Advice sought on spurs off spurs

[Steve_bcs]

I am refurbishing a house i bought last year & looking for thoughts on whether the following existing wiring is right/ safe. I dont think it is but would like to check as it looks like spurs of a spur to me. The CU was just replaced by local electrical contractor & all circuits are he says, showing ok on the test certificate he gave me.

A single 2.5mm t&e coming down the wall from the garage loft is feeding a double socket (A) in the utility room which backs onto the rear garage wall. This in turn is feeding a second double socket also in the utiity room. (B). Socket A also feeds a double socket behind the wall its on in the garage (C) and then from this there is a single feed to a switched fused connection unit that supplies the CH boiler in the garage.

I would have expected the utility room sockets to be on a ring final circuit & also the garage socket as its right behind socket A.
Tia

 

[telectrix]

not ideal.you have the probability of overloading the spur cables if appliances such as washers/dryers are plugged in.best solution is to make all sockets on RFC with just the c/h spur as a spur.

 

[Deleted account]

Best bet get an EICR done. This should highlight this and any other issues you may have.

 

[Wilko]

Hi Steve and Welcome to the Forum. As Tel has said, existing arrangement is not ok. I'd be looking to get a new circuit - last lot were a bit lazy putting them all onto the kitchen ring final circuit.

 

[Octopus]

It may be a radial circuit ...

 

[Octopus]

It may be a radial circuit ...

 

[Steve_bcs]

Thanks guys. May be able to utilise garage door circuit & change from 16A radial to 32A RFC as other slots are full. Same firm did a condition report when I moved in & flagged up CU needed changing for a dual RCD one & a seconf cooker radial needed for proposed induction hob. They never picked up on the above issue though. I’ll get them back as I was charged enough.

 

[Octopus]

You can’t go changing a 16 a to 32 a ...... that could be very dangerous

 

[Des 56]

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here considering its not fit for purpose and that the firm should be called back etc

If the Zs of the ring final is within the maximum permitted for the 16 amp device, he has no issue with the circuit other than convenience and no issue with the firm who did not flag it up

 

[Steve_bcs]

Just to clarify...
There is a ring final for the kitchen , the utility & garage sockets are on the same circuit ie when i switch off the kitchen breaker, the utility & garage socket go off as well.

The 16A radial I mentioned is a brand new circuit that serves only 2 single sockets - power for two roller garage doors. I just wondered if that circuit could be changed to a ring final that also serves the utility & garage sockets and so upgrade the breaker to 32A.

I am calling the spark back for his thoughts & so he can do the necessary changes, test & issue an appropriate certificate. Building control are visiting soon to sign off on other building alterations and are aware that I have had the CU changed and new circuits added.

I would be more comfortable with the utility on a ring final.

 

[Pete999]

Just to clarify...
There is a ring final for the kitchen , the utility & garage sockets are on the same circuit ie when i switch off the kitchen breaker, the utility & garage socket go off as well.

The 16A radial I mentioned is a brand new circuit that serves only 2 single sockets - power for two roller garage doors. I just wondered if that circuit could be changed to a ring final that also serves the utility & garage sockets and so upgrade the breaker to 32A.

I am calling the spark back for his thoughts & so he can do the necessary changes, test & issue an appropriate certificate. Building control are visiting soon to sign off on other building alterations and are aware that I have had the CU changed and new circuits added.

I would be more comfortable with the utility on a ring final.

I am refurbishing a house i bought last year & looking for thoughts on whether the following existing wiring is right/ safe. I dont think it is but would like to check as it looks like spurs of a spur to me. The CU was just replaced by local electrical contractor & all circuits are he says, showing ok on the test certificate he gave me.

A single 2.5mm t&e coming down the wall from the garage loft is feeding a double socket (A) in the utility room which backs onto the rear garage wall. This in turn is feeding a second double socket also in the utiity room. (B). Socket A also feeds a double socket behind the wall its on in the garage (C) and then from this there is a single feed to a switched fused connection unit that supplies the CH boiler in the garage.

I would have expected the utility room sockets to be on a ring final circuit & also the garage socket as its right behind socket A.
Tia

View attachment 43664

How sure are you, that the cable/circuit feeding this particular group of sockets, is a Ring Final Circuit? it could possibly be a 20 Amp 2.5mm2 Radial Final Circuit.
Might be best to ascertain what type of circuit it actually is, rather than blasting away at the bloke or firm that installed it in the first place, just a thought, to consider for a few moments, prior to making yourself look a complete numpty, if it is actually a radial circuit already.

 

[Steve_bcs]

Appreciate what you are saying Pete. I’m not blasting anyone
The guy checked & tested the intallation in January and the EICR he issued states that sockets are on two ring final circuits. Everything else is radial. Same for the DEIC that was done a couple of weeks ago.

When testing, should the wiring behind every socket be checked?

 

[Octopus]

"removing" some sockets from 1 circuit and adding them to another circuit could be tricky to say the least ...................

Only a proper site survey could tell you this.

With respect to inspecting ALL the sockets and cables - this is extremely unlikely .....................

 

[Flash]

on that last cert, i would question why the circuits haven't been split very well over the two rcd, wasn't really worth having a split load 17th edition cu fitted. Looks like another niceic part p 5 day course job.

 

[Steve_bcs]

The circuits were split differently but after spark had gone home when I turned on the landing loght both rcd’s tripped. I called & he came back the next day & explained there must be a shared neutral between the lighting circuits & had to rewire the panel which meant the loads would not be split how he originally intended. That fixed the tripping issue. Does this seem a plausible explanation?

 

[pirate]

This isn't the thread I expected...
I saw "spurs"
and "spurs off spurs"
was kinda expecting something more interesting...

 

[Wilko]

On your testing question, no - all the outlets do not need to be removed. But they should all be tested and this should give a reasonable indication of the string of outlets being spurred off the ring, or not. Then they could be further investigated.

 

[Octopus]

Placing both lighting circuits on the same rcd , but separate mcbs is not a good idea.

They should both be on the same mcb ....

 

[PEG]

What? we are on post #19,with that title...and nobody has used the word "cowboy"?

.....You lot are slipping...

 

[telectrix]

The circuits were split differently but after spark had gone home when I turned on the landing loght both rcd’s tripped. I called & he came back the next day & explained there must be a shared neutral between the lighting circuits & had to rewire the panel which meant the loads would not be split how he originally intended. That fixed the tripping issue. Does this seem a plausible explanation?

that's the lazy way out.basically you have the landing light with the N from the upstairs circuit, and the L from downstairs. was common practice 50 years or so ago, saved running a 3 core for strappers between switches. such an arrangement is potentially dangerous unless both lighting circuits are on the same MCB. (which contravenes the "division of circuits reg.".).