Removal of 13A sockets

[RickH]

Need to remove some double sockets in a kitchen due to rearrangement of where appliances are - some have to go.

So looking for a neat solution that I can terminate (to keep ring cointinuity) withion the existing back box (dry wall boxes)
Will be classed as inaccessible, will then make the drywall hole good.(will be behind new glass decor panels)
Thinking off something like:
https://www.screwfix.com/p/debox-4-5-junction-box-32a/970gv


Or possibly I thought of WAGO connectors
There is a box ...
https://www.screwfix.com/p/wagobox-junction-box/7355f?_requestid=494771

Can that take 3 seperate WAGO connectors ?.... https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/WA173.html

Or please suggest if a simpler way.

 

[conny]

Bear in mind if you are leaving live cables in a wall and removing the accessories they attach to, (13A socket outlets), you need to make sure that the cable runs are identifiable once the kitchen is completed. If you obliterate all traces then someone may decide to drill the wall thinking there is no danger and BANG! Somebody wonders why they have hit a cable when there doesn't appear to be any outlets/appliances in the vicinity.

 

[RickH]

There is a horizontal run of sockets ....reft & right hand side ones remaining, but faie comment ... I'll also put in a nail protector plate on top of junction box.

 

[PJD65]

Sounds very sensible.

No replies as nothing for anyone to be angry about?

 

[JohnW2]

There is a horizontal run of sockets ....reft & right hand side ones remaining, but faie comment ... I'll also put in a nail protector plate on top of junction box.

If all the buried cable will be within 'safe zones' created by the remaining sockets (i.e. 'in line' with the sockets), then that's fine from that point of view. However, 'inaccessible' joints in cables created by using screwed terminals (e.g. in connector blocks) are not acceptable - inaccessible joints have to either be achieved using 'maintenance-free' junction boxes or with joining methods such as crimps or soldering. Putting a 'nail protector plate' over the joint would not alter those requirements.

All new cables buried in walls now need to be RCD-protected. Whilst that regulation is fairly new and not retrospective (therefore does not apply to existing circuits), there would probably be debate as to whether the changes you are making to the circuit would be enough to invoke the need for RCD protection (if you don't already have it). However, the circuit might well already have such protection, hence no problem.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Simon35]

There is a horizontal run of sockets ....reft & right hand side ones remaining, but faie comment ... I'll also put in a nail protector plate on top of junction box.

Not sure I would bother with a nail protection plate under a glass decor panel.

 

[RickH]

I am going to use junction boxes that state they meet 'inacessible' rating ... these are non-screwed, uaing push fit wago connectors and correct cable restraint.
Interseting I built house and used plenty of junction boxes (particulalry on lighting) with screws .... assume all would now not meet 17th Edition requirements.

 

[JohnW2]

I am going to use junction boxes that state they meet 'inacessible' rating ... these are non-screwed, uaing push fit wago connectors and correct cable restraint.

Wago connectors are only acceptable (compliant with regulations) for inaccessible joints if they are in a WagoBox - and I don't see how you would get one of those in a backbox behind where a socket used to be.

Interseting I built house and used plenty of junction boxes (particulalry on lighting) with screws .... assume all would now not meet 17th Edition requirements.

As you say, not compliant with amended 17th or 18th ed. regulations IF they were 'inaccessible'. However, as I'm sure you know, there are countless millions of them in service 'out there', many of which have been in service for decades.

I do wonder however, given the work you are doing, why you don't "do it properly" by chasing the wall and installing a new short length of cable between the two adjacent remaining sockets? There would then be no inaccessible joints to worry about.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

.
Interseting I built house and used plenty of junction boxes (particulalry on lighting)

Why?

 

[RickH]

Because it made sense to me. Lighting circuits wired that way - reliable and logical.

 

[RickH]

Wago connectors are only acceptable (compliant with regulations) for inaccessible joints if they are in a WagoBox - and I don't see how you would get one of those in a backbox behind where a socket used to be.
As you say, not compliant with amended 17th or 18th ed. regulations IF they were 'inaccessible'. However, as I'm sure you know, there are countless millions of them in service 'out there', many of which have been in service for decades.

I do wonder however, given the work you are doing, why you don't "do it properly" by chasing the wall and installing a new short length of cable between the two adjacent remaining sockets? There would then be no inaccessible joints to worry about.

I appreciate your comments ... house was wired when 16th Edition was in force. (1999)
This is Fermacell clad framed not plaster & brick ..... cutting a channel in boards would weaken racking strength, and making good would be a lot of effort for no gain in functionality.
I will use 40A Wago box & connectors.

 

[JohnW2]

I appreciate your comments ... house was wired when 16th Edition was in force. (1999)

OK - but when the house was wired, and under what regulations, does not alter the fact that a new inaccessible joint created in 2019 has to comply with the 18th ed. regulations.

This is Fermacell clad framed not plaster & brick ..... cutting a channel in boards would weaken racking strength, and making good would be a lot of effort for no gain in functionality. ... I will use 40A Wago box & connectors.

Appropriate Wago connectors in a WagoBox would be reg-compliant, but I'm a bit confused, since what you originally wrote was "...I can terminate (to keep ring cointinuity) withion the existing back box (dry wall boxes)..."

Exactly where will this WagoBox be (it won't fit in a 'dry wall box'), and where/how are the cables currently between the sockets routed?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RickH]

I was going to terminate within the back box ... but will instead remove the back box (plastic drywall box) and put a Wago box in the void.

 

[JohnW2]

I was going to terminate within the back box ... but will instead remove the back box (plastic drywall box) and put a Wago box in the void.

Fair enough. However, as I asked, how are the cables between sockets currently routed - are they perhaps just 'loose in the void'? If they are, I wouldn't have expected it to be too difficult to install a new bit of cable between the two sockets on either side of the one being taken out of service.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RickH]

Clipped to studs
The problem is the vertical studs between the run ..... can't get in with a drill to put a hole through ... or I would