Removing a socket from a ring main

[JohnW2]

Hello Andy - if you're still there and not lost the will to live with all these side bar discussions. Last I read we were heading for outer space with NASA.

You can blame EFLI and stillp for having raised the (known to be contentious) issue of crimping solid conductors - particularly given that it is clear that the OP doesn't intend to use crimps!

..... put a blank plate on where the socket was. Job done.

Indeed, and...

Indeed. That's fine. If you just use a blanking plate, the connections remain 'accessible', so any Wagos (provided they have adequate current rating and are appropriate for size of cable) are fine - they don't need to be 'maintenance-free'

I would speak to the installers again. Explain the predicament regarding the safe zone and ask them if a blanking plate is acceptable. If it is then use appropriately sized Wago or connector strips or whatever to continue the ring final circuit.

I agree, although I fear that the installers would (for fairly obvious reasons) probably decline to express an opinion about the safe zone issue. The more important question (which is partially implicit in asking about the blanking plate approach) is whether it is acceptable to leave the wiring in place in the vicinity of the stove.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

If you just use a blanking plate, the connections remain 'accessible', so any Wagos (provided they have adequate current rating and are appropriate for size of cable) are fine - they don't need to be 'maintenance-free'

How will they be 'accessible' with a socking great stove in front of the blanking plate?

 

[JohnW2]

If you just use a blanking plate, the connections remain 'accessible', so any Wagos (provided they have adequate current rating and are appropriate for size of cable) are fine - they don't need to be 'maintenance-free'

How will they be 'accessible' with a socking great stove in front of the blanking plate?

You could be right. I think I (and others) may have made the mistake of assuming that there would be enough space between the stove and wall for the connections (behind a blank plate) to be accessible, even though a socket there would not be 'usable'.

If the back of the stove is indeed very close to the wall, then even a blanking plate (regardless of what's behind it) might well not be acceptable - and, indeed, the OP's stud wall might then be in danger as well. There's no doubt that totally removing the wiring would be the most desirable way to go.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

I'm not sure it is clear how the wiring currently runs.
The OP talked about the possibility of it coming down from the ceiling void.
Thinking, slightly outside the box, the OP could connect the cables of the 'naughty' socket together and remove it altogether. Fill in the hole etc.
Then somewhere else along the safe zone put a single blanking plate to indicate cables were present.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even if there's no risk from heat whatsoever - we're talking here about a wood-burning range cooker. It's large, and heavy and needs a flue. It is a permanent fixture, and it will obscure a blanking plate as much as it will a socket.

With no visible accessory, I maintain that there is no safe zone for any cables, so removal of them is not just desirable, it is essential.

 

[JohnW2]

With no visible accessory, I maintain that there is no safe zone for any cables, so removal of them is not just desirable, it is essential.

If the accessory would not be visible, then I totally agree. However, I'm not clear as to whetherthat would be the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

How could it be visible with a stove in front of it?

 

[JohnW2]

Thinking, slightly outside the box, the OP could connect the cables of the 'naughty' socket together and remove it altogether. Fill in the hole etc.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Connecting the cables together is obviously what the OP intends to do (with his Wagos or whatever), but where (and how) are you suggesting that they should be connected together before the hole is filled in?

Then somewhere else along the safe zone put a single blanking plate to indicate cables were present.

We've been through this one before. Just installing a ('dummy') blanking plate is seemingly not enough to create a safe zone. The requirement is that the cable must be 'connected' to the accessory - so, at the least, one would have a join in one of the cables behind the plate. I used to think this was 'silly', until someone pointed out that, without the requirement for the cable to be 'connected', the accessory (be it a blanking plate or a real one) could be subsequently removed, leaving the cable in place, but no longer in a safe zone.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

How could it be visible with a stove in front of it?

As per my previous comments, it depends on how far the stove is from the wall (and how it is positioned relative to the stove).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

without the requirement for the cable to be 'connected', the accessory (be it a blanking plate or a real one) could be subsequently removed, leaving the cable in place, but no longer in a safe zone.

How would a JB (of any type) behind the plate prevent it being removed?

 

[JohnW2]

without the requirement for the cable to be 'connected', the accessory (be it a blanking plate or a real one) could be subsequently removed, leaving the cable in place, but no longer in a safe zone.

How would a JB (of any type) behind the plate prevent it being removed?

[I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because, as I said, it was others who persuaded me, fairly recently, that this was the case]
Well, it certainly makes it much more difficult. If there are cable terminations behind the blanking plate which one has removed, one certainly has to do something (other than leaving those terminations exposed). One could, admittedly crimp the joints or use an MF JB and then 'bury' it. However, what I was persuaded was that the requirement of the regs prevents one having intact cables simply 'passing behind' a blanking plate (or other accessory), whether in a back box or otherwise, in which case could simply remove the plate or accessory and make good as necessary, leaving the cable buried not in a safe zone.

Do I take it that you disagree with this, and take my previously-held view that an accessory or blank plate creates a safe zone even if there are no connections behind/to it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So are you saying that a MF JB behind a blanking plate doesn't create a safe zone, as the plate could be removed?

 

[JohnW2]

So are you saying that a MF JB behind a blanking plate doesn't create a safe zone, as the plate could be removed?

As I said, it's not 'me' (I'm just the 'DA'), so I don't think it's necessarily fair to throw these hypothetical cases at me! I doubt that many of 'them' would argue that the plate didn't create a safe zone, even if the connections behind it were within an MF JB - although I agree that it would then theoretically be easy for someone to remove the plate and 'plaster in' the JB. Mind you, I haven't (yet!) heard of anyone 'plastering in' an MF JB - and your example (itself a 'DA' proposal, I would say!) is very hypothetical, becasue I doubt that anyone would bother to use an MF JB in the situation you describe.

Whatever, returning to the more realistic situation (i.e. no MF JB) 'they' correctly point out that 522.6.101 says that a safe zone is created if a cable is connected to a "point, accessory or switchgear" on the surface of a wall or partition. Do you feel that an intact cable 'passing behind' an accessory or plate qualifies as being 'connected' to it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Electrically? No. But then we seem to have established that that is of no value.

Topologically? Yes. And that seems to be the whole point.

 

[JohnW2]

Electrically? No. But then we seem to have established that that is of no value.

[DA mode]But when the Wiring Regulations talk about an (electrical) cable being 'connected' to something, is it no reasonable to assume that they are talking about an electrical connection? [/DA mode]

Topologically? Yes. And that seems to be the whole point.

So, as I asked, what does this all mean in terms of your view/interpretation? Do you, as it seems, hold my 'previous view' that one can create a safe zone simply by attaching a blank plate to a wall, over the route of a buried cable (running horizontally or vertically) that would otherwise not be in a safe zone?

Kind Regards, John