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.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

The idea of two spurs from adjacent points merging into one was first described by Pete999 in #26, reiterated as a specific argument by SJD in #44 and hammered home by Devonchris in #108.

Now try this one:

Suppose the junction box is actually a socket outlet in the RFC. You can run one unfused spur from this to feed one point., no doubt about that.

Now, instead of the socket outlet in the ring being in the physical position it is, you 'relocate' the faceplate to a different position using a piece of 2.5mm² cable, leaving the connections where they are. We already know that this type of cable is acceptable to feed one point. We already know that the loading on the RFC from the point of connection is acceptable. Electrically, nothing has changed. So, provided the junction box is adequate for the purpose, the OP's situation is electrically just as safe as a single spur to a socket outlet run from another socket outlet.

Making all new socket outlets part of a fused spur is obviously compliant, but may be materially less safe. The total load that can now be connected is limited to 13A, and if Pete's proposed 2 x 2kW heaters were connected, one to each of the new socket outlets, a prolonged low overload would occur before the fuse failed. During that time, the FCU would be operated beyond its continuous rating, whereas with the double unfused spur nothing would be overloaded in this way.

So IMHO the simple answer of making the addition a fused spur apparently improves compliance while making it less safe. Personally, I think the OP's solution is fine. I agree with SC that it is not in breach of any regs. Connecting a large number of spurs to one point would be unacceptable because too great a fraction of the circuit's total load would be likely to become concentrated at that point. But as I showed above, there is no such redistribution of load at all, when two unfused spurs each serving one point are taken from one junction that is not itself an outlet.

 

[Baddegg]

I remember a house once wired in roughly the same configuration,RFC up and down but as the leg enters the room it terminated to a JB and fed 3-4 sockets (all from the jb) then carried on to the next room and did the same thing room to room and back to the board...
Confused the me no end for a while, glad I didnt have to touch it cos it would’ve kept me awake

 

['mr2'gd4u]

So.. The iet are saying the same, rfc cut on one leg, junction box with both ends of leg connected to 2 length of 2.5mm on to 1 socket on each length. Non compliant.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

I remember a house once wired in roughly the same configuration,RFC up and down but as the leg enters the room it terminated to a JB and fed 3-4 sockets (all from the jb) then carried on to the next room and did the same thing room to room and back to the board...
Confused the me no end for a while, glad I didnt have to touch it cos it would’ve kept me awake

Ewwww

 

[DPG]

What reg do they say it contravenes?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

What reg do they say it contravenes?

Didn't actually think to ask. Just asked them the question (twice to confirm) they gave me there answer. Give them a ring, I'm sick of phone calls today.

 

[Pete999]

Didn't actually think to ask. Just asked them the question (twice to confirm) they gave me there answer. Give them a ring, I'm sick of phone calls today.

You know, without conceding to anyone, and the lack of any definitive proof, Regulation numbers etc, the only arguments on this subject we have, are divided between those who agree with what we have as decisive regulatory notifications, i,e, regulation 433.1.204 Appendix 15 Figure 15A, and those who don't agree.

Now I know what I believe to be a true representation of what is right, and I won't waver from that, so please don't bother to argue the point with me.

What has come about from this somewhat heated debate, is one or two members have either contacted their respective C.P.Schemes, the NICEIC in this instance, or the IET directly, both organisations have declared that the issue presented to them by members of the Forum, in their opinion is non compliant with BS7671.

It begins to make you wonder how many other inconclusive issues have been left for us Electrical operatives to debate, argue and form our own conclusions, without any definitive statements published by the IET.

Now I know there will be many people out there who will say it's always been this way.

The Regulations, the OSG, the various guidance Notes are not cheap, and those who try to abide by the rules conscientiously buy these publications religiously every time there are updates.

Now back to earlier both the NICEIC and IET have said the issue posed by the OP is non compliant, but seem to be reluctant to provide any proof of non compliance.

 

[Spoon]

So the iet say it's 'Non compliant'

I'm right...... IN YOUR FACE......

 

[DPG]

I see no substance in someone at the help desk saying it doesn't comply, but without any reasoning or regulation to back it up. You could phone on a different day and some might well say they think it does comply. They are paid to provide good and complete technical advice, not just random one liners.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

I don't really know where we should all go with this tbh. I think; op rectify or remove when/if you ever leave.. Or else!

 

[Midwest]

What was the question again?

 

[Fitzy]

This thread has been quite an interesting read with some very healthy debates.

So I’m just curious, the IET write the regulations we all adhere to right? So are all the regulations they provide us with backed up with actual facts/testing.

So the regulation being discussed in the post, has it been tested by the IET to confirm that 2 spurs from the same socket ARE in fact dangerous or are they based on speculation as to ‘what’ might happen?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

This thread has been quite an interesting read with some very healthy debates.

So I’m just curious, the IET write the regulations we all adhere to right? So are all the regulations they provide us with backed up with actual facts/testing.

So the regulation being discussed in the post, has it been tested by the IET to confirm that 2 spurs from the same socket ARE in fact dangerous or are they based on speculation as to ‘what’ might happen?

Proberably the latter tbh who knows.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

The whole bs 7671 could be speculation. For all we know we might not even really exist...

 

[MDJ]

Dear oh Dear, the OP has spurred two sockets off one point on the ring, whether it is a socket or a Junction box it is one point, spurring two points from one point on the ring is against the regs, No scheme will accept it because it is not permitted, you can all argue all day long and I won't reply to any replies to this because I know I am right