Plastic consumer units and how to code them

[Soi disant]

I cant see how red and black vs brown and blue can be compared to a consumer unit by virtue of its build material having the ability to contain a fire.

It can't.

So I wouldn't lose any sleep over 5.1. Or not coding it as long as conductors have been correctly connected and identified.

Again, though, not coding it is not an option.

In the schedule:

Identification of conductors (514.3.1)

And 514.3.1 says (with my emphasis)

......cores of cables shall be identified by:
(i) colour as required by Regulation 514.4 and/or
(ii) letters and/or numbers as required by Regulation 514.5

It's a particularly egregious example of why it was wrong to remove C4.

And if an electrician has to be warned by a label that an installation contains wiring to 2 versions of BS 7671, then I would question there competence.

Take a closer look at my avatar ?

 

[Soi disant]

...and yet permit things like REC2 Isolators (with or without SPD) and Thier assemblies to be plastic

And 800KMFs (and all their clones) too.....

 

[Risteard]

C3 by default is understandable (afterall the code is defined as Improvement Recommended); if nothing else it's arse-covering and doesn't fail the EICR; Much like any other nonconformities to current 18th edition; C3 so it's on record in more than just a 'passing comment' and is inkeeping with the purpose of the C3 code - obviously go further attaching relevant regs from 7681, EAWR and that like where appropriate to further explain your engineering judgement.

I find it interesting that we focus on CUs being non-plastic and yet permit things like REC2 Isolators (with or without SPD) and Thier assemblies to be plastic, along with adaptable boxes, for that main being plastic - I believe 5839 makes an stipulation that any junction boxes et all are to be metalic to ensure system integrity bit would have to find out the relevant clauses to confirm.

BS 5839 also requires the connectors to be ceramic (i.e. porcelain) in the junction boxes.

 

[loz2754]

You can't not give it a code if you're doing a BS 7671 compliant EICR, as there's an explicit item in the Schedule

Condition of enclosure(s) in terms of fire rating etc (421.1.6; 421.1.201; 526.5)

So you have no choice about whether or not to compare the enclosure of a CU with the requirements for non-combustibility in 421.1.201.

C2/C3 is the debate, but it has to be one or t'other.

For the schedule of inspections, the choices are Pass, C1, C2, C3, Lim, N/V, N/A.
For this particular item, BPG suggests coding either No code (Pass), C2, or C3.
Notice I use the word "suggests". It's ultimately up to the inspector to decide.

 

[Soi disant]

There are many guides produced by many organisations which contain much guidance, none of it having any authoritative relationship to actual requirements in the regs.

So consider this plastic CU.

1. Is it non-combustible wrt 421.1.201? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the condition of the CU?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the condition of the CU?

 

[loz2754]

There are many guides produced by many organisations which contain much guidance, none of it having any authoritative relationship to actual requirements in the regs.

So consider this plastic CU.

1. Is it non-combustible wrt 421.1.201? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the condition of the CU?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the condition of the CU?

I was just replying to your blanket statement that we have no choice, it's either C2 or C3, one or the other, you said...

Also, as an NICEIC Approved Contractor registered on the list of electricians approved to do EICRs, I had to agree to be guided by the BPG 4.

 

[Soi disant]

I was just replying to your blanket statement that we have no choice, it's either C2 or C3, one or the other, you said...

Well, Pass/Acceptable, LIM, N/V, and N/A I was discounting, as per the above, and C1 I was ignoring as that really implies something more than just a plastic box, e.g. the busbar sticking out of a gaping hole.

I still say that for a CU where there is nothing "wrong" with it, which is what I inferred (so apologies if it wasn't what you implied), C2 or C3 is all there is.

Also, as an NICEIC Approved Contractor registered on the list of electricians approved to do EICRs, I had to agree to be guided by the BPG 4.

Does "guided by" mean "slavishly follow"? Can NICIEC really make you say that a CU which does not comply with the combustibility requirements in the Wiring Regulations is acceptable?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Deleted, posted in error

 

[loz2754]

Well, Pass/Acceptable, LIM, N/V, and N/A I was discounting, as per the above, and C1 I was ignoring as that really implies something more than just a plastic box, e.g. the busbar sticking out of a gaping hole.

I still say that for a CU where there is nothing "wrong" with it, which is what I inferred (so apologies if it wasn't what you implied), C2 or C3 is all there is.


Does "guided by" mean "slavishly follow"? Can NICIEC really make you say that a CU which does not comply with the combustibility requirements in the Wiring Regulations is acceptable?

No it means guided by.
The actuality is that I almost always code a plastic consumer unit as C3. I also always note it in the comments box. I will sometimes give a recommendation by email that it would be beneficial to upgrade the consumer unit, depending on what all the related factors point to. If it warrants a C2 it gets a C2.

I was just pointing out that guidance from official bodies whose membership includes those who write the regulations is there for a reason and should not be dismissed outright. As you suggest, nor should it be slavishly followed.

All of this type of discussion around EICR coding can be helpful to those new to inspection and testing. However I still stand by what I have said several times on this subject, that those doing inspection and testing need experience of the type of installation that they're inspecting, and if they lack the necessary experience, they should not be doing it. But they are. Hence the plethora of bad EICRs we're seeing being churned out.

 

[old man sparky]

There are many guides produced by many organisations which contain much guidance, none of it having any authoritative relationship to actual requirements in the regs.

So consider this plastic CU.

1. Is it non-combustible wrt 421.1.201? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the condition of the CU?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the condition of the CU?

Hitting the nail right on the head. And my exact point, that its the Inspection schedules wording regarding Section 4 specifically 4.4 That asks you to Judge the consumer unit enclosure in term of fire rating and quoting regulation 421.1.201. That as I have said, takes the judgement away from you and leaves you with no option but to provide a code against a stand alone plastic consumer unit relying on its own enclosure. with C3 at best. When in reality a well installed dual RCD unit (as an example) would probably have bugger all wrong with it, and give many years of trouble free service, as they often do. But because of the way these report schedules are phrased, and to ensure you are covering yourself against this, you simply have to code it. Not your choice, or even your opinion necessarily but that's the road your being taken down. So in a nutshell Schedule 4.4 forces you to code even where advisory bodies say under certain conditions it wouldn't be worthy of a code. And that's contradictory advice IMHO.

 

[old man sparky]

Quoting Electrical Safety First
"What classification code would be appropriate where, post January 2016, an insulated consumer unit is encountered in a domestic premises? If the consumer unit is located under wooden staircase or within a sole route of escape from the premises, a code C3 classification (meaning that improvement is recommended) would be appropriate. If located elsewhere, this might be worthy or not, but it would not be necessary to record this on the condition report."

So does/maybe Inspection schedule 4/4.4 get N/A as per BPG ??
Because the C/U shows no signs of thermal damage, and is not located under a wooden staircase, or within a sole route of escape.
So judged not necessary to record on the condition report.
With a note made to this affect in the comments section.

Just throwing this one out there for comment/opinions.

 

[Julie.]

Hitting the nail right on the head. And my exact point, that its the Inspection schedules wording regarding Section 4 specifically 4.4 That asks you to Judge the consumer unit enclosure in term of fire rating and quoting regulation 421.1.201. That as I have said, takes the judgement away from you and leaves you with no option but to provide a code against a stand alone plastic consumer unit relying on its own enclosure. with C3 at best. When in reality a well installed dual RCD unit (as an example) would probably have bugger all wrong with it, and give many years of trouble free service, as they often do. But because of the way these report schedules are phrased, and to ensure you are covering yourself against this, you simply have to code it. Not your choice, or even your opinion necessarily but that's the road your being taken down. So in a nutshell Schedule 4.4 forces you to code even where advisory bodies say under certain conditions it wouldn't be worthy of a code. And that's contradictory advice IMHO.

No, there is nothing that takes judgement away from the inspector, the example schedule in appendix 6 is merely a generic example, many on-line tools differ quite significantly, they only have to be based on the example, not rigid to it.

This is noted in 651

You don't need to include things that don't comply with the latest regs, only those which don't comply, which may give rise to danger.

The reporting is all based around what has been tested/inspected and anything that leads towards a dangerous condition

 

[Dartlec]

Quoting Electrical Safety First
"What classification code would be appropriate where, post January 2016, an insulated consumer unit is encountered in a domestic premises? If the consumer unit is located under wooden staircase or within a sole route of escape from the premises, a code C3 classification (meaning that improvement is recommended) would be appropriate. If located elsewhere, this might be worthy or not, but it would not be necessary to record this on the condition report."

So does/maybe Inspection schedule 4/4.4 get N/A as per BPG ??
Because the C/U shows no signs of thermal damage, and is not located under a wooden staircase, or within a sole route of escape.
So judged not necessary to record on the condition report.
With a note made to this affect in the comments section.

Just throwing this one out there for comment/opinions.

This is probably a case where the old C4 would have been more appropriate really - it is not compliant with current regulations but doesn't in many cases need a recommendation to upgrade (as long as well installed etc in a safe place, etc.).

N/A is arguably more appropriate than a PASS, if it's not being coded.... With a comment in the inspection schedule alongside it or in the observations page.

 

[Julie.]

Quoting Electrical Safety First
"What classification code would be appropriate where, post January 2016, an insulated consumer unit is encountered in a domestic premises? If the consumer unit is located under wooden staircase or within a sole route of escape from the premises, a code C3 classification (meaning that improvement is recommended) would be appropriate. If located elsewhere, this might be worthy or not, but it would not be necessary to record this on the condition report."

So does/maybe Inspection schedule 4/4.4 get N/A as per BPG ??
Because the C/U shows no signs of thermal damage, and is not located under a wooden staircase, or within a sole route of escape.
So judged not necessary to record on the condition report.
With a note made to this affect in the comments section.

Just throwing this one out there for comment/opinions.

That is exactly my understanding.

As highlighted previously, in effect C4 showed something was non-compliant, but did not represent a danger; such a condition would be appropriate here.

It was basically removed because users would see this and think it needs to be addressed, which is an issue with putting C3 on the report, many would see it as "not a clean report" so needs to be sorted.

 

[old man sparky]

That is exactly my understanding.

As highlighted previously, in effect C4 showed something was non-compliant, but did not represent a danger; such a condition would be appropriate here.

It was basically removed because users would see this and think it needs to be addressed, which is an issue with putting C3 on the report, many would see it as "not a clean report" so needs to be sorted.

So are we saying provided the plastic C/U satisfies certain criteria regarding thermal damage and location. And because it was designed pre AMD 3 of the 17th. The inspection Schedule section 4 ref 4.4 would not be applicable in this instance. ??
As an example !!
If you own a classic car, there is no legal obligation for it to be fitted with seat belts. And yet these days its considered a major safety requirement and more so, a legal requirement.
Not an exact comparison, but in principle !!