EICR Failed - Is the electrician trying to make more work ?

[securespark]

The current board is less then 10 years old

If that was installed in 2010 it was old stock.

Very!

10 years ago I was fitting a great many Hager boards; indeed, between 2005 and 2012 I fitted Hager almost exclusively.
The breakers all had the larger grey toggle.

I have an old Hager board in my house that has smaller black toggles. That was installed in 1994.

 

[RF Lighting]

If I remember right Hager changed thier circuit breaker design from the old BS3871 style to the BSEN60898 style like in the OP around 1996 or 1997 and then moved to the grey lever style in around 2004 or 2005 and the wider toggle style around 2010 maybe

 

[JohnW2]

If I remember right Hager changed thier circuit breaker design from the old BS3871 style to the BSEN60898 style like in the OP around 1996 or 1997 and then moved to the grey lever style in around 2004 or 2005 and the wider toggle style around 2010 maybe

As a matter of interest, for how long after a manufacturer stops manufacturing a particular style of CU or components thereof (or, indeed, stops manufacturing anything to do with CUs!) would you normally expect them to continue to be available from wholesalers etc.?

Well over a year after MK allegedly stopped manufacturing anything to do with CUs there currently is no apparent lack of them on offer from wholesalers and other suppliers.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

From my experience the local wholesalers will very quickly go out of stock of all the common flavours and just have some obscure ones left at the back of a shelf. They are normally available special order for at a guess 10 years after they go obsolete.

It’s very difficult now to get new old stock of MEM QEB and Memera 2000, original style proteus, square D QOE, mark 1 hager, bill, GE, Crabtree SB6000 and polestar, federal stablok etc none of which are especially that old.

 

[SUNRAY]

From my experience the local wholesalers will very quickly go out of stock of all the common flavours and just have some obscure ones left at the back of a shelf. They are normally available special order for at a guess 10 years after they go obsolete.

It’s very difficult now to get new old stock of MEM QEB and Memera 2000, original style proteus, square D QOE, mark 1 hager, bill, GE, Crabtree SB6000 and polestar, federal stablok etc none of which are especially that old.

Yeah don't they just?
I replaced the CU in this house, or rather the selection of small fuse boxes, with a square D Domae split load from Newey's. I don't recall when but after 2005 when I started working in controls. It couldn't have been a year later there was no sign of them in the stores when the nuisance tripping got out of hand and I wanted RCBO's.

 

[SUNRAY]

In what way did it not comply when installed?

I'm amazed that you of all people ask this question.

 

[RF Lighting]

Yeah don't they just?
I replaced the CU in this house, or rather the selection of small fuse boxes, with a square D Domae split load from Newey's. I don't recall when but after 2005 when I started working in controls. It couldn't have been a year later there was no sign of them in the stores when the nuisance tripping got out of hand and I wanted RCBO's.

I had forgotten about domae. They were made by Schneider and used merlin pattern circuit breakers. I seem to remember the busbar was at the bottom so annoyingly standard merlin and square D KQ breakers wouldn’t fit (the right way up!). MK LN RCBOs were also made by Schneider and were the same pattern as domae.

 

[RF Lighting]

Interestingly back in the day when Schneider made MK’s RCBOs they were type A and they changed to type AC when the boards got all cheap and horrible.

 

[SUNRAY]

I had forgotten about domae. They were made by Schneider and used merlin pattern circuit breakers. I seem to remember the busbar was at the bottom so annoyingly standard merlin and square D KQ breakers wouldn’t fit (the right way up!). MK LN RCBOs were also made by Schneider and were the same pattern as domae.

I never actually found anything that fitted properly but a colleague reckoned ABB & Pro-elec fitted [Turns out those are what the company he works for used], one day he turned up here and while I was doing some work he rehashed my CU. I found out later they only fit after graunching the bussbar. Which reminds me, I never did finish off changing the labels.

 

[ericmark]

Back in around 2000 I planned to change the fuse boards and RCD's for a consumer unit, last time I looked it was still in the box waiting to be fitted, my son may have done it, but would hope he would get a modern unit now, however be it new or second hand there are loads of consumer units around which could be fitted but not to current regulations.

And unless some thing else happened at the time to fix the time in ones mind, like had it done the day the planes hit the twin towers, then hard to remember dates. I would forget wife's birthday if daughters was not on the same day.

My father-in-laws house never had RCD protection, but it was him who got me to install it in my house, he said if my son got injured in his new hobby as a radio ham at 14 years old, I would not forgive myself, so fitted RCD's in around 1992.

But there is the moral requirement and the legal requirement, and for a landlady not to fit RCD protection is morally wrong, I do not think anyone would say otherwise, however as far as the law goes, not so cut and dried, the law says some one should do an EICR and if there are any C1, C2 or FI codes you have 28 days to fix C2 and FI and C1 should be made safe before leaving the premises.

So the main question is what is classed as a Code C2? It says potentially dangerous, there is no reference to BS7671 all we have is potentially dangerous, and so if it was not potentially dangerous in 1950 why is it potentially dangerous today? So we look at what new equipment has been installed and what new practices have been adopted, and in the 50's there was very little DIY, one would get the man in. However how much DIY is permitted in rental property? If the tenant is not permitted to drill the walls, the 50 mm rules hardly applies.

However we do have a lot more class II equipment, and the earthing requirements have changed over the years, so lack of earth in bathroom means must fit RCD. So it is down to the inspector to use his experience and observations to decide in that building is the RCD required. If he says no then if some one is injured then he could end up in court explaining why he said no, but if he says yes, then really no come back, and morally should be fitted anyway, it is like the seat belt law, in a car made before 1966 with no anchor points there is no need for seat belts, however without the children can't travel in the car. So a 1952 Morris Minor may not need them, but many are fitted with them. But a Stanley Steamer would not look right with seat belts and one is unlikely to drive it far or at any speed.

I think the main question is why any landlady/landlord would not fit RCD's. If they ask the question then maybe we should be explaining why they are fitted rather than if required?

 

[plugwash]

Well over a year after MK allegedly stopped manufacturing anything to do with CUs there currently is no apparent lack of them on offer from wholesalers and other suppliers.

It appears that the company who had been supplying MK with CUs managed to set up a UK subsidary and obtain a license from Honeywell to sell the products under the MK name.

When you browse MK consumer units on TLC the logo says "MK authorized licensee" rather than "MK by honeywell".

The website of the licensee appears to be https://www.circpro.co.uk/

 

[JohnW2]

It appears that the company who had been supplying MK with CUs managed to set up a UK subsidary and obtain a license from Honeywell to sell the products under the MK name. .... When you browse MK consumer units on TLC the logo says "MK authorized licensee" rather than "MK by honeywell". .... The website of the licensee appears to be https://www.circpro.co.uk/

Interesting - thanks. I obviously didn't know that.

Does anyone know how the CircPro ones compare (or appear to compare) with the previous MK ones?

Kind
Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So the main question is what is classed as a Code C2? It says potentially dangerous, there is no reference to BS7671 all we have is potentially dangerous, and so if it was not potentially dangerous in 1950 why is it potentially dangerous today?

That is the discussion which we have more than 'done to death'. I think we probably should regard C2 as meaning something like that:

"considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous at the current time"

We can't do anything about the fact that, in most walks of life, "our" view about the acceptability (or not) of risks changes over time. It would take me or ever to list all the things that were considered 'safe enough to be allowed' when I was a child but which certainly aren't today. In some cases, it's genuinely the case that we weren't aware of the risk/danger 'back then' but in many/most cases we were aware of the risk, even then, but regarded the level of risk as 'acceptable'.

The problem with EICR coding that we discuss so often is that "potentially dangerous" is left to the judgement/discretion of individual inspectors. There will always be some grey areas which do require judgment/discretion, but in many/most cases there could be some explicit 'rules' or, at least ('official') 'guidance' which would help to improve consistency, and reduce some of the anomalies we discuss.

The situation is akin to what we would have if we got rid of the existing explicit/proscriptive laws and, instead, prosecuted people for "driving too fast", "driving with too much alcohol in their blood/breath", "selling cigarettes/alcohol/knives to someone who was too young", "having sex with someone who was too young" etc. etc. - which would considerably increase inconsistency and result in what people would probably call a 'postcode lottery'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting - thanks. I obviously didn't know that. .... Does anyone know how the CircPro ones compare (or appear to compare) with the previous MK ones?

Ah, I've been reading!

It seems that CircPro have been manufacturing the MK Sentry range for about 12 years - so presumably absolutely nothing has changed.

I initially wondered whether the intention is that they will only be producing and selling 'legacy' MK Sentry products, or whether they intend (or are allowed) to develop future products under the MK flag. However, it seems that the latter is the case, since I then found ...

However, we have plans to expand and enhance the MK Sentry circuit protection product range offering over the coming months and news of this will follow as these products are made available to you and the market.

All-in-all, it sounds as if, in practical terms, MK CUs and associated products will simply be 'continuing' as if nothing had actually changed (which, from the user's point-of-view, may well be true).

I suppose it's no surprise, but CircPro don't seem to 'do' what we would decribe as 'UK English' - since they say that they have a "license" from MK and that they are an "authorized licensee"! They also use the word "offering" in a rather unusual way (as in the above quote, and several other places)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The problem with EICR coding that we discuss so often is that "potentially dangerous" is left to the judgement/discretion of individual inspectors. There will always be some grey areas which do require judgement/discretion, but in many/most cases there could be some explicit 'rules' or, at least ('official') 'guidance' which would help to improve consistency, and reduce some of the anomalies we discuss.

Very well put, and yes agreed for the HSE to say what is to be considered as potentially dangerous would help. And yes 'done to death' but the same question is asked again and again, so this I am sure will continue to fill these pages with questions and answers on the EICR. Even the trade bodies do not seem to be able to make up their mind, and in spite of code 4 being removed we still get references to the regulation, which since the new law refers to BS 7671:2018 is not surprising.

We hear the phrase let the courts decide, and that is how British law works, but it takes time, and with Part P from 2004 we still have not seen many court cases, OK where they claim to be scheme members and are not, or poor workmanship, but not seen any work which complies with the regulations but has not been registered come to court.

So the arguments are better done by an English student to an Electrician, and what it means when "or" used not "and". I speak English I don't know all the rules on it's correct use.

"considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous at the current time"

Again likely spot on, I have worked on a bridge with exposed knife switches which clearly are not allowed today.

But a RCD does not make any faultless electrical system safer. Only when there is some other fault, does a RCD remove danger, and the RCD question is complex, and I will not profess to know the answers, to my mind TN-C-S is potentially dangerous, and should never have been allowed, but I can't give a code C2 to a TN-C-S supply. So if a TN-C-S supply is allowed, then is the lack of a RCD any more dangerous to a TN-C-S supply?

Some one in government needs to state what is permitted with rental property and not try doing it on the cheap by linking to BS 7671.