Convert or blank off 2 gang socket.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Were it me, then I would look at making a custom piece of sheet metal, to fit in place at the left hand side, fixed on the left hand lug, with a 3.5mm threaded hole made in the plate, where the left hand fixing would be needed for a single socket. Then simply plaster over the left side of the original socket, and the plate.

 

[plugwash]

Off the top of my head, I can't think what reg (apart from very general ones) that would contravene, but ut certainly wouldn't be a very clever idea.

Whether it's a socket or a blank plate, it brings us back to the old "how inaccessible is inaccessible" discussion.

It's a shame that BS7671 only recognises spring type terminals as suitable for inaccessible use when part of a "maintaince free junction box" and not when in a generic box. Especially as to my mind an enclosure with a metal-back and a theremosetting front is safer than one made entirely out of thermoplastic (as all the MF junction boxes seem to be).

 

[plugwash]

[double post deleted]

 

[john4703]

Change the back box from a twin to a dual. Fit a blank plate over the left side and a single socket on the right. You would possibly need a hole in the cabinet for access if there is a joint needed behind the blank plate. This will involve some cutting out of the wall as a dual box is slightly wider than a trin.

 

[JohnW2]

Change the back box from a twin to a dual. Fit a blank plate over the left side and a single socket on the right. You would possibly need a hole in the cabinet for access if there is a joint needed behind the blank plate. This will involve some cutting out of the wall as a dual box is slightly wider than a trin.

Indeed - but, as I wrote, I suspect that that at least part of that blank plate would be behind the vertical side rail of the kitchen unit, rendering it impractical to cut it away enough to make the blank plate removable. However, as I said, if (as is likely) the cable needs to be extended behind that blank plate, I think the joint would qualify as "non accessible". As I wrote, some sort of 'MF' joint (e.g. crimped or soldered) would therefore (strictly speaking) be necessary - but that's far from impossible.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

However, as I said, if (as is likely) the cable needs to be extended behind that blank plate, I think the joint would qualify as "non accessible". As I wrote, some sort of 'MF' joint (e.g. crimped or soldered) would therefore (strictly speaking) be necessary - but that's far from impossible.

We don't even know yet, exactly where the cables presently enter the back box. From memory - those double boxes used to offer two entries at one side, one at the opposite side. If the cables enter through the side with two entries, and the one used is the right hand one, there might not be any need for joints..

Perhaps the OP could investigate, and advise?

 

[ebee]

I think it is also possible with some metal boxes that they do not also follow the same format of the others in tge two at one side and one at the other side respect too.
Much the same way that loop in ceiling roses are sometimes LH to RH terminal strips compared to others or two way switches are Com, L1, L2 and some are L1, L2 ,L3 and some of tge com, l1, l2 ones are com, l1for one way switching and others are com, l2 instead. Looking at the backs of sockets for L & N terminals can have similar problems as well.

 

[JohnW2]

Whether it's a socket or a blank plate, it brings us back to the old "how inaccessible is inaccessible" discussion.

Quite so.

It's a shame that BS7671 only recognises spring type terminals as suitable for inaccessible use when part of a "maintaince free junction box" and not when in a generic box. Especially as to my mind an enclosure with a metal-back and a theremosetting front is safer than one made entirely out of thermoplastic (as all the MF junction boxes seem to be).

I agree that it's daft. Like you, I cannot see any problem if the connectors are used within an earthed metal or hard plastic enclosure, and with some sort of strain relief.

However, it's not BS7671 itself that says that spring-type terminals are only acceptable when in a "MF Junction Box" - it will seem to accept any terminals that are deemed by manufacturer and/or the relevant Standard to be "maintenance free". I pointed out earlier that crimped or soldered connections are also acceptable as 'MF' - and an electrician might well take that approach if they wanted to strictly adhere to regs.

 

[JohnW2]

We don't even know yet, exactly where the cables presently enter the back box. From memory - those double boxes used to offer two entries at one side, one at the opposite side. If the cables enter through the side with two entries, and the one used is the right hand one, there might not be any need for joints..

Indeed. Back in post #5 I made the point that the exercise might well be easier (and certainly in terms of 'safe' zones, if the cable enters dfrom the side. Of course, the easiest situation of all would be if the cable enters from the right-0hand side, but that's pretty unlikely!