MCBs in other boards

[studentspark]

I am coming across this quite a lot. Finding MCBs butchered to fit in a board made by another company.

View media item 43144
This is a MEN board with an incorrect fuse.
Looking for a suitable replacement, would anybody know if this version would fit.

http://www.thefusecompany.com/fuse.php?cPath=68&products_id=459

However I want a 20 A


Also

An older style Hager board, needed a new MCB, sorry don't know the serial number.
The problem is the new Hager MCB sits two high on the busbar.
So the back dinrail hook will not engage. and the MCB is to high for the cover to fit on correctly.
I could cut the bus bar and link it together will a piece slightly lower (we are talking about 2 mm)

Also I would like to protect one of the circuits with a Hager RCBO but this would involve filling a notch in the cover opening again 2-3 mm to get it to fit. I feel uncomfortable doing this, and would appreciate your thoughts



Thanks

 

[Adam_151]

Its not recommended, it is against the manufacturers recommendations and therefore does not fully conform to the regulations

Code C3 on EICR if it all seems to fit in alright
Code C2 if its not fitting properly and jammed it sitting at some angle
Code C1 for that missing blank in your picture though!!

I'm pretty sure you have found the correct series of MCBs for that board that is indeed a memera 21 board unless I am mistaken

Have you tried ebay? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MEM-EATON...UK_BOI_CircuitBreakers_RL&hash=item19c6752ef0

16A devices seem much more in abundance than 20A, if thats sufficent for your load, however as shown above 20A os available if you look

As far as I know on the Hager boards.... the newer breakers should fit the older boards, but headroom above RCBOs is... tight!

 

[ericmark]

One has to remember a consumer unit is a type tested distribution board and as such all items in the consumer unit have to be recommended by the manufacturer. With a distribution board if you can physically fit it you can use it. But it needs a skilled person in charge on maintenance to use a distribution board.

I have seen many non standard items fitted in a consumer unit and often there is no real problem other than the paperwork.

The other common problem with both consumer units and distribution boards is both type and provision of blanks. I have seen blank strip which one can cut to lenght and with the boards with sliders to switch off unused forks to connect the MCB with guess they are OK. But in many boards the fork remains live and often you can remove the blank without use of a tool or key so it should fail.

I think we need some common sense but coupled with that is what will the next person report and although in house we may turn a blind eye to items not strictly complying but reasonable safe where it's likely the next guy will point out you work wrong it has become a jobs worth to miss this type of non compliant problem.

The ESC with their Best practice guides is likely our best friend here where they advocate C3 just because the RCD is missing. So any board without a RCD gets an automatic C3.

The board shown would likely get a C1 because of the missing blank! But assuming that is corrected then hard to justify a C2.

Some of the examples do seem strange use of extension leads getting a C3 or C2 when running though a door way seems very strange as clearly they are not part of the fixed installation. But in a watch my back situation then suppose one has to follow the guide lines?

 

[JohnW2]

Some of the examples do seem strange use of extension leads getting a C3 or C2 when running though a door way seems very strange as clearly they are not part of the fixed installation. But in a watch my back situation then suppose one has to follow the guide lines?

If you feel it strange to the extent that, in the absence of the guidelines, you would prefer not to have to code such things, you presumably could ask the householder/whatever to unplug any things which were not part of the fixed installation prior to your undertaking an EICR, couldn't you? (after all, you need access to all sockets for I&T, don't you? ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Adam_151]

The NICEIC best practice guide, while pretty good in most places does have small aspects I disagree with it

It recommends a code 2 for socket outlets without an effective CPC... In my book thats always code 1 and a danger notice time and seek permission to isolate the socket(s) in question!

 

[JohnW2]

The NICEIC best practice guide, while pretty good in most places does have small aspects I disagree with it. It recommends a code 2 for socket outlets without an effective CPC... In my book thats always code 1 and a danger notice time and seek permission to isolate the socket(s) in question!

I imagine many others would agree with you. I suppose what it all comes down to is one's view of 'immediate danger' - some would probably argue that an absent/inadequate CPC does not present a danger in the absence of some other fault - hence the C2. As far as the fixed installation is concerned, the EICR should theoretically have identified any other such faults - but who can tell that something with a fault won't be plugged in the moment the inspector walks out of the door?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

I recently decided to email wylex technical and asked about the use of their mcb's/RCD's in other consumer units as it was happening at the company I work for.

They replied stating that they would not recommend this as their product testing would not cover this. It would obviously void the guarantee and the installer would have to take full responsibility.

They also sent me a link containing a write up by Wylex specifically about this. I will have a look on my computer on Monday if I get time and post the link as you and others may find it of interest.

 

[Adam_151]

some would probably argue that an absent/inadequate CPC does not present a danger in the absence of some other fault

Problem is if you do down that track john you could argue that nothing is immediatly dangerous as its not casuing an issue at time of test.

Lighting circuit with re-wireable carrier bypassed - only C1 if a ballast failure is is occuring and the cable burning up as its inspected?

Live wires poking out the wall in a classroom - Only C1 if a child is actually being electrocuted at the time of inspection?

 

[JohnW2]

some would probably argue that an absent/inadequate CPC does not present a danger in the absence of some other fault

Problem is if you do down that track john you could argue that nothing is immediatly dangerous as its not casuing an issue at time of test.

I agree, which is why my thinking doesn't go down that track! Mind you...

Live wires poking out the wall in a classroom - Only C1 if a child is actually being electrocuted at the time of inspection?

.. I think that even those who do 'go down that track' would call exposed live wires a C1, even if no-one is being electrocuted during the inspection. Indeed, that might be one of the few things which they do regard as an 'immediate danger', aka C1.

It does, however, (IMO) become more 'grey' in some cases. For example, I suspect (maybe incorrectly!) that you may well consider an OPD too high in rating for the cable it's protecting as being a C1 but whether it poses an 'immediate danger' is then a bit more open to debate - there is obviously a very high probability that it could sit like that for the next 20 years without the cable ever being overloaded, let alone overloaded to the extent of being damaged or becoming a fire hazard.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

To my mind if it needs a single action for it to give someone a shock it's a C1.

i.e. stick ones finger in the hole left by missing blank in a consumer unit.

If it need two actions or more to give some one a shock then it's a C2.

i.e. Have a lost of earth connection and have a line earth fault on an appliance.

That's easy it's the C3 which is more of a problem. With no RCD on sockets being classed as C3 there are very few premises wired before 2008 which would not attract a C3.

As with the old 1, 2, 3, and 4 the problem is if every premises attracts a C3 then people are going to regard C3 as does not need any action but there may be problems if I need to upgrade any circuits.

But back to the subject of the post.

To my mind it is unlikely that any action in upgrading the CU is going to mean it does not still get at least a C3 classification. Therefore the only option is to replace the CU.

This then brings us to the age old scenario should one do a sub standard repair when this still improves the safety of the installation? I would in general say yes, but I would also clearly mark paperwork as to it being a temporary repair.

Clearly though not an easy.

So I would say clearly in this case a CU change is called for. To fit a blank while waiting would seem reasonable but considering the CU does need changing rather pointless doing any other work until ready to change the CU.

 

[JohnW2]

To my mind if it needs a single action for it to give someone a shock it's a C1. i.e. stick ones finger in the hole left by missing blank in a consumer unit.

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

If it need two actions or more to give some one a shock then it's a C2. i.e. Have a lost of earth connection and have a line earth fault on an appliance.

That's very sensible, but I still understand Adam's viepoint- I guess it's a matter of how one defines 'two actions'. The LE fault in the appliance may already exist at the time of the inspection - e.g. in the kettle sitting on the worktop waiting to be plugged in as soon as the electrician has walked out of the door. That's arguably a little different from the situation in which, say, a new fault in fixed wiring (not present at the time of the inspection) would have to develop before the detected problem would present a danger.

That's easy it's the C3 which is more of a problem. With no RCD on sockets being classed as C3 there are very few premises wired before 2008 which would not attract a C3.

Indeed, but it's always a bit of a problem when safety standards, or views of safety, evolve. It's not that difficult to argue that, if the 2012 view is that an RCD is needed for safety, then one should at least 'recommend upgrading' a system which doesn't have an RCD. A bit like the early days of car seat belts, when there was a legal obligation to have (but, then, not necessarily use!) seatbelts if the car had been manufactured after a certain date - if the current view of the law was that seatbelts were required for safety, then why 'excuse' old cars? Returning to topic, as many of us have agreed in the past, the sad thing seems to be the old code 4, which was seemingly more-or-less designed for this situation.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RF Lighting]

 

[Adam_151]

They might have better luck subsituting a merlin for a hager if they werne't all in backwards to start with

 

[plugwash]

Some of the examples do seem strange use of extension leads getting a C3 or C2 when running though a door way seems very strange as clearly they are not part of the fixed installation. But in a watch my back situation then suppose one has to follow the guide lines?

Sometimes extension leads are used in an "effectively fixed" manner (screwed to the wall, rammed into corners, maybe even actually clipped in place) to make up for deficiencies in the fixed installation..

IMO a key question in the safety of an electrical install should be "is it fit for purpose". Extension leads running through doorways (and potentially getting chafed by the door) on a semi-permanent basis is IMO evidence that the install is not fit for purpose.

 

[JohnW2]

IMO a key question in the safety of an electrical install should be "is it fit for purpose". Extension leads running through doorways (and potentially getting chafed by the door) on a semi-permanent basis is IMO evidence that the install is not fit for purpose.

That obviously makes total sense, but how does it fit in with the formality/bureaucracy of an EICR? I was surprised to read from Eric that the guidelines suggest C2/C3 for extension leads given that AFAIAA such things technically don't come within the scope of BS7671. Do people generally consider it appropriate to give EICR codes to things which aren't within the scope of BS7671? If, whilst doing an EICR, you happened to notice a portable appliance which, although not plugged in at the time, was clearly not fit for purpose (frayed/damaged lead, dodgy plug, broken insulation etc.etc.) I presume you would bring it to the householder's attention, but would you also code it on the EICR? Indeed, what about a visible extension lead which wasn't actually plugged in at the time of the EICR?

Kind Regards, John.