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.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Yes indeed if followed it would be deemed that conformation to the Regulations would be achieved, but they are not mandatory and any deviation from the BS can be justified by carrying out a HA and if necessary a RA.

To return to the original thoughts on here about mix and matching, if an MCB of one manufacturer is changed for a RCBO from another manufacturer and a Hazard analysis of that change show that the proposed substitute part was of the same size, installation requirement and exceeded the standards of certification of the original part, therefore an improvement on the BS guide, the Hazard Analysis has identified that there was no residue risk at the end of the analysis, ergo no Risk Assessment required and would stand up to testing in Court.

 

[loz2754]

So give us an alternative to follow. Otherwise, what really is your point, Mike?

As far as I'm aware, BS7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations IET Wiring Regulations is what we're taught to follow at college. It's our base reference and guide for pretty much everything we do. What else would you have is do?

 

[loz2754]

BTW sorry to the OP for going off at (yet another) tangent. LAP is a brand at the lower end of the market.

 

[Mike Johnson]

So give us an alternative to follow. Otherwise, what really is your point, Mike?

As far as I'm aware, BS7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations IET Wiring Regulations is what we're taught to follow at college. It's our base reference and guide for pretty much everything we do. What else would you have is do?

My point is that blindly following the BS is not in the best interest of the consumer if it restricts a safer installation by not allowing the upgrading of parts of said installation.

 

[loz2754]

My point is that blindly following the BS is not in the best interest of the consumer if it restricts a safer installation by not allowing the upgrading of parts of said installation.

Thank you. Now we're all blind. Except you, apparently.

Is it in the best interests of a customer to have a part fitted that has been approved ONLY BY YOU, and because YOU have performed an expert hazard analysis and declared no risk assessment is necessary then the so called improvement is perfectly safe?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Unworthy of you Loz, I thought we where having a sensible discussion.

 

[loz2754]

Unworthy of you Loz, I thought we where having a sensible discussion.

Sorry Mike. I was just making the point that we have to follow the guidance we're given.
The guidance is clear on using other parts from a different manufacturer. I believe I have said all I can on that particular point.

I have no objection to using other methods that go beyond what is written in the regulations, new ideas come in to play and I enjoy reading about new approaches and products.
But when the onus is on me to ensure the products I supply and install are safe and compliant, I would rather err on the side of caution.

 

[Mike Johnson]

OK, but the point I have been trying to make throughout this discussion is that you don't have to follow the guidance your given if you can find a better alternative.

I think we should leave it there in the interest of not falling out any further. ?

 

[westward10]

OK, but the point I have been trying to make throughout this discussion is that you don't have to follow the guidance your given if you can find a better alternative.

We all realise this and that departures are accepted providing you can prove the departure leaves the installation no less safe than the Regulations require. The risk assessment required to do this would be beyond most people as they do not have the back up or resources to do this.

 

[LastManOnline]

Unworthy of you Loz, I thought we where having a sensible discussion.

I believe you are both actually correct. As Loz states, there has to be a standard, guide etc that we base our work practices on. As Mike states it has to be possible to improve on an existing arrangement without being unfairly penalised.
The problem in my view lies with the current environment where imperfect regulation and vested interests (manufacturers) are bringing 2 valid viewpoints into conflict with one another.