5 kitchen sockets from 1 FSU

[MDJ]

Also, I'm a little uncomfortable, given the number of radio ads about overloading four way bars are fires. Not least since the install is the reinstatement after a fire

now you are trolling, ridiculous

 

[DJ Ovengloves]

So this ring he spurred from...what was the reason given for not simply extending it?

Edit:- Just re-read OP, it's a spur, not a ring - DOH!

 

[stranded]

Just dont turn them all on at once

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

Be interesting to know where the original 'spur for fridge' came from and if it was reasonably easy to run a second cable to it and extend current ring.

A thought. If you use loop in/out to every alternate socket, what do you do with the cable that is just passing by a socket when on a horizontal run? Does it go below/above the back box or is it fed through the back box? I'm asking as it's a method I've not used, or can remember using! But then, I can't remember what I did last Sunday!!

 

[andy33gmail]

If you like, I can send you a copy of the certificate, and a link to the fire brigade website, and you can check the addresses match!

No one from the LA inspected to my knowledge, but I wasn't always on site. I have: "Building Regulations 'Part P' Compliance Certificate"..."Rewire of all circuits"

 

[trev]

The guy came up with this arrangement on a rewire? Crikey!

 

[DaveyD]

The guy came up with this arrangement on a rewire? Crikey!

Post #6 Trev, an afterthought after 3 months.

 

[trev]

Post #6 Trev, an afterthought after 3 months.

Well spotted Davey

 

[Outspoken]

It could be argued that considering the location of the circuit it is a reasonable conclusion that the load on the circuit, even for short duration, may exceed 13A and as such just assuming the fuse will protect the circuit, thus allowing short or even extended duration low level overloads IS a breach of the Regulations as required by 433.1.1

Every circuit shall be designed so that a small overload of long duration is unlikely to occur

I would also proffer the suggestion that the installer has not given adequate consideration to 433.1.1(i)

The rated current or current setting of the protective device (I[SUB]n[/SUB]) is not less than the design current (I[SUB]b[/SUB]) of the circuit

Consideration should always be given to how a circuit is to be used, and whilst in a little used room in a domestic premises the solution would be 100% acceptable, this is a situation where lack of adequate planning and forethought has meant the installer has, whilst compliant in one sense, is not compliant because of the reasons in 433.1.

 

[NDG Elecs]

I will be honest, I have done the exact same thing for a client. For two double sockets supplying kettle, toaster, radio and a spare. So not as potentially heavily loaded as the OP. I explained the limitations and possible issues that may arise. I also explained the correct way it should be wired. The client did not want to renew tiling etc so this was pretty much the only option remaining.

To date they have not had to replace the FCU fuse that I know of. I do not feel it breaches 433.1.1 as any overload would be for a short period of time, not a "long duration".

What do others think is the best option: down rating cct to 20A or doing as has been done in the OP, given that redecoration is a no-no (is'nt it fickling always!!!)??

 

[Outspoken]

I will be honest, I have done the exact same thing for a client. For two double sockets supplying kettle, toaster, radio and a spare. So not as potentially heavily loaded as the OP. I explained the limitations and possible issues that may arise. I also explained the correct way it should be wired. The client did not want to renew tiling etc so this was pretty much the only option remaining.

To date they have not had to replace the FCU fuse that I know of. I do not feel it breaches 433.1.1 as any overload would be for a short period of time, not a "long duration".

What do others think is the best option: down rating cct to 20A or doing as has been done in the OP, given that redecoration is a no-no (is'nt it fickling always!!!)??

I think it's unfair to compare your situation with that of the OP, you clearly wanted to install a ring, but the client, whose decision it is, did not want the problems and costs involved, so you completed the job in the only practical way you were able whilst still complying with the Regs and you took the time to explain the situation to the client, who clearly understood. The OP is implying the decision was made by the installer because it was convenient to them and no other factors were taken into account, so whilst the circuit is generally compliant i think we could all consider this a case, "Just because you can, does not mean you should"

 

[NDG Elecs]

I think it's unfair to compare your situation with that of the OP, you clearly wanted to install a ring, but the client, whose decision it is, did not want the problems and costs involved, so you completed the job in the only practical way you were able whilst still complying with the Regs and you took the time to explain the situation to the client, who clearly understood. The OP is implying the decision was made by the installer because it was convenient to them and no other factors were taken into account, so whilst the circuit is generally compliant i think we could all consider this a case, "Just because you can, does not mean you should"

Yep, have just re-read the OP and agree whole heartedly with you. Though must say customers can be prone to lying occasionally!!

If the OP was not consulted about changing spurs to a ring then the spark is defo in the wrong.

Regards.

 

[Outspoken]

Though must say customers can be prone to lying occasionally!!

What a scurrilous accusation, imagine, a customer not being truthful, what the hell are you implying the world is coming too! :willy_nilly:

If the OP was not consulted about changing spurs to a ring then the spark is defo in the wrong.

Yup, my thoughts exactly...:lipsrsealed2:

 

[Engineer54]

I think it's unfair to compare your situation with that of the OP, you clearly wanted to install a ring, but the client, whose decision it is, did not want the problems and costs involved, so you completed the job in the only practical way you were able whilst still complying with the Regs and you took the time to explain the situation to the client, who clearly understood. The OP is implying the decision was made by the installer because it was convenient to them and no other factors were taken into account, so whilst the circuit is generally compliant i think we could all consider this a case, "Just because you can, does not mean you should"

I think we can all see the situation, it happens all the time!! The client has zoomed ahead with a new kitchen install not taking electrical requirements on board until everything is finished and all the decorative wall finishes completed. Then it's, i need these 3 sockets for this that and the other, but i don't want my kitchen finishes destroyed!!! Magicians i'm afraid, electricians are NOT!!

 

[DaveyD]

It could be argued that considering the location of the circuit it is a reasonable conclusion that the load on the circuit, even for short duration, may exceed 13A and as such just assuming the fuse will protect the circuit, thus allowing short or even extended duration low level overloads IS a breach of the Regulations as required by 433.1.1 Every circuit shall be designed so that a small overload of long duration is unlikely to occur

Excuse my limitation to O level english but did that sentence make sense? I comprehend 433.1.1 just not the "thus allowing short ... duration low level overloads IS a breach of the Regulations 433.1.1"