Trailing Socket?

[JohnW2]

This is really silly. If a wire comes loose while you are pushing an accessory into a back box, it is because you didn't make the connection correctly, and you didn't give it a good tug, which should put way more 'strain' on the wire as a deliberate test. If you did do it properly then this is the last time it will be strained for a long time.

Exactly - as I said, very silly.

It must be evident that this is outside the scope of the quoted regulations. Sometimes people seem obsessed with trivia. The regulations book is not really a bible, just a best effort by a random group of self interested 'experts'. It really doesn't bear this detailed analysis.

Quite so. It was BAS and plugwash who introduced this 'silliness', not me. I suspect that even they would agree that (returning to the context of what started all this) 'loose' T+E entering a back box (bearing a socket) lying loose under a kitchen unit does come within the scope of 526.6 (I would say rightly so, even though the connection would usually be very rarely stressed in that location) - and that's what matters to this thread - but all this talk about pushing accessories into back boxes is, as both of us have said, just plain silly.

I only pointed out (for the 'obsessive') that the regulation made no exception of the 'pushing into back box situation' since BAS appeared to be implying that the 'trailing pattress box without strain relief' would not contravene the regulation if pushing an accessory into a back box didn't - either that or his comment was (in context) just argumentative irrelevance!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Garycan]

I finally got round to having a closer look and took some pictures . It’s not as bad as it seemed at first although still not ideal. I t’s difficult to access as you have to pull the washing machine out. Ideally I’d have it fixed to a wall with a switch at counter level. [GALLERY=media, 101880]66F625A6-EE3C-4E85-9B17-681F3DA53F6B by Garycan posted 13 Sep 2018 at 5:33 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Garycan]

[GALLERY=media, 101879]D179FF94-4801-47A9-BA34-26F93CF2081F by Garycan posted 13 Sep 2018 at 5:33 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[JohnW2]

I finally got round to having a closer look and took some pictures . It’s not as bad as it seemed at first although still not ideal. I t’s difficult to access as you have to pull the washing machine out. Ideally I’d have it fixed to a wall with a switch at counter level.

As has been said before ( forget by whom), it would only need a couple of short woodscrews to fix the box to the floorboards (assuming that's what you have!) and a few cable clips to clip the cables also to the floor, and then you would have fully satisfied the regulation that people have been getting excited about - and, apart from perhaps the 'catch all' regularion about 'good workmanship' (which is obviously a 'matter of opiunion'), I don't think it would significantly violate any other regs, either.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Exactly - as I said, very silly.

No, just not the same as you believe.

Quite so. It was BAS and plugwash who introduced this 'silliness', not me. I suspect that even they would agree that (returning to the context of what started all this) 'loose' T+E entering a back box (bearing a socket) lying loose under a kitchen unit does come within the scope of 526.6 (I would say rightly so, even though the connection would usually be very rarely stressed in that location) - and that's what matters to this thread - but all this talk about pushing accessories into back boxes is, as both of us have said, just plain silly.

I only pointed out (for the 'obsessive') that the regulation made no exception of the 'pushing into back box situation' since BAS appeared to be implying that the 'trailing pattress box without strain relief' would not contravene the regulation if pushing an accessory into a back box didn't - either that or his comment was (in context) just argumentative irrelevance!

So much for "I'm out".

You really are getting extraordinarily bent out of shape over the fact that someone disagrees with your position. First, contradicting you is "arguing for the sake of it", then the alternative view to yours is"plain silly".

How about this - the acts of tugging on conductors, pushing accessories into place etc do not result in appreciable mechanical strain on the connections of conductors.

[ASIDE]Shouldn't that be either "stress on", or "strain in/of"?[/ASIDE]​

And neither does having a trailing socket as described lying motionless on the floor under a kitchen cupboard.

I wonder how many people think it ridiculous to read a document like the Wiring Regulations and assume that technical terms are used correctly.

526.6   There shall be no appreciable physical deformation of the connections of conductors.

I do not believe that the socket as described contravenes 526.6. It is not "plain silly" to believe this - it is just not what you believe. It is not "arguing for the sake of it" to say so - it's just contrary to what you say.

 

[Garycan]

My worry was that as most of these sockets are designed to be fixed and as a result most don’t have cord grips so felxation would happen at the connection. This flexation at the joint over time could for example cause it to loosen which could cause more resistance and therefore heat which could make it a potential fire risk. It gets flexed more often than people would think and is close to vibrations from the machine. I am also concerned that it is placed on a floor in a kitchen next to pipes, near a boiler, sink and directly next to the washing machine all of which have leaked in the past. It doesn’t seem a safe place to be when the kitchen floor is flooded. The only way to get to the socket is to pull the washing machine out (which happens more often than you’d think.) and pull the skirting off. The only way to turn the socket off quickly would be to run to the main consumer unit and turn the power off there.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It gets flexed more often than people would think

How?

and is close to vibrations from the machine.

Vibrations so intense that they are transmitted through the floor and remain intense enough to damage conductors or loosen screws?

I am also concerned that it is placed on a floor in a kitchen next to pipes, near a boiler, sink and directly next to the washing machine all of which have leaked in the past.

A real concern, but not one which has anything to do with stress on connections.

The only way to get to the socket is to pull the washing machine out (which happens more often than you’d think.) and pull the skirting off. The only way to turn the socket off quickly would be to run to the main consumer unit and turn the power off there.

Ditto.

 

[JohnW2]

My worry was that as most of these sockets are designed to be fixed and as a result most don’t have cord grips so felxation would happen at the connection.....

That is, of course, the issue (and associated regulation) which has been discussed at length here. I doubt that even others who are arguing (about other situations) would deny that, in your situation, for this very reason the regulation would require a cord grip or some other means of 'restraint' (e.g. as has been suggested, attaching box box and cables to the floor).

I am also concerned that it is placed on a floor in a kitchen next to pipes, near a boiler, sink and directly next to the washing machine all of which have leaked in the past. It doesn’t seem a safe place to be when the kitchen floor is flooded.

As has been said, that is a legitimate concern, but bear in mind that there are countless kitchens out there in which an electrical socket or switch is in 'the line of fire' of leaks from sinks, sink wastes, plumbing connections etc. Also bear in mind that, particularly if you have RCD protection in your CU, even if it did 'happen', the chances of anyone or anything coming to harm as a result would be incredibly small.

The only way to get to the socket is to pull the washing machine out (which happens more often than you’d think.) and pull the skirting off. The only way to turn the socket off quickly would be to run to the main consumer unit and turn the power off there.

That is also a different issue. Although the regulations do not require any means of switching/isolation other than at the CU, many people seem to like to have a 'local' accessible 'emergency switch'. If you are such a person, where would you prefer the socket to be - visible and 'accessible' on the kitchen wall?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Garycan]

John I prefer it if it were attached to the wall and the cable tacked down with an switch on the wall at counter level. That would be the ideal. But as long as it’s safe enough I’m happy. I do know our system is not the most modern but it does have rcds etc but I would still prefer not to rely on them 100%.
Thank for your and everyone’s advice

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I doubt that even others who are arguing (about other situations) would deny that, in your situation, for this very reason the regulation would require a cord grip or some other means of 'restraint' (e.g. as has been suggested, attaching box box and cables to the floor).

If I point out that not one single person has even attempted to show how the connections/conductors in the OP's socket would undergo appreciable physical deformation because of the lack of any such restraints, will you accuse me of arguing for the sake of it, or of being silly?

 

[Garycan]

My argument is a simple one. The connection inside the socket is designed to be an electrical connection and is not designed to be the flexation point for the entire cable. These boxes are not designed that way. They do not have chord grips. They are designed to be in a fixed position where they will not be flexed. Having an instillation where the connection joint taking the entire strain of tugging and flexation etc where it’s not designed to could result in it becoming loose when put under strain it’s not designed to be under resulting in things like increased resistance. Which results in heat which is not a good thing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but...

But....

But.....

Having an instillation where the connection joint taking the entire strain of tugging and flexation etc where it’s not designed to could result in it becoming loose when put under strain it’s not designed to be under resulting in things like increased resistance. Which results in heat which is not a good thing.

What tugging and flexation (sic)?

 

[Garycan]

The tugging and flexation through Generel use. This is the basics. Anybody who doesn’t know this shouldn’t even be wiring a plug let alone a plug socket.
I remember the last time I installed an electrical cooker. It had a cord grip in the back of it. It gets moved around a lot less than my washing machine ever has. Yet they saw fit to give it one. Why because the electrical joint is not designed to be the flexation point for the entire cable. Allowing it to do so could is a petental hazard. It’s basic stuff.

 

[JohnW2]

John I prefer it if it were attached to the wall and the cable tacked down with an switch on the wall at counter level. That would be the ideal.

That's a common way of doing it (but an approach with others find aesthetically undesirable), but there will usually still be an (unswitched) socket below counter level (to plug the appliance into - controlled by the above-counter switch), which will often be at theoretical risk of being affected by water leaks. Furthermore, if that socket were (like your present one) just lying on the floor, then all the same discussion/arguments (as above) would obviously also still apply.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BTW - I completely agree that it should not have been done like that, and that it contravenes the regulations.

But I think all those who invoke the requirement of 526.6 (or 522.8.5) are barking up the wrong tree(s).