Spur off a spur to 2W LED

[Jimmyjones124]

Hi, we’ve fitted a breakfast bar in the kitchen. There was a disused socket above it which we are going to extend to a single socket, then spur off that to a 3A FCU. Would this be classed as spurring off an existing spur?

The old 2 gang socket will be replaced by a junction block or 20amp switch, so in theory we would only be extending the socket.

Would this be safe or are there any other options to this?

Cheers

 

[John Preston]

If you are replacing the twin socket with a "junction box" but leaving only one leg to the single socket it's still a spur as it's not on the ring. So it would still be a spur off a spur. If you extend the 2 legs of the double socket to the single socket this would keep the ring. Then the spur off for your light.

 

[WillWX]

Could you not just replace 1g socket with fused spur for lighting?

 

[Top Cat]

I would change the twin socket for a switched fused spur then everything is protected. Probably some stupid reg that says you can't!
Trouble is, most of the regs concerning spurring off the ring go back 40 years when people didn't have gas central heating and they were afraid that a 2 or 3 KW fire would be plugged into spurred off sockets, it just doesn't happen in this day and age.
Wait for it.......The reg's police will be saying ah but what if?
Am I bovered!

 

[littlespark]

just do it. We won’t tell anyone

 

[Jimmyjones124]

Hi, ive attached diagrams of my current setup v possible setup. I’m guessing the safer of the 2 options is to add a 13A fcu at the ring?

 

[Top Cat]

Hi, ive attached diagrams of my current setup v possible setup. I’m guessing the safer of the 2 options is to add a 13A fcu at the ring?

View attachment 48435

View attachment 48436

FFS! that is what i said in post 4!
Do what you want, I don't care anymore!

 

[Toneyz]

Hi, we’ve fitted a breakfast bar in the kitchen. There was a disused socket above it which we are going to extend to a single socket,[/QUOTE]
If you are going to extend to the single socket why not put all on the ring?

 

[Jimmyjones124]

FFS! that is what i said in post 4!
Do what you want, I don't care anymore!

Hi topcat, sorry i’m just confirming what i’ve read.
Thanks for your advice

 

[Jimmyjones124]

Hi, we’ve fitted a breakfast bar in the kitchen. There was a disused socket above it which we are going to extend to a single socket,

If you are going to extend to the single socket why not put all on the ring?[/QUOTE]

Hi, i’ve already run a single 2.5 cable from the disused socket to the new location which has been channeled in wall and plastered over now.

 

[Toneyz]

Then the only answer that I can give you is no as this will be a spur of a spur.

 

[DPG]

Then the only answer that I can give you is no as this will be a spur of a spur.

But he's feeding it from an FCU so is fine.

 

[Toneyz]

But he's feeding it from an FCU so is fine.

Yes I'll agree with that if he has chosen that method.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

This is one of those paradoxical situations where the compliant method - fuse the whole spur, then you can do what you like - is actually less sensible and a poorer engineering solution than the non-compliant one.

The principle of not having more than one point on a spur is to prevent the cable being overloaded and avoid a heavy point load on the ring. But here, the offending 'second' outlet is a 2W lamp, which has absolutely negligible consumption and can be ignored for loading purposes. The only reason it might cause a problem is if, in the future, someone replaces the light and/or its FCU with a heavy load, without first checking how it is wired.

Personally, I would rather not pass the socket current through an FCU and its 13A fuse just to make the circuit comply, but technically, that is what is required. It does have the advantage that multiple sockets can be fitted if desired for low load appliances, even though there is only one at the moment.