Spur off unused cooker socket

[JohnW2]

I would need to do a full risk assessment to give you an affirmative/ negative answer.

If one is simply talking about adding sockets to locations which already have sockets (or to low risk locations), you shouldn't need to do any assessment to get an answer - since, if usage doesn't change, then adding sockets (identically protected {or not} as existing ones) cannot, itself, increase risk.

It's like having the extravagant situation in which a household of N people (c.f. appliances to plug in) who share M identical cars (c.f. identical sockets), with M being greater than N. Since one person cannot drive more than one car at a time (c.f. one appliance can't be plugged into more than one socket at once) the risk of a crash/injury/whatever does not increase, no matter how much one increases 'M' (number of identical cars - c.f. number of identical sockets).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Risk assessment concerning trailing leads and trip hazards, pulling ones leg!
My analogy would be:
25 killers in your house,than add one making 26.
An increased risk of getting killed, what the increase would be, would be hard to determine, as you already have 25.

 

[JohnW2]

Risk assessment concerning trailing leads and trip hazards, pulling ones leg!

Fair enough - but, as I said, all the factors such as that which I can think of would result in (probably very slight) decreases in risk if one increased the number of (identically protected) sockets.

My analogy would be:
25 killers in your house, than add one making 26. An increased risk of getting killed, what the increase would be, would be hard to determine, as you already have 25.

That's not analogous to the socket situation - it would be more analagous to a situation in which there were 25 (or 26) exposed live conductors in a house! The point about the sockets is that, to all intents and purposes, they present zero risk except when something is plugged into them. So, if the number of things one has to plug in doesn't change (and if one doesn't alter one's 'usage patterns'), then increasing the total number of (identically protected) sockets does not increase risk - since it merely increases the number of unused (essentially 'zero risk') sockets at any particular time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Which is all very fine

but

the long discussion process that arrived at Amendment number 1 of BS7671(2008) considered, at considerable length, if small alterations needed to include the addition of RCD protection on the circuit(s) being altered..

In fact a version of the BGB was nearing completion which included the alteration of a series of regulations to exempt the installation of RCDs for minor works.

And this is what we are talking about here. A minor work.

In a late date final heated discussion, with input from many interested parties, it was decided to remove these amendments.

So. You are stuck with it.

BS7671(2008) with amendment 1 is where we are now.

Any new work must be carried out in accordance with the latest version of BS7671.

That latest version states that sockets in a domestic setting must be RCD protected.

There is no provision for what standards the rest of the installation has been installed to.

We all thump the virtual forum table and chant about the need for everyone to abide by BS7671.
Surely you aren't saying that we should turn a blind eye whenever it suits us?

 

[JohnW2]

In fact a version of the BGB was nearing completion which included the alteration of a series of regulations to exempt the installation of RCDs for minor works. ... And this is what we are talking about here. A minor work. ... So. You are stuck with it. ... That latest version states that sockets in a domestic setting must be RCD protected. There is no provision for what standards the rest of the installation has been installed to.

Essentially agreed. If there is a question, I suppose that it depends upon a definition of what constitutes a 'minor work'. Would you say, for example, that a like-for-like replacement of a damaged socket requires that RCD protection be added, if not already present? In a similar vein (since it's also been discussed in this thread), would you say that such a like-for-like socket replacement requires that all the cabling of the circuit be moved into safe zones, if it currently wasn't (and wasn't otherwise exempt)?

We all thump the virtual forum table and chant about the need for everyone to abide by BS7671.

Well some do. In any event, as you go on to say....

Surely you aren't saying that we should turn a blind eye whenever it suits us?

... and I agree that we shouldn't advise anyone to turn a blind eye to the regs. However, that doesn't stop us exploring ways in which it might be possible to interpret regs in a manner which is conducive with common sense, even if we fail!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Was just stirring the water a bit...

BGB defines Minor Works as

"Additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the addition of a new circuit"

So like-for-like replacement is not defined as a minor work.

Changing a cooker switch for a 13amp socket though....I would have said that's minor work.

 

[JohnW2]

Was just stirring the water a bit... BGB defines Minor Works as "Additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the addition of a new circuit" ... So like-for-like replacement is not defined as a minor work.

Yes, as you probably realised, I knew that - but was 'inviting' you tell me

Changing a cooker switch for a 13amp socket though....I would have said that's minor work.

That is the crunch question, and whether or not it is a 'minor work' (per BGB definition) obviously depends upon whether one regards it as an 'alteration'. As I implied early on in this thread, particularly if the cooker 'switch' incorporated a socket, I would probably think of it as a 'replacement', rather than an alteration. Would you regard, say, the replacement of a single socket with a double one as being a 'minor work'per BGB definition?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Whether particular work is 'minor' or not is really unimportant.

It has nothing to do with notification, merely the type of certificate.

An EIC could be issued for every job if you wished.


Also, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP SAYING LIKE FOR LIKE.

REPLACING a cooker outlet for a socket is just another accessory. It matters not.

 

[JohnW2]

Whether particular work is 'minor' or not is really unimportant. It has nothing to do with notification, merely the type of certificate.

I agree - but (at least until you introduced it!!), not a word has been written in this thread directly about notification, or 'notifiability'.

This issue of 'minor works' only arose because TTC seemed to be implying that 'a minor work' to a socket circuit required it to be brought up to current requirements as regards RCD protection (the implication seemingly being that if it were not a 'minor work' that there may then not be that requirement).

Whether
Also, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP SAYING LIKE FOR LIKE.

I refuse I mentioned 'like-for-like' deliberately and specifically because I was probing TTC as to what he would, and would not, regard as a minor work. 'Like-for-like' was important to that probing.

REPLACING a cooker outlet for a socket is just another accessory. It matters not.

Is that really true in terms of this discussion? Two questions relating to a circuit which currently has no RCD protection:
(a)...If you replaced a (say, damaged) socket, on a like-for-like (yes!) basis, would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?
(b)...If you replaced an accessory on the circuit with one of a different type (e.g. replacing cooker switch/socket with a double socket), would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Whether particular work is 'minor' or not is really unimportant. It has nothing to do with notification, merely the type of certificate.

I agree - but (at least until you introduced it!!), not a word has been written in this thread directly about notification, or 'notifiability'.

I know but that is the usual follow-on when discussing minor work or not.

This issue of 'minor works' only arose because TTC seemed to be implying that 'a minor work' to a socket circuit required it to be brought up to current requirements as regards RCD protection (the implication seemingly being that if it were not a 'minor work' that there would then not be that requirement).I mentioned 'like-for-like' deliberately and specifically because I was probing TTC as to what he would, and would not, regard as a minor work. 'Like-for-like' was important to that probing.

Does that mean it is thought that there is something less than minor work?

I would always check the circuit so just as well issue an EIMWC.

REPLACING a cooker outlet for a socket is just another accessory. It matters not.

Is that really true in terms of this discussion? Two questions relating to a circuit which currently has no RCD protection:
(a)...If you replaced a (say, damaged) socket, on a like-for-like (yes!) basis, would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?

Definitely not.

(b)...If you replaced an accessory on the circuit with one of a different type (e.g. replacing cooker switch/socket with a double socket), would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?

No, but as in the OP a spur continued from this would, if required by installation method, need RCD protection for the new cable which I had installed.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree - but (at least until you introduced it!!), not a word has been written in this thread directly about notification, or 'notifiability'.

I know but that is the usual follow-on when discussing minor work or not.

Maybe - but 'let the record show' that 'twas you who introduced this issue into the discussion, not anyone else

Does that mean it is thought that there is something less than minor work?

That was precisely the question I was probing (or leading up to), when I deliberately mentioned 'like-for-like replacement to TTC.

I would always check the circuit so just as well issue an EIMWC.

That makes sense. If you didn't I'm not sure what you would use to document what you'd done, and the state of the associated circuit.

Two questions relating to a circuit which currently has no RCD protection: (a)...If you replaced a (say, damaged) socket, on a like-for-like (yes!) basis, would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?

Definitely not.

(b)...If you replaced an accessory on the circuit with one of a different type (e.g. replacing cooker switch/socket with a double socket), would you feel that the regs required you to add RCD protection to the circuit?

No,

Fair enough - so you appear to be agreeing with me? !

but as in the OP a spur continued from this would, if required by installation method, need RCD protection for the new cable which I had installed.

I agree that adding a 'spur' would invoke the need for RCD protection. However, if you look at the OP, you'll see that (despite the thread title), a 'spur' (really an extension, given we presume we're talking about a radial circuit) was not the OP's favoured option - so, when we told him that his 'even better' option of simply changing the cooker thingy to a double socket was OK, I presume he will have given up thoughts of 'spurs'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I obviously have not read this thread carefully enough.

Sorry.

 

[JohnW2]

I obviously have not read this thread carefully enough. Sorry.

I suggest that you retract that apology because, looking back, I think the rest of us may have misread it!! The OP actually wrote:

My dining room used to be a kitchen and in one corner is a cooker socket/outlet plate. On the consumer unit it is labelled up as a 30A. Can I take a spur off this for a new double socket ? Even better would be to also change the cooker socket for a normal double if that is possible

I think that we all (certainly me) missed that 'also'...

To the OP ... whilst people seem agreed that you could change the existing cooker switch to a double socket without having to add RCD protection (if you don't already have it), if you also added a 'spur' to an further socket, that would constitute 'extending the circuit', in which case RCD protection would be required.

The silly thing, of course, is that all this extensive discussion about RCD protection has taken place without the OP having yet told us whether or not the circuit is already RCD protected. If it is, then most of the discussion here (interesting though it has been) becomes rather moot!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

That's not analogous to the socket situation -

Maybe not the situation, but as far as the percentage of the increased risk I would say it is. As the increased risk is hard to define. But there is one, as there is an extra socket outlet that will increase the risk.
If you said there were no socket outlets at all, then the risk would be zero.
As soon as you introduce an outlet the risk would increase, as it will for each one you add. Fair enough the usage, location and equipment and condition will have a bearing on any calculations.
But there is nothing to rule out, that this socket is going to be used for additional equipment not already in normal use or connected to an outside appliance, such as a power washer.
So it is hard to calculate any additional risk.
If the socket was never used, does that mean it will offer no potential risk at all ever?

 

[securespark]

You could argue that, having changed the switch for a socket, it ought to be an SRCD, because you have now altered the installation to allow plug-in appliances.