Four cables into one single socket

[Itisonlyme]

Hi all, I am continuing to replace all the sockets and switches in the house and as always the very last one is a bit of a headache.

Single socket on the landing to one side of an airing cupboard. On removing the faceplate in addition to the expected two cables for the ring there are two more runs of 2.5mm t+e. One of these cables has been fed in front of the back box rather than through the knockout which sets alarm bells ringing to me as it seems likely only a cowboy or homeowner with no pride would do this, this seems a later addition to the other 3 cables so could be diy.

i replaced the backbox with a deeper one to provide a better fit to the wall as its attached to a joist to the rear and a 25mm box isn't deep enough to reach the wall, added grommets as none fitted and run all four set of cables through knockouts.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is this an acceptable arrangement in any event? As two cables are the ring and two others are feeding off it (assumed but not yet tested as had to pop out). Would need a trip into the loft to work out what they are feeding. If they are both spurs I believe only one is allowed and I would look to disconnect the other if not permitted. One may be a socket which is unused by us at least as it is inside the airing cupboard and would be no loss.

2. Assuming this is an OK arrangement trying to get 4 lots of wire into the terminals on the back of an MK single socket sounds a big ask, can I group the cables into 30amp connector block and then feed a single wire into the socket terminal? Don't like this idea much as I would think poorly if I took the socket off and found this arrangement.

Grateful of any advice.

Phil

 

[trev]

1 No
2 No
Get your test gear out, trace what goes where and put it right.

 

[telectrix]

replace socket with a double on a deep back box. remove the unused spur. alternative would be to do a bit of re-jigging and extend the RFC.

 

[Pete999]

Hi all, I am continuing to replace all the sockets and switches in the house and as always the very last one is a bit of a headache.

Single socket on the landing to one side of an airing cupboard. On removing the faceplate in addition to the expected two cables for the ring there are two more runs of 2.5mm t+e. One of these cables has been fed in front of the back box rather than through the knockout which sets alarm bells ringing to me as it seems likely only a cowboy or homeowner with no pride would do this, this seems a later addition to the other 3 cables so could be diy.

i replaced the backbox with a deeper one to provide a better fit to the wall as its attached to a joist to the rear and a 25mm box isn't deep enough to reach the wall, added grommets as none fitted and run all four set of cables through knockouts.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is this an acceptable arrangement in any event? As two cables are the ring and two others are feeding off it (assumed but not yet tested as had to pop out). Would need a trip into the loft to work out what they are feeding. If they are both spurs I believe only one is allowed and I would look to disconnect the other if not permitted. One may be a socket which is unused by us at least as it is inside the airing cupboard and would be no loss.

2. Assuming this is an OK arrangement trying to get 4 lots of wire into the terminals on the back of an MK single socket sounds a big ask, can I group the cables into 30amp connector block and then feed a single wire into the socket terminal? Don't like this idea much as I would think poorly if I took the socket off and found this arrangement.

Grateful of any advice.

Phil

In a word no it isn't OK seems like whoever did this didn't know what they were doing, without looking at the situation it's rather difficult to advise, if you can gain access under the floor boards you could determine which cables are the RFC and which ones are the spurs, and fit a series of 30 amp joint boxes, quite how you would run the cables is difficult to say, sorry I can't be any more help

 

[cprfenom]

Tel stop talking common sense as I have to keep agreeing with you!!

Agree, either redo wiring to incorporate both spurs on to the ring, or disconnect one, or spur from the ring to a FCU and have the 2 loads off of that assuming the load isn't above 13amp.

This is all assuming there is a ring in all of that and everything else checks out etc.

Trev I love it when you talk so forcibly!!! :ihih:imp:

 

[trev]

Trev I love it when you talk so forcibly!!! :ihih:imp:

I blame my updragging mate, I was taught to just say what was on my mind.

 

[Itisonlyme]

Shouldn't be too tricky to check this out as one cable (the apparently later addition as three times matched grey cable and one white) goes up to the loft with a socket run with white cable nearby, though the cable goes to the loft first. Won't be too surprised to find a junction box with lots of stuff running off as the house was extended and so far the additional sockets seem to be spurred off existing. Before my time in the house.....

Landing carpet being replaced this week so no better time to be lifting floorboards. Could be to water pump as this is under the landing floorboards.

Can't change to a double as the socket is between two doorways and there is no room ( unless I install it in portrait rather than landscape ;-)

 

[Itisonlyme]

P.s. This reminds me of an old boss who told me that if you have to ask if it's OK you already know it isn't!


thanks you all for your replies

 

[cprfenom]

Deleted

 

[Itisonlyme]

Deleted too as now it makes no sense

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Hi all, I am continuing to replace all the sockets and switches in the house and as always the very last one is a bit of a headache.

Single socket on the landing to one side of an airing cupboard. On removing the faceplate in addition to the expected two cables for the ring there are two more runs of 2.5mm t+e. One of these cables has been fed in front of the back box rather than through the knockout which sets alarm bells ringing to me as it seems likely only a cowboy or homeowner with no pride would do this, this seems a later addition to the other 3 cables so could be diy.

i replaced the backbox with a deeper one to provide a better fit to the wall as its attached to a joist to the rear and a 25mm box isn't deep enough to reach the wall, added grommets as none fitted and run all four set of cables through knockouts.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is this an acceptable arrangement in any event? As two cables are the ring and two others are feeding off it (assumed but not yet tested as had to pop out). Would need a trip into the loft to work out what they are feeding. If they are both spurs I believe only one is allowed and I would look to disconnect the other if not permitted. One may be a socket which is unused by us at least as it is inside the airing cupboard and would be no loss.

2. Assuming this is an OK arrangement trying to get 4 lots of wire into the terminals on the back of an MK single socket sounds a big ask, can I group the cables into 30amp connector block and then feed a single wire into the socket terminal? Don't like this idea much as I would think poorly if I took the socket off and found this arrangement.

Grateful of any advice.

Phil

There is no regulation stating that only one spur can be supplied from a point on a RFC, (It is not a spur from a spur)The only issuue I can see that might not meet regulations is potential load sharing problems. But if for example these two spurs supply lightly loaded points then I can see no issue,and it is possible to connect 4 x 2.5mm conductors into an MK single socket with care and the correct back box.
Not the way anyone would choose to do things but the statements that this HAS to be altered are incorrect. It MAY need to be altered after an assessment of loadings.

 

[Pete999]

Sorry wirepuller can't believe I'm reading that

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Sorry wirepuller can't believe I'm reading that

Which reg then mate?

 

[Pete999]

Which reg then mate?

Nt got regs book but hazard a guess at appendix 15

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Nt got regs book but hazard a guess at appendix 15

The bit you are thinking of states "An unfused spur should feed one single or twin socket outlet only"
It does not state that only one unfused spur can be supplied from a single point on the ring.

 

[davesparks]

I know without looking that the total number of unfused spurs must not exceed the number of points on the ring.

I'm struggling to think if I've ever come across a regulation that says you can't connect two spurs from the same point.

It is definately bad practice and far from an ideal situation

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I know without looking that the total number of unfused spurs must not exceed the number of points on the ring.

I'm struggling to think if I've ever come across a regulation that says you can't connect two spurs from the same point.

It is definately bad practice and far from an ideal situation

I have already stated that it is not ideal,but the inference in all of the posts so far is that it does not comply with regulations,I believe that is incorrect unless someone can show me otherwise.
I also believe that after an assessment of loadings such an arrangement would not necessarily need altering.

 

[Pete999]

I know without looking that the total number of unfused spurs must not exceed the number of points on the ring.

I'm struggling to think if I've ever come across a regulation that says you can't connect two spurs from the same point.

It is definately bad practice and far from an ideal situation

As I said not got regs handy OSG page 68 has some reference, if there is no reg stating what you say is true, it's not something I would contemplate doing imo it's not just bad practice it's a hazard as well.
"A non fused spur feeds only one twin socket or one permanently connected item of electrical equipment. Such a spur is connected to a circuit at the terminals of a socket outlet or at junction boxes or at the origin of the circuit at the DB"

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As I said not got regs handy OSG page 68 has some reference, if there is no reg stating what you say is true, it's not something I would contemplate doing imo it's not just bad practice it's a hazard as well.
"A non fused spur feeds only one twin socket or one permanently connected item of electrical equipment. Such a spur is connected to a circuit at the terminals of a socket outlet or at junction boxes or at the origin of the circuit at the DB"

Agree...Each spur must be as stated....but it does not state that only one spur can be fed from a single point on a RFC.
Lets say that one spur feeds a single socket in the loft for a tv amp..(0.5a)....and the second a twin socket in a bedroom with a table lamp and alarm clock (1a). Would you insist to a client that such an arrangement did not comply with the regulations and was a potential danger which had to be rewired? It would be hard to justify IMO.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I see this alot. Its always the single gang socket on the landing that gets the kicking.

I bet one of the spurs feeds a security light, and the other is for a trouser press in the wardrobe that backs onto the single socket :laugh: