Remedy for daisy chained sockets off ring finals and comments on report.

As in spurs from spurs?

Usual fix is to insert a FCU somewhere between the ring and 1st spurred socket.

   - Andy.

Down-rating to a B20 for each affected circuit is fine. I can't see any justification for any code. After all, it could just be a radial which had inadvertently been cross connected into a ring! Ideally, a FCU could do the job, but how many customers will pay for the extra time taken in determining which socket is the 1st off the ring? Especially if the connection is under a floorboard somewhere. 20 A is a significant amount of current in a domestic environment so the loss of 12A capacity isn't really a dealbreaker to me.

This is non-compliant but is it potentially dangerous? Perhaps one of you may care to say why this is simply not given a C3, particularly in view of Bills comment above this one? You will need some calculation in your reply, which I would expect the inspector to do!

Withe the B20 it is perfectly compliant, arguably over-designed . I suspect with a B32 the load is not an issue in many cases - but it rather depends how much load is on one spur,  and the cable routes in terms of thermals and grouping, rather than the no. of sockets. 

mike.

Thanks for all the replies.So is the consensus,that if a remedy such as a fused spur or reduction

in the mcb is used,a comment on the report is in order for future inspectors but no C3?

                                                                                                                  Regards,

                                                                                                                              Hz

If say a FCU is used on each and every spur that feeds more than one point, it seems entirely compliant to me - so I don't see the need for any comment (provided 13A is suitable for the loads on each spur).

20A MCB on a ring would similarly be OK if the reduced capacity was still suitable for the loads - if it fed a kitchen as well as half the rest of the house sort of thing I might not be happy with that.  I think the old regs used to suggest 50m2 for a 20A radial rather than 100m2 for a 30A ring - but kitchens/utility rooms and the like can reduce those figures. But if all's well again no comment for me.

    - Andy.

This is strange, no one has answered my point, I wonder why not? I will give a clue, what is the potential risk, as an actual number, if the B32 remains? Please explain why you would go beyond an inspection and start modifying the installation? What should you check?

Did anybody say C2?

It all depends upon what is likely to be plugged in. You wouldn't want a washing machine, tumble drier, and dishwasher all on a 2.5 sqmm spur although I must admit that diversity might well take care of an overload.

It has to be at least a C3 for non-compliance, so what is the recommended improvement? A downgrade of the MCB hardly costs much - a few minutes labour and a fiver for each MCB. Only a Yorkshireman would baulk at the cost.

Going back to the OP, if you make a recommendation, that's a C3; but if you put it into effect, that's nothing at all.

On testing the kitchen ring final,it was found that 4 of the 8 twin sockets were daisy chained off the cct.The tenant said he had done the work himself before the kitchen was tiled and laminate floor laid.It was decided, because of the potential loads to reduce the mcb to protect the cables.

Regards,hz