What thread was that please.
EICR, plastic CU, coding and the checklist
- Thread starter SimonH2
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I think he may of been thinking of my comment in my post #19 in THIS thread, when I wrote ...
Kind Regards, John
There's a good argument that replacing a light fitting is a modification, and if you argue that something will be dangerous IF someone modifies the system in teh future then that's a very large can of worms. On the other hand, I'd be "a tad annoyed" if I wanted to fit a Class I light fitting and found that some **** had omitted a CPC
In the context that had me start this thread, the property in question is a rental property. There is no legal requirement YET in England for a periodic inspection, but there is in Scotland and I believe it's on it's way in England when the legislation works it's way through. Now I think we all agree that but for 421.1.201, we'd be quite happy with a plastic cased CU that was made to the appropriate standards, was installed properly, and was not damaged. But, having even a C3 on the EICR is undesirable as that opens the door to certain types of tenant to take advantage.
Some will simply question it and need some explanation. But some will try to profit from it - yes some people will do all sorts of things to scam a bit of profit (seen it first hand)
Watch this week's Panorama., having even a C3 on the EICR is undesirable as that opens the door to certain types of tenant to take advantage.
Some will simply question it and need some explanation. But some will try to profit from it - yes some people will do all sorts of things to scam a bit of profit (seen it first hand)
Sponsored Links
Yes, we discussed that many times before, and it is obviously would be ridiculous (and impossible) to try to anticipate (and attempt to mitigate the possible consequences of) all the stupid things that people might do to an electrical installation in the future.There's a good argument that replacing a light fitting is a modification, and if you argue that something will be dangerous IF someone modifies the system in teh future then that's a very large can of worms. On the other hand, I'd be "a tad annoyed" if I wanted to fit a Class I light fitting and found that some **** had omitted a CPC
However, what we are talking about here is almost the opposite of what you seem to imply, and could work in your favour. I presume that we are all agreed that to not have any CPC at a 'point' in an electrical installation is non-conformant with BS7671. As I wrote (in the bit you quoted), some people might believe that that non-conformity "may result in danger", making it a non-compliance that probably should get a C3. However, as I went on to say (in a bit you didn't quote) that other (I suspect many) people may well not believe that it "may result in danger", in which case, per the 18th, it would not count as a non-compliance an d therefore probably wouldn't need a mention, let alone a coding, in an EICR.
Kind Regards, John
...but
as I mentioned, is 'non-comformity' or 'non-compliance' the criterion for a C3?
Is it not instead simply that 'something' is not to the current regulations?
as I mentioned, is 'non-comformity' or 'non-compliance' the criterion for a C3?
Is it not instead simply that 'something' is not to the current regulations?
I confess that I haven't myself looked recently, but I was going by what Simon wrote ....
[I assume that, in "18th-speak", he meant "non-conformity" rather than "non-compliance" ]
If that's true (I don't have the regs to hand) then, given the current definitions, they appear to be saying that a non-conformity doesn't need to be reported (in an EICR) if it isn't a non-compliance, don't they?
Kind Regards, John
Why not make a metallic ( and hence fire proof ) CU out of a metal other than steel ?
Magnesium is lighter and ( when correctly used ) stronger than steel ( weight for weight ).
Not sure what would happen if the meter tail shorted the the case and created a very hot arc until the DNO fuse blew.
Of course a properly installed CU would have grommets to protect the metal tails from being abraded by the smooth metal edge of the hole chopped out for the incoming tails.
Also how strongly do plastic consumer units burn ?
Magnesium is lighter and ( when correctly used ) stronger than steel ( weight for weight ).
Not sure what would happen if the meter tail shorted the the case and created a very hot arc until the DNO fuse blew.
Of course a properly installed CU would have grommets to protect the metal tails from being abraded by the smooth metal edge of the hole chopped out for the incoming tails.
Also how strongly do plastic consumer units burn ?
Ha ha, very funny.
No-one is saying that one can't - 'ferrous metal' is merely given in BS7671 as an example of a material that would be deemed to be 'non-combustible'.
... and, I image, a lot more expensive. Is it not also less "non-combustible" than steel?
Kind Regards, John
Who do you mean by they? The ones distinguishing between cupboards and elsewhere?
It does burn but it is metallic. ( sodium is also a metal ).
Why not make one out of non-combustible plastic?
Steel was the only material mentioned therefore that's all there is apparently.
I can find no reasons in the regulations for marking something C3 (except where RCDs are not present) other than the 'improvement recommended' on the form, so I suppose one could argue, if one feels that way, that a metal CU is not an improvement therefore no mention should be made of the plastic CU.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
