thanks.

 

[SparkyChick]

Just out of curiosity, with your thought above, where do you draw the line? Can the OP have 15 cables coming from a single point in the RFC going to a single/double socket?

I might draw the line at the capacity of a junction box (by that I mean limited by the number of cables that can safely be terminated in it taking into account proper cable restraint and available terminal capacity).

Exceeding the capacity of the junction box makes it a fire risk.

In this instance, the OP doesn't appear to have breached the capacity of the junction box as the box in use will safely accommodate 4 cables of the correct size. If he'd squeezed three spurs in there, I'd be telling him he'd been stupid and should fix it.

There is also a consideration about the expected loading. If you did it in a kitchen and each spur was going to an appliance (dishwasher, washing machine, tumble drier for example), it would be a crazy thing to do as you'd be concentrating a lot of load in one place. In this case it's for a bedside table, so a lamp, alarm clock and maybe the occasional vacuum cleaner.

But if connecting multiple spurs to a single point on a ring final is against the regs, there will surely be regulation that precludes it.

So 15 no, two yes, 3 or more and I think I'd be looking to put the new socket outlets on the ring.

 

[westward10]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

 

[westward10]

Why do you disagree Pete?

 

[Pete999]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

He will have broken an informative edit of BS7671 sorry to disagree mate.

 

[Pete999]

He's got two cables... one for each socket outlet, so each spur feeds only a twin socket outlet.

Fed from the same point on a RFC.

 

[Spoon]

Spoon albeit that Appendix 15 is an informative appendix, its quite simple to follow the logic of the diagram, and comply with reg433.1

This is what I was getting at mate. I agree with the diagram in App 15. showing 1 wire coming from 1 point in the RFC.
Otherwise it could be pretty much unlimited with sticking a junction box with wago terminal blocks in there.

 

[Pete999]

Why do you disagree Pete?

Because as long as the Regulations promote Appendix 15 as an informative Appendix we as electricians should abide by that information and NOT ignore it.

 

[Pete999]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

If you disagree with Appendix 15 consult your Scheme's Technical Department, and see what they advise, I for one would be very interested in the interpretation they give out.

 

[Spoon]

I for one would be very interested in the interpretation they give out.

I'll second that....

 

[Fitzy]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

 

[SparkyChick]

@Pete999 , @Spoon

Is it a good plan? Not necessarily. Would I do it myself? Probably not but I wouldn't rule it out if I was pushed. Does it breach a regulation? Not as far as I can see.

Show me a regulation it breaches and why, and I'll agree with you, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Common sense should prevail here. App 15 is informative, it does not definitely preclude connecting two spurs from the same point of the ring. Given that the sockets the OP installed are not likely to be heavily loaded it is not unreasonable to connect them in this manner, properly connected there will not be any potential dangers over connecting them to two separate points on the ring.

 

[Baddegg]

Op, how did you install the cables in the walls?

 

[SJD]

So if you have a junction box on the RFC with one spur, and then a short distance along another junction box with another spur, that complies? Assuming maintenance-free junction boxes, if appropriate.

The distance between them can be as small as you like but it still complies?

But once you combine the two junctions into one, it no longer complies?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Indeed, all that is happening here is some members are determined to shoot a DIYer down in flames, come what may.