Metal consumer units

[Gardner]

Now the amendment 3 has a requirement for none combustible consumer units (if I am reading it right), what do you guys think? Was it a smart move? It seems like a trade off between an energized frame for fire resilience.

 

[GB.Kayak]

It's irrelevant whose job fitting a cabinet is - the fact remains that this is an alternative means of compliance. And regarding why it would ever be beneficial, an obvious example would be where a plastic distribution board already exists in order to prevent the need for replacement.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that enclosure with non-combustible material is an acceptable solution ... the 'how' and 'how much' questions are every bit as valid for this course of action. I have not costed the alternative to installing a new metal enclosure where that is required, but I suspect that there will not be a great deal of difference in price. The other issue is, that if for example one were to use fire rated plasterboard for the enclosure, where would you put the timber framing that is itself combustible ... not on the inside surely? Clearly the whole thing is not well thought through!

 

[Midwest]

I suspect post 1st January 2016, insulated CU's will become as rare rocking horse pooh. As of now, one of my wholesalers no longer intends to stock them, regardless of their use elsewhere (only available to order).