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.

 

[Pete999]

My App15 shows it as being fineView attachment 45061

Seems as though if you have the wherewithal to alter drawings you can make yourself look clever. But why spoil a serious debate with cheap shots? not like you Westy.

 

[Octopus]

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

And as I have stated on many occasions, if the muppets who write the regs actually took notice of these “debates” they would remove any ambiguity in the regs rather than listening to manufacturers and adding unnecesssary products ...

 

[mikep83]

I’m not moving, plus, I think I’m going to rectify when we’re sick of the wallpaper we’re about to put up in 2 yrs!

 

[GMES]

Oi! You deleted my comment..

You're Lucky he didn't delete you for the comment

 

['mr2'gd4u]

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

I know, I'm yanking the chain a bit is all.

 

[westward10]

Seems as though if you have the wherewithal to alter drawings you can make yourself look clever. But why spoil a serious debate with cheap shots? not like you Westy.

Come Pete just trying to lighten the mood a bit, did you have to give it a second look

 

[Pete999]

Seems as though if you have the wherewithal

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

You been watching to much Star Trek Mate

Come Pete just trying to lighten the mood a bit, did you have to give it a second look

If that's all it was OK

 

[markc123]

OP. Basically fella, you’ve opened a can of worms.

After reading this, and seeing SparkyChick taking on the forum. My opinion is: What you’ve done is bad practice and I would never ever do it like this, and I’ve always been taught that this is wrong. But - hey, it doesn’t appear to be against regs when you scratch beneath the surface.

Talk about a grey area.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

OK, there clearly isn't a definitive answer here and it's been debated to the point of extinction, we'll just have to fall into two camps and agree to disagree. Beer o'clock and apologies for perhaps unfair posts regarding DIYers.

 

[johnduffell]

The OP isn’t a spark .......

My comment was tongue in cheek! however it's true you don't need to be a spark to fill in a valid eic correctly!

 

[Toneyz]

To sum it up we all think it is bad practice but not directly against the regs.

 

[Pete999]

To sum it up we all think it is bad practice but not directly against the regs.

No I don't I think it's against the Regs

 

[gazdkw82]

I've searched and I can't find any reg that proves this againt regulation, thats not to say it doesn't exist.

Personally in this situation and working with what you have, overloading would be my main concern. You could always fuse each of the sockets to a more suitably reduced fuse and/or label the sockets for specific use only.

 

[Midwest]

Arrgh ain't it nice we are all friends again. The worlds a better place. Get rid of Trump and seal the Brexit deal, and we can all breath again.

 

[Bellendian]

This is almost as good as getting a phone call from a spark who was spitting feathers about the fact that I'd put a 2.5mm radial on a 32a mcb and made it '2 circuits' when all I'd done is take a spur from the MCB!
Think about the Physics for a second...would a 2nd jb and a few inches of cable materially alter the way the circuit operates? No...so why do it?

 

[SparkyChick]

I've had that same argument with someone about taking a spur from the MCB of a 32A RFC

 

[MFS Electrical]

edit- posted too early wasn’t finished typing

 

[SparkyChick]

The joint box can effectively be considered as a socket on the ring. Only one unfused spur should be taken from a single point on a ring circuit as prescribed in appendix 15 the fact that’s it’s informative bears no weight on the argument as says that the design shown fulfils the requirements of 433.1

View attachment 45067

Ok, but where in 433.1 does it preclude taking two spurs from a single point on a ring final circuit?

That's all I'm asking.

I can't find a regulation that precludes it, but I'm happy to be proved wrong because then I'll have learned something new

 

[MFS Electrical]

The joint box can effectively be considered as a socket on the ring. Would you take two separate unfused spurs from one socket outlet? Only one unfused spur should be taken from a single point on a ring circuit as prescribed in appendix 15 the fact that’s it’s informative bears no weight on the argument as says that the design shown fulfils the requirements of 433.1 and therefore that’s why the appendix is informative the diagram clearly shows one junction box on the ring with one unfused spur connected to it.
You cannot specify indefinitely which loads will be connected to a socket by current or future users of the installation for example it would not be unreasonable for electric heaters to be plugged into both sockets in a situation where the main source of heating was broken and still have two sockets to plug in straighteners hairdryers etc etc which could lead to the overload of the junction box.
Not to mention bad practice of ramming 4 connections into each terminal of the junction box.

 

[Bellendian]

There is none, and what has been done is fine, if slightly unorthodox. Lots on here quoting appendix 15 as having some god like status, but it's only a guide, hence uses terms such as 'this can generally be achieved by' I.e. follow this and you don't have to think, all will be well. Think outside the box and all will still be well, provided you've thought, not guessed! In this case the op might have guessed but got away with it!

 

[markc123]

Oh no let’s not start this again!

None of us with a brain cell would ever do it this way anyway, so even if it isn’t against the regs let’s just pretend it is?

Someone said they’d only ever do it like this if they absolutley had too - but I can’t even imagine a scenario which would make this even a viable option.

So...

I’m rewriting the regs. It’s now forbidden.

Can we end this discussion now? My eyeballs are bleeding.

 

[SJD]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

 

[Octopus]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

Wago's are 24 A if my memery serves me correctly

 

[MFS Electrical]

There is none, and what has been done is fine, if slightly unorthodox. Lots on here quoting appendix 15 as having some god like status, but it's only a guide, hence uses terms such as 'this can generally be achieved by' I.e. follow this and you don't have to think, all will be well. Think outside the box and all will still be well, provided you've thought, not guessed! In this case the op might have guessed but got away with it!

It says “this appendix sets out options for the design for ring final circuits in household and similar premises in accordance with regulation 433.1.”
For once there isn’t any ambiguity in the regulations

 

[SJD]

There are several different types of Wagos, I'm often now using 221-612, -613, -615 which are rated to 41A and will take up to 6mm2 cable.

Also. the Ideal In-Sure connectors are rated to 32A.

 

[westward10]

Only need to be rated at 20A for a ring final circuit.

 

[Bellendian]

I was actually suggesting that if you have a brain and use it wisely you could save yourself the cost of a jb and 4" of t&e and still comply. Or stop thinking and just slavishly follow the picture.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

I’m not just trying to be argumentative I genuinely believe that it isn’t allowed.
where does it say there may be other means of meeting 433.1? I can’t see that anywhere?
I think the OP was saying that he used the screw type junction boxes and that’s why earlier in the thread someone had raised about the junction box needing to be accessible.

 

[SparkyChick]

Let me ask the question in another way...

You've just been asked to inspect the OPs property for an EICR and you find this junction box, it's been changed to a maintenance free one so that's no longer an issue.

How would you code the fact there are two spurs taken from the one junction box and what regulation would you quote to substantiate that coding?

 

[Deleted account]

Ok, but where in 433.1 does it preclude taking two spurs from a single point on a ring final circuit?

Very rare I disagree with your stance on electrics but I think your enterpretation based on if it doesn't say you can't do something in the regs then you can do it.

It doesn't say you shouldn't wire a banana form a junction box to a tomatoe in a ring final, does that mean you can.

433.1 says what you can do.