Condition of enclosures in terms of fire rating

[LVSparks]

My understanding is that a plastic consumer unit need only be coded a C3 if its mounted under a wooden staircase or in the sole means of escape in a domestic property.
A C2 would be given for the above situations if thermal damage, poor connections etc within the unit is found to be present.
Otherwise its not mentioned in the observation section.

Correct me if im wrong, but ive read this on the electrical safety first website and given advice by NICEIC help line.

So when it comes to the tick sheet and you have a plastic consumer unit which does not require a code, what do you put in the tick box under consumer unit section - for condition of enclosures in terms of fire rating. Bearing in mind it may not of required coding.
Tick, X, NA ???

 

[davesparks]

If there is no observation to be made and it is satisfactory then rock the box.
I'd be interested to know which regulation you are referencing when you say that under a staircase it would be a C3? As far as I can remember the regulations make no distinction as to the location of a CU.

 

[rich.250]

It doesn't comply with current regulations which you will be testing it too, so needs to be a
code 3. That doesn't by any means mean it is unsatisfactory.
This has nothing to do with staircases!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LVSparks]

If there is no observation to be made and it is satisfactory then rock the box.
I'd be interested to know which regulation you are referencing when you say that under a staircase it would be a C3? As far as I can remember the regulations make no distinction as to the location of a CU.

I knew the right answer, I guess I was just after some confirmation.
I couldn't tell you which regs they were quoting.

 

[LVSparks]

It doesn't comply with current regulations which you will be testing it too, so needs to be a
code 3. That doesn't by any means mean it is unsatisfactory.
This has nothing to do with staircases!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why have you given a C3.

 

[Octopus]

If there is no observation to be made and it is satisfactory then rock the box.
I'd be interested to know which regulation you are referencing when you say that under a staircase it would be a C3? As far as I can remember the regulations make no distinction as to the location of a CU.

Spot on.

But..... :

http://www.----------------------------/mediafile/100404922/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4.pdf

Page 15 suggests the C3

but as you correctly sum up its not in the regs......

 

[rich.250]

So why have you given a C3.

Because anything that doesn't comply with the latest standard should be recorded as a code 3.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[davesparks]

Because anything that doesn't comply with the latest standard should be recorded as a code 3.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they shouldn't, a C3 is only to be given where an improvement is recommended for safety rather than just blind compliance.

If you were to code everything which does not comply with the current bs7671 then you would have to code things like old wiring colours, solid green earth sleeving, unsleeved switch lines, imperial cable sizes, installations without an original installation certificate, etc etc

 

[Risteard]

Because anything that doesn't comply with the latest standard should be recorded as a code 3.....

Not strictly true. Where you do not believe that it could give rise to any danger then no observation should be made. Just because it is non-compliant does not require it to be coded.

However, given the very real risk of fire (with obvious potential for death) from these distribution boards - which has led to the new Regulation - it would be pretty foolish to state that there is no potential for danger with a combustible distribution board in a domestic dwelling.

 

[gutterball]

The regulations are not retrospective. Therefore if it complied with a previous edition of the regulations, and is not unsafe for continued use it is not coded. This is why an in depth understanding of previous editions of the regulations is essential for anyone carrying out EICR's.

 

[Octopus]

The regulations are not retrospective. Therefore if it complied with a previous edition of the regulations, and is not unsafe for continued use it is not coded. This is why an in depth understanding of previous editions of the regulations is essential for anyone carrying out EICR's.

So how do the ESC justify the C3 then for the "old" CU's under wooden stairs?

Just wondering!

 

[gutterball]

They are not the ones that make the regs, they just think they are. The under the stairs therefor it's unsafe, is probably part of the fire brigades all plastic consumer units are unsafe message. Are we to start ripping out perfectly usable consumer units just because they are plastic? It's the same with RCD's. The NIC-EIC inspector told me anything without a RCD to protect the downstairs sockets, was a code 2 as you could plug something in and use it outdoors.

 

[Octopus]

They are not the ones that make the regs, they just think they are. The under the stairs therefor it's unsafe, is probably part of the fire brigades all plastic consumer units are unsafe message. Are we to start ripping out perfectly usable consumer units just because they are plastic? It's the same with RCD's. The NIC-EIC inspector told me anything without a RCD to protect the downstairs sockets, was a code 2 as you could plug something in and use it outdoors.

Precisely!

Given that BEAMA were in on the decision making, its no wonder that "poor" workmanship carried the can - rather than crxp products.

 

[pcam1984]

I think it's way off the mark to say that there's a very real risk of fire from plastic consumer units. The risk comes from under qualified people installing them. If there was a proven risk of the boards going on fire then they would be banned completely, if they are fit for commercial use then in my opinion they are fit for domestic use! The only difference is that domestic installers don't do commercial work. If that isn't clear enough to they guys writing the regs then they shouldn't be doing the job!

 

[Risteard]

if it complied with a previous edition of the regulations

That is not relevant to whether a non-compliance with the Regulations is dangerous, and if so to what extent.

You cannot tell me that two like scenarios where one complied with the Regulations at the time of installation and the other didn't present different levels of risk now.