different make SPD in consumer unit

[oscar21]

Is there a reg anywhere that states that you have to use the same make SPD inside a consumer unit. I know there are with MCB's as they obviously have to sit on the same bus bar but an SPD just slots in and has flexible cables wiring it up.

 

[mainline]

Hmm I've heard this is quite common in your area of Cornwall.

I’ve never heard that one but you are obviously more learned in that sort of thing than me .

High heel DeWalt boots maybe

 

[netblindpaul]

An SPD does not form part of the requirements to meet the enhanced breaking capacity in the product standard, therefore any brand SPD can be utilised.
The "Council Bod" is unfamiliar with the product legislation and standards.
Whilst this requirement has been brought into BS 7671 it comes from product law, and the product standards for the assembly.
BS EN 61439-3 being the relevant one, with part 1 of that series also applying.
The law is the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations, as amended.
The only reason this is even in BS 7671 is because the law and the existing standards were being ignored by sparks.

 

[netblindpaul]

I asked this question of an SPD manufacturer (Surge Devices) at a trade fair. They said exactly what you said.
Random thought, but did you spend a day in Manchester wearing a dress about a year ago?

Kirsty in a dress, she doesn't normally wear a dress!

 

[mainline]

Exactly the same thing, except that it could be argued that a bell Tx radiates a magnetic field that could conceivably affect RCDs on the board.

The bells, they made me deaf you know

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Is there a reg anywhere that states that you have to use the same make SPD inside a consumer unit. I know there are with MCB's as they obviously have to sit on the same bus bar but an SPD just slots in and has flexible cables wiring it up.

Is this one you’ve installed? If so and you’re questioning it, why not swap it for the same brand as the DB and then you’re covered?

 

[brianmoooore]

Is this one you’ve installed? If so and you’re questioning it, why not swap it for the same brand as the DB and then you’re covered?

Because it's fine as it is. Why should he back down just because some 'council bod' doesn't know his job?

 

[davesparks]

Because it's fine as it is. Why should he back down just because some 'council bod' doesn't know his job?

Because it's easier and cheaper to go along with what the muppet wants than it is to stand your ground and potentially lose a lot of future work for that council.

I completely agree that you shouldn't have to back down and change an installation because someone else doesn't know the rules. But at the same time landlords don't accept principles in liue of money when it comes to paying your rent.

 

[Midwest]

See, I just thought you just can't mix and match manufacturers components.

Seems you can, but there seems one little caveat from this link Myth Buster;

This is developed in Note 2 to regulation 536.4.203, which states that ‘If an assembly deviates from its original manufacturer’s instructions, or includes components not included in the original verification, the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations’.

In summary, can you mix devices in distribution boards (including consumer units)? Yes, you can. But you need to seek assurance from the manufacturer of the original assembly that the devices will be compatible, or conduct your own study to ensure the requirements are met. In the words of BEAMA, ‘The installer has responsibility to act “with due care”. If this is not done then there is a probability that, in the event of death, injury, fire or other damage, the installer would be accountable under Health and Safety legislation.’

Edit, can't seem to post the link, but if you search for Myth Busters #7 - Out with the old, in with the new?

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Because it's easier and cheaper to go along with what the muppet wants than it is to stand your ground and potentially lose a lot of future work for that council.

I completely agree that you shouldn't have to back down and change an installation because someone else doesn't know the rules. But at the same time landlords don't accept principles in liue of money when it comes to paying your rent.

Because it's fine as it is. Why should he back down just because some 'council bod' doesn't know his job?

Like Davesparks says sometimes it’s easier to just change something and rid yourself of the potential headache of all the other implications that come with standing your ground.

There’s definitely cases to be made for it being incorrect and it’s not 100% a written rule that it’s OK.

It’s probably guaranteed that the Crabtree manufacturers instructions say there boards should only be fitted with Crabtree devices and my understanding is that we are to follow manufacturers instructions whenever possible as long as we think it’s safe to do so

My personal opinion is as long as you know it fits perfectly and don’t have any concerns then it shouldn’t be deemed to be incorrect but again it’s all open to interpretation.

 

[Simon47]

My take is that the council person is being a jobsworth. But, they will almost certainly have no relevant skills/qualifications and so have to go by what the "experts" tell them. As such, if the "expert" tells him it's not OK, then who is he to argue as he doesn't have the skills/knowledge to do so. As such, he really doesn't have any other option. In my $dayjob, we use the term "SQEP" a lot - suitably qualified and educated personnel. It's part of our professional standards to recognise where we aren't SQEP for something, and take advice from those who are.
However, it is true that the regs do say that for a domestic installation, we must use a type tested CU. If we include anything in that CU that is not part of the manufacturer's type testing/acceptance, then we have invalidated it. So technically, putting anything other than the manufacturer's own bits (or bits they specifically approve) into it means we don't comply with that particular rule.

Put those two together, and the council person isn't being that unreasonable. He's been told that it's "not to standard", isn't SQEP to disagree with it, and so is duty bound to come back to the contractor that fitted the non-compliant part.

But as above, particularly if you put the SPD on the opposite side of the main switch to the MCBs (or RCBOs), or space it apart from them with a number of blank ways, then it's hard to conceive of any technical (rather than paperwork) reason for it to be in any way unsafe. As such, it's being a bit unreasonable of whoever did the EICR to flag it up as needing changing - at most C3, or just a comment. What is unclear from the earlier posts is how it's been categorised in the EICR, and how the council person is interpreting that. It could be that the council person really is being a jobsworth and insisting that the EICR be "completely clean" regardless, or it could be that someone's categorised it as a C2 (wouldn't be the first time someone's over-categorised something in the hope of getting some remedial works from it).

The pragmatic option would have been for Oscar21 to have planned to return when convenient and swap out the SPD - it would probably have been less cost and hassle than he now finds himself with.

 

[Midwest]

I might be in the minority here, but I don't think the 'council person' is being unreasonable.

They will have a large portfolio of properties, and will have CDM agenda etc, so why take the risk and have something thats perhaps have might increase the risk for them?

 

[netblindpaul]

Whilst BS7671 is not law, it is not even best practice.
It is the bare minimum considered acceptable.
What is wrong here is the "council bod" citing compliance with BS7671 as the reason for wanting this unit changed out.
Best practice could certainly be considered as utilising the CU manufacturers' SPD.
It could also be a policy that they have.
In which case, why not state this?
To state that the use of an SPD by a different manufacturer to the CU, which is otherwise of all the same make device, as a non-compliance with BS7671 is incorrect.

However, it is true that the regs do say that for a domestic installation, we must use a type tested CU. If we include anything in that CU that is not part of the manufacturer's type testing/acceptance, then we have invalidated it. So technically, putting anything other than the manufacturer's own bits (or bits they specifically approve) into it means we don't comply with that particular rule.

An SPD does not form part of the type testing referenced in BS7671.
The only reason this clause has been included in BS7671 is that electricians were ignoring the requirements of the legislation and the other relevant standards with which they should have been complying.
The requirement for using all the same make devices has been in place in the relevant applicable standard since 1991, in round figures 32 years.
For most of those 32 years, sparks ignored the requirements.
You could ask, did they need to comply with this standard for all those 32 years?
The standard was listed in BS7671 Appendix 1, but it was not made explicitly clear if compliance with the standards listed in Appendix 1 was compulsory for compliance with BS7671.
If we look back, as of 2008, Appendix 1 in BS7671, is listed as Normative.
Therefore, compliance with the standards listed therein is compulsory for compliance with BS7671.
In 2012, the product standard for consumer units for domestic premises was revised, along with the remainder of the series being revised between 2011 & 2013.
The relevant parts were revised and published in 2011.
So, if we are generous, the legislation and relevant compulsory standards have been in place for 12 years (in round figures).
These “relevant” standards were the BS EN (IEC) 60439 series, updated in 2011-2013 to the BS EN (IEC) 61439 series.
The specific parts are art 1 & part 3.
It is part 3 that requires type testing due to a country-specific requirement for the UK in Annexe ZB of the standard.
This relates to the breaking capacity of the assembly.
This breaking capacity is related only to the circuit protective devices, i.e., the "circuit breakers”.
An SPD forms no part of the tests for the breaking capacity of the assembly and, thus, no part in the type testing.
Therefore, any SPD can be used in any board without impacting the type testing.
The caveat is that if an MCB is used to protect the SPD, then this MCB will form part of the type testing.
The type testing is limited to the breaking capacity, thus, the interrupt rating of the assembly.
The product standards are much more closely linked to the legislation than BS 7671 is to EAWR.
The legislation is the Low Voltage Directive (LVD), integrated into UK law as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations (EESR).
Within the legislation, statements are made that compliance with the Harmonised standards will result in compliance with the requirements of the law.
The same is now true with the Designated standards to UK law post BREXIT.
Harmonised documents are published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Designated standards are at least indicated on the British Standards Institute (BSI) website and published in official UK post-BREXIT legislative documents.
The safety requirements of the legislation, LVD/EESR, are known as the Essential Health and Safety requirements (EHSRs).
It is these EHSRs that must be complied with.
They are very broad in the LVD/EESR, so the Harmonised/Designated standards are utilised to establish the details of the product requirements for compliance with these EHSRs.
I hope this illustrates that the standards and legislation are intimately linked in documents that will stand in court as valid and legitimate means of compliance backed by published legislation.
These harmonised and designated standards contain references to how they are used for compliance with the law.
The law contains references on how to use the standards to comply with the ERHSR requirements.

So, in summary:
Any SPD is fine.
The requirement doesn’t come from BS7671.
The requirement for type testing is from the product standard and is considered a requirement for legal compliance.
An SPD does not form part of the type testing requirement.

I hope this helps.

The "Council bod" can refuse the off-brand SPD, but to state a non-compliance with BS7671 as the reason for this is incorrect.
It may well be in the OPs' best interests to replace the off-brand unit with a matching one to save the hassle.
The "Council Bod" needs to be educated to ensure they act on the correct information.
From the OP, the "Council Bod" does not appear to be making decisions based on the facts related to the scenario.

 

[davesparks]

The only reason this clause has been included in BS7671 is that electricians were ignoring the requirements of the legislation and the other relevant standards with which they should have been complying.
The requirement for using all the same make devices has been in place in the relevant applicable standard since 1991, in round figures 32 years.
For most of those 32 years, sparks ignored the requirements.

I wouldnt say ignored, the vast majority of electricians don't even know those standards exist, and for those that do there is no ready access to them.
Not being aware of something's existence is not the same as ignoring it.

If we are expected to know these standards and how they apply to our work why aren't they made readily available to us?

Therefore, compliance with the standards listed therein is compulsory for compliance with BS7671.

But until we get reasonable access to those standards and this gets included in formal training for electricians how are we going to have a cat in hells chance of complying?

 

[netblindpaul]

I wouldnt say ignored, the vast majority of electricians don't even know those standards exist, and for those that do there is no ready access to them.
Not being aware of something's existence is not the same as ignoring it.

If we are expected to know these standards and how they apply to our work why aren't they made readily available to us?




But until we get reasonable access to those standards and this gets included in formal training for electricians how are we going to have a cat in hells chance of complying?

The standards are listed in BS7671 and available to buy from BSI, they always have been.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In H&S law the burden of proof is reversed it is down to the accused to prove their innocence.
This leaves the training aspect, and the poor standard of training of electricians we have got to.
I can't answer why people are not adequately trained.
I can't explain the whole scenario.
Right or wrong, this is the situation we have, and it is down to the tradesperson to ensure that they are compliant in their work.

 

[brianmoooore]

All British Standards being readily available for free online would be a good start.