EICR's after 1st Jan 2019 ....

[Octopus]

So you are doing an EICR next year and you are inspecting a consumer unit with these 2 "makes" of RCBO's in it ...

So is it:

 

[ruston]

Instead of putting the onus on the installer/tester the manufactures should have to bite the bullet as we do and declare their compatible, or otherwise components.

 

[Adam W]

Same manufacturer in the op picture but I agree with your comments regarding different brands used

I didn't realise it was the same brand - I don't often use Lewden.

 

[Nigel]

You know I think we can get a bit carried away at times on here, I'd love to know where two different makes of RCBO in the same DB, both correctly fitted and of identical dimensions and characteristics could result in an installer or inspector ending up in front of a judge and jury !

Agreed. Ridiculous comment.

 

[Selfmade]

I bought a CED consumer unit from QVS when I'd not long started and it came with some Excel (QVS own brand I believe) MCBs. They were identical to the CED ones and already installed in the CU. Would this stand up in court? I still have some Excel MCBs and plan to fit a couple in a CED consumer unit which currently has an incorrect Hager MCB fitted for one circuit.

 

[Selfmade]

MEM & Eaton. Obviously the same and seen them mixed in a board many times. Possibly GE too.

 

[Selfmade]

Shirly the only thing that matters from a technical perspective is that the bus bar makes proper contact with the feed terminal of the breaker.

 

[Nigel]

Shirly the only thing that matters from a technical perspective is that the bus bar makes proper contact with the feed terminal of the breaker.

There is heat dissipation between adjacent MCBs too.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This has been in force since the 17th 3rd amendment.

 

[Adam W]

You know I think we can get a bit carried away at times on here, I'd love to know where two different makes of RCBO in the same DB, both correctly fitted and of identical dimensions and characteristics could result in an installer or inspector ending up in front of a judge and jury !

Maybe unlikely, but do you not think if anything (perhaps unrelated) were to go wrong a solicitor would jump on the fact that a 'professional' had wilfully ignored their own industry's code of best practice?

 

[Adam W]

Agreed. Ridiculous comment.

So you would just disregard that regulation then would you Neil?
What other regulations would you choose to ignore? All of them?
It's people like you that give the industry a bad name.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - my 20p worth - if it's been fitted correctly then no code on a report. I don't think it's dangerous or would be improved by changing it out. Tin hat on ...

 

[Nigel]

So you would just disregard that regulation then would you Neil?
What other regulations would you choose to ignore? All of them?
It's people like you that give the industry a bad name.

I was talking about the judge, jury and executioner comment over an MCB made in the same factory, by the same people but with a different sticker on.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

what are peoples thoughts in mixed brands when it comes to say a lewden rcd with MK mcbs?
had a split load board recently on an eicr and one of the rcds had been swapped out for a lewden one. other rcd and all mcbs were MK.
I would argue that a different rcd to mcbs is no different to having an upfront rcd, covering the whole installation. unlikely to be the same make. Its presence offers additional protection and coincidentally lined up and sat on rail fine.
I put it as a C3 as improvement recommended

 

[Adam W]

I was talking about the judge, jury and executioner comment over an MCB made in the same factory, by the same people but with a different sticker on.

Which comment was that then? Because the comment I made (which you disagreed with) was about not assuming that different products are the same just because they come in similar looking packaging.

So what would be your reasoning for departing from regulations relating to mixing different brands in the same distribution board?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My thoughts have always been, that Type tested boards are just to increase breaking capacity.
Type tested boards under the old standards, were rated at 16kA, whereas the individual components may only have been rated at 1kA.
As such, as long as every component fits correctly and has an individual breaking capacity greater than the PFC, there would have been no problem.

This new requirement which came into force for domestic installations with the 17th edition 3rd amendment and will now apply to all installations, requires all boards to be type tested and I assume have an overall breaking capacity of 16kA.
How that applies to installations with a PFC greater than 16kA, I do not know?
Perhaps the overall breaking capacity for non-domestic boards will be greater?

My main concern, is that this is another requirement that does nothing to improve safety.

I also wonder whether this requirement is legal?
Back in the 80s, the government started a process that is supposed to increase our choices.
We can now get our electricity from from a supermarket, our gas from a phone company our water from..... actually, we’re not allowed to get water from anyone other than our local water company, but you get the gist.