Lap mcbs

[Eartheo]

The bungalow I’m in had a new Lap consumer unit fitted 7 years ago. I wanted the shower 40amp mcb upgrading so a larger shower could be fitted. An electrician told me this cannot be done as Lap was a Screwfix part and they no longer did mcbs for this and my best bet would be to change the whole consumer unit as you cannot mix mcb manufactures in a consumer panel. Is this correct or is it just over hype, as I was always led to believe that if the mcbs were to British standards it was ok.

 

[loz2754]

So in short, you can mix and match. You just need to do it correctly. However it would, nt look very professional. But let's be clear, on the evidence presented here so far there are no justifiable reasons to say "you can't mix and match"

Of course you can mix and match. It's entirely up to you.

But the evidence presented very clearly by myself and others indicates that you shouldn't.
And if you choose to do so, then you must take full responsibility for the design you have created by mixing components from different manufacturers.

A guide published by BEAMA says that if you use a different brand, or even the same brand but from a different model, without obtaining clear and specific documented advice from the manufacturer, then you invalidate any certification and any warranty.

If, when conducting an inspection and test, you come across a device from a different brand, you must code it either C3 or even a C2.

 

[Mike Johnson]

The problem is the way manufacturers word their instructions with their products, taken literally "follow manufactures instruction" would mean that you can't populate a Wylex board with Hager RCBO's even though they fit exactly, I don't have a copy of BS EN 61439 to hand to check the wording, could someone oblige with the regulation as the BS is a COP not legislation.

 

[LastManOnline]

Of course you can mix and match. It's entirely up to you.

But the evidence presented very clearly by myself and others indicates that you shouldn't.
And if you choose to do so, then you must take full responsibility for the design you have created by mixing components from different manufacturers.

A guide published by BEAMA says that if you use a different brand, or even the same brand but from a different model, without obtaining clear and specific documented advice from the manufacturer, then you invalidate any certification and any warranty.

If, when conducting an inspection and test, you come across a device from a different brand, you must code it either C3 or even a C2.

I completely appreciate and respect that point of view. I just wanted to establish clearly what the issues were. It has boiled down to inappropriate use of the bus bar. So if I I stall my 2 row CU with suitable Hagar mcb, s on the top row and Wylex on the bottom row with correct busbar, that CU is electrically fit for purpose. For someone to pass by and automatically state "It's mixed and matched, condemn it" is not correct electrically but it has however become the norm in the UK to consider it inappropriate and as they say "dems the regs". And that I completely accept. I think I would find it a little awkward to justify to the customer though

 

[pc1966]

In some ways we should never have got in to this position, as well as the DIN rail being standard, they should have made the busbars standard as well.

But they did not, and even for a given manufacturer they are not always standard across the ranges or time-periods. Muppets.

I don't think anyone really could condone putting in a mix-and-match board for new, as you would need to have a very good justification of why you did not just select a brand that met all requirements as type-approved, but for repairs or circuit additions I think some flexibility is appropriate if it can be done safely.

So the C3/C2 guidance in the best-practice guide for inspection sounds quite sane to me.

 

[telectrix]

just boils down to common sense. if you can't fit it with a hammer, it won't fit.

 

[loz2754]

My final word on this subject, a direct quote from BS761:2018 p180:

536.4.203 Integration of devices and components

The relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series shall be applied to the integration of mechanical and electrical devices and components, e.g. circuit breakers, control devices, busbars into an empty enclosure or existing low voltage assembly.
In low voltage assemblies to the BS EN 61439 series, e.g. consumer units, distribution boards, incorporated devices and components shall only be those declared suitable according to the assembly manufacturer’s instructions or literature.
NOTE 1: The use of individual components complying with their respective product standard(s) does not indicate their compatibility when installed with other components in a low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly.
NOTE 2: Incorporated components inside the assembly can be from different manufacturers. It is essential that all incorporated components should have had their compatibility for the final enclosed arrangements verified by the original manufacturer of the assembly and be assembled in accordance with their instructions e.g. the consumer unit, distribution board manufacturer. The original manufacturer is the organization that carried out the original design and the associated verification of the low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly to the relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series 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.

 

[Mike Johnson]

As has always been the case with the British Standards and Approved Code of Practice if you deviate from the standards as long as the deviation is an improvement you are deemed to have satisfied the regulations, to me that means if you replace MCB's with RCBO's you have improved the installation no matter who the original manufacturer of the enclosure and or part thereof.

 

[loz2754]

As has always been the case with the British Standards and Approved Code of Practice if you deviate from the standards as long as the deviation is an improvement you are deemed to have satisfied the regulations, to me that means if you replace MCB's with RCBO's you have improved the installation no matter who the original manufacturer of the enclosure and or part thereof.

As long as you're happy to be deemed the manufacturer from that point forward.

I believe the correct term is not deviation, but rather, departure.

Definition of departure in BS7671:2018 p27:

"Deliberate decision not to comply fully with the requirements of this Standard, for which the designer must declare that the resultant degree of safety is not less than that achievable by full compliance."

There is a space on the Installation Certificate for you to record such a departure, along with the documented risk assessment having been attached.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I don't think I would be considered the manufacture rather the Designer.

If space actually exists too document the departure then obviously it's expected it to happen, obviously departing from using MCB's and replacing with RCBO's is not less than the degree of safety achieved by complying with the COP, but is considerably safer, easily shown by any HA and RA.

 

[LastManOnline]

I don't think I would be considered the manufacture rather the Designer.

If space actually exists too document the departure then obviously it's expected it to happen, obviously departing from using MCB's and replacing with RCBO's is not less than the degree of safety achieved by complying with the COP, but is considerably safer, easily shown by any HA and RA.

Good point. We have in recent years being taught to regard the regs as a "minimum standard" and over here at least being encouraged to do precisely as above post suggests.

 

[loz2754]

If space actually exists to document the departure then obviously it's expected it to happen, obviously departing from using MCB's and replacing with RCBO's is not less than the degree of safety achieved by complying with the COP, but is considerably safer, easily shown by any HA and RA.

Yes of course. But only if the RCBOs you are fitting are approved for fitting into the BS EN 61439 type tested assembly (consumer unit) you are fitting them into. This is what needs to be declared, which means you would have to have written confirmation from the manufacturer of the consumer unit.
All I'm saying is that the regulations are quite clear and explicit on this point. As long as you or anyone else is prepared to show that what you have fitted complies with this regulation:

536.4.203 Integration of devices and components

then go ahead and fit it.

 

[LastManOnline]

I don't think anyone really could condone putting in a mix-and-match board for new, as you would need to have a very good justification of why you did not just select a brand that met all requirements as type-approved, but for repairs or circuit additions I think some flexibility is appropriate if it can be done safely.

Sums it up really.

 

[westward10]

I would love to see the pages of the document/risk assessment for the fitting of a non compatible protective device.

 

[loz2754]

I don't think I would be considered the manufacture rather the Designer.

the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations.

 

[loz2754]

I think we're just going to have agree to disagree...