Plastic consumer units and how to code them

[brianmoooore]

Bring back C4. Problem solved.

 

[Julie.]

Bring back C4. Problem solved.

Probably worded as "no immediate action required "

That way the iet doesn't have to look like they have backtracked and makes sense to the average punter.

 

[Mike Johnson]

@Julie. Post 59 brilliantly concise without lots of irrelevant quotes and irreverent comments.

 

[Soi disant]

(So if the cables have old colouring we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

This would be just plain ridiculous!

I agree.

Go and convince the idiots who decided to remove the option which meant "Does not comply but so what".

In general you cannot decide to just ignore what is clearly written in black and white just because you think that what is written is ridiculous, but you can pay close attention to what is written.

So...

you are not producing a report in line with regulation 653.2.

653.1 says EICRs shall be based on the model given in Appendix 6. A6 is Informative, not Normative, and it says that the example schedule is not exhaustive. So what's clearly written does provide flexibility, nothing says you must use the schedule as it appears in A6.

How much flexibility though, and in what areas?

653.2 says (edited for clarity) that the report shall include any dangerous conditions and any non-compliance with the requirements of BS 7671 which may give rise to danger.

Old colours do not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.
Lack of a 2-colour warning label does not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.
Absence of labels to indicate the purpose of switchgear and protective devices does not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.

But as I argued earlier, I think you'd be on shaky ground if you tried to argue that the absence of a feature deemed mandatory for fire safety reasons could not (the opposite of "may") give rise to danger.

N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the CU wiring?

Because Chapter 51 is not the Safety chapter?

 

[old man sparky]

Bottom line is as said. Inspection schedule 4.4 leaves you no choice but to report plastic CUs as a minimum C3. Because thats what the 18th demands of you. And the deeper you go the more you realise that no older installation could ever be a clean report. Satisfactory with C3s yes but not clean. And thanks to all who have contributed to the post. Its how we all see into the mindset of other Electricians. (I just realised how scary that last comment sounds) ?

 

[old man sparky]

One other point I would very much like to make. I have a plastic consumer unit in my home. Its populated with RCBOs. From 1969 when I started, to present day. I have seen, fitted, and reported on installations with plastic throughout. So if I slept soundly from 1969 to 2018 with plastic enclosures. Im not going to start losing sleep because a group of powers to be. Have decided its a good idea. To enclose shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials in metal rather than plastic. And on that, I confess to wearing my heart on my sleeve.

 

[old man sparky]

Forgive me but I'm on my soapbox. Please stay with me as this rant has to be said.
Years ago electrical equipment was not built to the same technical spec as today. But !! and its a big but, the build quality was substantial and robust.
I haven't the strongest wrist in the world, but armed with a standard screw driver, I can strip out or split apart a BS 60947-3 main switch with impunity. IMHO something is very wrong. But large manufacturers are churning this stuff out and we have to accept and fit it accepting the BS/EN standards they adopt, without question. When these things melt !! its poor workmanship first, and loose connections secondly. Nice get out clause right there. Electrical demand has increased over the years along with loadings. So now we have larger tails 25mm and above within domestic use. But terminations as currently supplied have to be torqued to prevent damaging these poorly designed pieces of equipment, often leaving terminations under tightened, IMHO. As an example, a DNO meter installer fits a new meter. The tails are disturbed and quickly loosen, (and we all know how easy that is with standard copper cored tails). But the consumer units not in the DNOs remit. His connection are ok, the rest is the home owners problem. Not his fault, because if the terminations were doing there job, it would take a lot more than a bit of movement to loosen them, again IMHO.
Anyway !! A Spate of fires is reported by local fire departments.
The answer (And I know this has been thrashed many times) Enclose the problem in metal, rather than remove the problem itself. Thereby limiting the affects as and when they occur.
So again, IMHO, when I can tighten a terminal with nothing more than the strength of my wrist, and safe in the knowledge that doing so compromises nothing. (Because build quality is up to the task) Then and only then, will BS/EN for this stuff start to get the respect it use to deserve.
This is by no means exhaustive but its a start, and I apologise for the rant.

 

[Soi disant]

<A great deal of sense>

But sadly we are where we are.

 

[Soi disant]

One other point I would very much like to make. I have a plastic consumer unit in my home. Its populated with RCBOs. From 1969 when I started, to present day. I have seen, fitted, and reported on installations with plastic throughout. So if I slept soundly from 1969 to 2018 with plastic enclosures. Im not going to start losing sleep because a group of powers to be. Have decided its a good idea. To enclose shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials in metal rather than plastic. And on that, I confess to wearing my heart on my sleeve.

But how far back do you go with that argument? When you started in 1969 you could easily have heard someone who'd started out in 1920 saying "I've installed lighting circuits with no earth all my life, and slept soundly". Until 2008 you were no doubt quite happily installing socket circuits with no RCDs, but you've now got an all RCBO installation.

But in any event - we are where we are. When it comes to departures with designing/constructing, you're allowed to say "I didn't comply with XYZ because I did ABC instead, which is equivalently safe". You're not allowed to say "I didn't comply with XYZ because I think it's nonsense". Even when it is nonsense.

Same with some aspects of I&T. ?

 

[SparkyChick]

Forgive me but I'm on my soapbox. Please stay with me as this rant has to be said.
Years ago electrical equipment was not built to the same technical spec as today. But !! and its a big but, the build quality was substantial and robust.
I haven't the strongest wrist in the world, but armed with a standard screw driver, I can strip out or split apart a BS 60947-3 main switch with impunity. IMHO something is very wrong. But large manufacturers are churning this stuff out and we have to accept and fit it accepting the BS/EN standards they adopt, without question. When these things melt !! its poor workmanship first, and loose connections secondly. Nice get out clause right there. Electrical demand has increased over the years along with loadings. So now we have larger tails 25mm and above within domestic use. But terminations as currently supplied have to be torqued to prevent damaging these poorly designed pieces of equipment, often leaving terminations under tightened, IMHO. As an example, a DNO meter installer fits a new meter. The tails are disturbed and quickly loosen, (and we all know how easy that is with standard copper cored tails). But the consumer units not in the DNOs remit. His connection are ok, the rest is the home owners problem. Not his fault, because if the terminations were doing there job, it would take a lot more than a bit of movement to loosen them, again IMHO.
Anyway !! A Spate of fires is reported by local fire departments.
The answer (And I know this has been thrashed many times) Enclose the problem in metal, rather than remove the problem itself. Thereby limiting the affects as and when they occur.
So again, IMHO, when I can tighten a terminal with nothing more than the strength of my wrist, and safe in the knowledge that doing so compromises nothing. (Because build quality is up to the task) Then and only then, will BS/EN for this stuff start to get the respect it use to deserve.
This is by no means exhaustive but its a start, and I apologise for the rant.

I couldn't agree more. The build quality of most devices that go into consumer units is garbage.

But, is that the fault of manufacturers or us? Well, not specifically us, but those people in the industry who are engaged in the race to the bottom? I flat out refuse to fit cheap tat, but even the quality of supposedly reputable manufacturers can leave a lot to be desired and I do have to wonder if that is a result of the general market trend and them trying to increase their sales to compete.

I've just used a couple of Contactum boards and whilst for the most part I like the boards themselves, these last two I tried torquing them up to specification and as stated, the cases started to open, terminals felt like they were twisting. Not at all like the ones I used in 2019.

And another thing that is really beginning to get on my ---- is the fact that all screws seem to be made of putty, especially those in consumer unit earth and neutral bars. Modulo drivers don't help and right now I kind of wish they'd return to a simple slotted screw, with two screws per terminal.

I'll end my supportive rant there

 

[brianmoooore]

Until 2008 you were no doubt quite happily installing socket circuits with no RCDs,

Speak for yourself on that one. Since the mid '80s, I've not fitted a single socket circuit without RCD protection. Customer didn't get a choice.
Some early ones were whole board 100mA RCD/main switch, but as soon as I realised the problem of one out/all out with this arrangement, and the effect of earth-neutral faults, I switched to dual RCD boards, usually 100mA for lights, water heater, etc., but all circuits with a socket, on a 30mA, before changing to all 30mA in latter years.

 

[old man sparky]

Speak for yourself on that one. Since the mid '80s, I've not fitted a single socket circuit without RCD protection. Customer didn't get a choice.
Some early ones were whole board 100mA RCD/main switch, but as soon as I realised the problem of one out/all out with this arrangement, and the effect of earth-neutral faults, I switched to dual RCD boards, usually 100mA for lights, water heater, etc., but all circuits with a socket, on a 30mA, before changing to all 30mA in latter years.

And since mid 80s I have been telling young sparkies, DO NOT tell your customers 30ma rcds protect you from electric shock.
Because they don't.
And if you don't believe me, you haven't been on the end of a live cable connected to one ?
They can prevent death, maybe ?? sometimes ?? Depends on the condition of your heart.
Additional or enhanced protection I will go with, but these days there over rated and in danger of being relied on more than maybe they should. But as said when I hear people say they prevent you from getting a shock. I think don't make those kinds of promises please !! ?
Just wait until the RCBOs with built in AFDD modules become mandatory in the 19th editions Titanium enclosed CUs!!
You will see people getting loans out to pay for those bad boys ??

 

[loz2754]

And since mid 80s I have been telling young sparkies, DO NOT tell your customers 30ma rcds protect you from electric shock.
Because they don't.
And if you don't believe me, you haven't been on the end of a live cable connected to one ?
They can prevent death, maybe ?? sometimes ?? Depends on the condition of your heart.
Additional or enhanced protection I will go with, but these days there over rated and in danger of being relied on more than maybe they should. But as said when I hear people say they prevent you from getting a shock. I think don't make those kinds of promises please !! ?
Just wait until the RCBOs with built in AFDD modules become mandatory in the 19th editions Titanium enclosed CUs!!
You will see people getting loans out to pay for those bad boys ??

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.
Anyone who says that clearly doesn't understand RCDs.
I sometimes tell lay people that it's the thing that'll stop you from dying if you touch a live wire, you'll still get a shock but it probably won't kill you!

 

[Dartlec]

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.
Anyone who says that clearly doesn't understand RCDs.
I sometimes tell lay people that it's the thing that'll stop you from dying if you touch a live wire, you'll still get a shock but it probably won't kill you!

They (if working) may well protect you from electrocution - that's not the same as stopping you getting a shock of course...

From a quick google, seems like electrocution seems to be rare in domestic settings fortunately (< 10 per year), despite the state of some of the installations we see...

Not sure what that says about the relative risks of electricity compared to simple things like stairs that kill plenty of people though.

 

[old man sparky]

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.

Next time your in a wholesalers full of Sparkies.
Pretend your a laymen and say.
I've been asked to pick up one of those devices that protects you from electric shock.
Then cover your ears from the chorus of. "You mean an rcd mate"
Honest, try it ??