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.

 

[MDJ]

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

A Spur is something attached to cowboy boots, plenty of folk on here wear them, not saying you do

 

[westward10]

My App15 shows it as being fine

 

[MDJ]

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances, see #52) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Rubbish, I question everything

 

[MDJ]

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances, see #52) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Rubbish, I question everything

My App15 shows it as being fineView attachment 45061

Thats it then, now where is my marker pen lol

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Oi! You deleted my comment..

 

[Octopus]

So my closing post on this issue...

I've given you a disagree because I was taught never to have more than 3 cables at any connection on a ring or radial

 

[SparkyChick]

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.

On the back of this, I contacted NAPIT (my scheme) and put it to them that I had come across this situation during an EICR and had been advised by a more learned friend that it was a non-compliance, but that I was struggling to find a regulation it contravened.

The answer I received went like this "not good practice, but you won't find a regulation it contravenes".

So yes I fundamentally agree with you Pete, a classic case of ambiguity in the regulations leaving us open to the possibility of ending up in hot water (if something goes wrong for example).

It would be very simple to clarify with an additional clause in 433.1.204 that states each junction box/accessory shall be the origin of a single spur.

I think we all agree it's not good practice, but the ambiguity leaves it open.

 

[westward10]

Oi! You deleted my comment..

I deleted your comment and the associated ones because even though there was no malice to it it was inappropriate for a public forum.

 

[markc123]

First, I didn’t pay a decorator to do anything, second, you should have read more than 1st 3 pages as you would have seen I did call out an electrician.

I apologise for my language this morning and my post was correctly edited by a mod. My outburst was probably a little OTT and if I came across as rude it wasn’t my intention, just this sort of stuff does boil the p155 of electricians.

Maybe I should of read more, but I still think what you tried to undertake was a little more than DIY. On the positive side, I do applaud you for coming and seeking help - many don’t.

 

[westward10]

I asked my scheme, the fella in B&Q he said it was fine and even showed me the parts I required.

 

[SparkyChick]

I've given you a disagree because I was taught never to have more than 3 cables at any connection on a ring or radial

If using a screw junction box, I'd tend to agree due to limited terminal capacity, but with modern jointing methods like Wagos, it's not such a problem.

But regardless, fundamentally (as I've stated so many times I've lost count) I agree... it's not good practice

 

[johnduffell]

The op could always mark it down as a departure when he signs to say he has designed the circuit.
Then even if appendix 15 is not just guidance, it would not be coded unsatisfactory on an eicr. Not that it would anyway if it didn't affect the safety of the installation, but it's down to the designer to decide.

 

[mikep83]

hi, I added the white, to the existing ring. Sorry, bad markup on picture.

 

[Pete999]

hi, I added the white, to the existing ring. Sorry, bad markup on picture.

View attachment 45062

Thanks that clears that issue up nicely

 

[Octopus]

The op could always mark it down as a departure when he signs to say he has designed the circuit.
Then even if appendix 15 is not just guidance, it would not be coded unsatisfactory on an eicr. Not that it would anyway if it didn't affect the safety of the installation, but it's down to the designer to decide.

The OP isn’t a spark .......