Spur from cooker circuit - what to do?

[Andy™]

However as the cable is 24A rated and it's on a 30A fuse I think it should be a c2 as it is potentially dangerous and urgent remedial action is required.

good luck with that. since that would apply to just about every unfused spur from a ring. its also in the BRB as an acceptable way of connecting a spur. also, in appendix 15 that i pointed to, there is a 32A 4mm radial with a 2.5 spur to a DS (although it is a sockets circuit and not cooker, but they do have some things in common)

 

[brummydave]

good luck with that. since that would apply to just about every unfused spur from a ring. its also in the BRB as an acceptable way of connecting a spur. also, in appendix 15 that i pointed to, there is a 32A 4mm radial with a 2.5 spur to a DS (although it is a sockets circuit and not cooker, but they do have some things in common)

Ah course, you make a great point!Maybe i'll still with c3 then... :Blushing and if I can't find the proper reg for it, i'll keep it as an observation!

 

[philbas]

why not just add an FCU to the spur to protect it ?

 

[Andy™]

why not just add an FCU to the spur to protect it ?

FCU wont make any difference. its already protected by the socket

 

[philbas]

FCU wont make any difference. its already protected by the socket

No its proteced by the fuse of whatever is plugged in the socket, double plug they want to keep warm, two fan heaters plugged in, without been there you can't tell, but aan FCU makes it safe in most situations, and is very little work to make it comply

 

[Steve3948]

No its proteced by the fuse of whatever is plugged in the socket, double plug they want to keep warm, two fan heaters plugged in, without been there you can't tell, but aan FCU makes it safe in most situations, and is very little work to make it comply

Where exactly don't it comply then, what regulation are you giving for non compliance ?????

 

[steptoe]

now, if it was on the feed side of the cooker switch you could argue you have a 30A radial circuit wired in a non compliant cable, [2.5 isn't rated high enough] ,

but, as its on the switch side, I dont think you can do anything,

IMO it is totally compliant regards loading and protection,

I often wire a seperate LL socket for a gas ignitor off the ckr outlet in 2.5.

Im really keen to know what reg it contravenes,

and your excuse to the customer for dis-connecting it when you cant find a reg.

 

[Steve3948]

now, if it was on the feed side of the cooker switch you could argue you have a 30A radial circuit wired in a non compliant cable, [2.5 isn't rated high enough] ,

but, as its on the switch side, I dont think you can do anything,

IMO it is totally compliant regards loading and protection,

I often wire a seperate LL socket for a gas ignitor off the ckr outlet in 2.5.

Im really keen to know what reg it contravenes,

and your excuse to the customer for dis-connecting it when you cant find a reg.

Even if wired on the main side, its a spur off a 6.0mm², same as a spur off a ring main.

Its not something I would do because it does not seem the correct way of going about it, but I don't see any non compliance.

 

[philbas]

Where exactly don't it comply then, what regulation are you giving for non compliance ?????

It may our may not meet regs but we have a twin socket,, so worst case two deivices that pull 13 aamps each, I think we already decided a twin socket cant handle 26 A, 2.5 can handle about 27A, this is protected byt a 30 A, plus a bit, whats going to burn first?

 

[steptoe]

Even if wired on the main side, its a spur off a 6.0mm², same as a spur off a ring main.

Its not something I would do because it does not seem the correct way of going about it, but I don't see any non compliance.

its not a spur, its simply a radial part wired in 6mm and part wired in 2.5, with a switch at the join, and a double socket at the extreme point,

think a normal lighting circuit, with the last leg to the utility room wired in 1mm, its not a spur, just a different size cable,

common practice in com/ind to allow for volt drop, I wired lights in 4mm before now gradually dropping in size as permitted.

 

[brummydave]

Overloading what? What cable is 24A rated?

Overloading the circuit is what I meant. Thinking about it, if the cooker's pulling 27A and then 13A or more is being used on the double socket, then the 30A fuse should blow. So actually it could be seen to be fine. Just feels really wrong!

Beg your pardon, i meant 27A not 24A when refering to the 2.5mm TnE.

its not a spur, its simply a radial part wired in 6mm and part wired in 2.5, with a switch at the join, and a double socket at the extreme point, think a normal lighting circuit, with the last leg to the utility room wired in 1mm, its not a spur, just a different size cable, common practice in com/ind to allow for volt drop, I wired lights in 4mm before now gradually dropping in size as permitted.

The join is not at the switch, it's at the cooker. There's a 6mm from cooker control to cooker, and then a 2.5 out the back of the cooker itself.

That's why I suggested disconnecting the 2.5 and moving it to spur out from a nearby socket.

The reg I found was 433.2. " A device for protection against overload shall be installed at the point where a reduction occurs in the value of the current capacity of the conductors of the installation"

As there isn't such a device, it was my thought to suggest the twin socket feed be moved to a better location.

But then 433.2 also says that the device can be installed on the run. So you could argue that the socket outlet is that device protecting a conductor against overload as it ensures plugs fused at a maximum of 13A will be used. But that seems much more shaky ground.

Looking at appendix 15 I can see the idea of unfused spurs on lower capacity cable but these diagrams have anomalies anyway! Fig 15B shows spurs from spurs on radials when they're using identical cable. Now that's something I thought wasn't allowed. And the diagram goes against the text saying an "unfused spur should feed one single or twin socket outlet only".

Reminds me of my latest regs course where we found many contradictions in the big green book!

Oh and the situation is more complicated as the earth continuity to the cooker control unit is diabolical! I got a r1+r2 of 70Ohms, and a Zs of over 13!

As the place is earthed through steel conduit, it makes for interesting times.

 

[Andy™]

look at this an alternative way.

you have an electric hob and oven

you can put both into one cooker outlet.

but what saying is you pretty much cant add a socket for the oven, and hard wire the hob....which is something ive done many times in the past

and spurs from spurs are not allowed on rings, on a radial you can add anywhere your like if using the same size cable, or only to 1 point if using a smaller cable

 

[Goldspark]

If I had discovered this as part of an EICR I would recommend it as a C2 and recommend that the socket was rewired correctly.

Maybe C1 depending on the condition of the wiring installation, especially if it's a DIY job.

 

[sellers]

I had my NIC assesment last week. I showed him a hotel EICR as one of the jobs, and the main basis was over coding, and I try not to overcode after some of the rediculous reports I've seen.

I had to convince him that a C2 was justifiable on a double socket outlet that had one side not working. I coded a C3 for SWA's with no flyleads from the banjos. To which he replied, please could you find me where it specifies that in the regs?

 

[ADS]

If I had discovered this as part of an EICR I would recommend it as a C2 and recommend that the socket was rewired correctly.

Maybe C1 depending on the condition of the wiring installation, especially if it's a DIY job.

And what regulation would you quote to support these 'Codes'?