Query regarding Amendment 3, 2015 to the Wiring Regulations (England)

[JohnW2]

Would it be possible for you to give us a rough idea of what that definition says?

3.1.1 ... low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly (ASSEMBLY)
combination of one or more low-voltage switching devices together with associated control, measuring, signalling, protective, regulating equipment, with all the internal electrical and mechanical interconnections and structural parts
ha ha..

Thanks. I take it that it does not go on to say 'how much of that' is needed to qualify? If it doesn't, do I take it that, for example, switched FCUs, any switch with a neon, dimmers etc. come within that definition?!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I went on to say, a major (and, IMO, unfortunate) consequence. Since electricians don't want hassle, virtually all of them will (in order to avoid such situations) inevitably install only ferrous metal CUs after 1.1.16

I meant of little practical consequence to the aggrieved (or not) householder. In the situation you describe it won't have been he who had the CU replaced, and it won't have been the electrician doing the EICR who did the installation.

He's probably more likely to be aggrieved with the EICR guy.

The LFB are very powerful, and (although I may be misinformed) the impression I get is that they bullied JPEL/64 into the change under threat of their seeking the introduction of specific legislation.

It seems a no-brainer that JPEL/64 should have said "Fine - go off and get the law changed then, because we don't want any part of it". They aren't meant to bend and twist in the winds of ignorance and superstition, they are meant to be engineers.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In their infinite wisdom, BEAMA have taken it upon themselves to give 'guidance' on this matter - but it doesn't really help very much

So in their infinite wisdom they think it logical that a shower unit should have to be non-combustible but not the isolation switch part way along the cable run.

I see.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If not something like that, then what else could be responsible for such a huge jump in the figures?

When did the makers and purveyors of cheap/counterfeit/dangerous Chinese tat hit their stride?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

3.1.1
low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly (ASSEMBLY)
combination of one or more low-voltage switching devices together with associated control,
measuring, signalling, protective, regulating equipment, with all the internal electrical and
mechanical interconnections and structural parts.

So will that be any switch which has a neon and/or flag to indicate whether it is on or off?

Does a doorbell do signalling? I rather think it does.

 

[PBC_1966]

When did the makers and purveyors of cheap/counterfeit/dangerous Chinese tat hit their stride?

I could see that having a longer-term influence, but surely it would need a sudden and huge changeout of switchgear to the Chinese junk over a very short period of time to account for the sort of jump in the statistics shown in that graph? Is that likely?

 

[JohnW2]

So will that be any switch which has a neon and/or flag to indicate whether it is on or off?

Quite, and more. As I wrote:

.... do I take it that, for example, switched FCUs, any switch with a neon, dimmers etc. come within that definition?!!

Does a doorbell do signalling? I rather think it does.

So would I - but I doubt that it would often involve any "low voltage switching device".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

When did the makers and purveyors of cheap/counterfeit/dangerous Chinese tat hit their stride?

I could see that having a longer-term influence, but surely it would need a sudden and huge changeout of switchgear to the Chinese junk over a very short period of time to account for the sort of jump in the statistics shown in that graph? Is that likely?

Very unlikely, I would have said. It could really only have happened if, around 2011-12, a batch of CU components appeared, a proportion of which 'burst into flames' very soon after installation. Not impossible, but very unlikley, and we would probably have heard about it. However, given that LFB have used these statistics to bring about very wide-ranging changes in regulations (with major cost implications), one would have expected them to provide much more information - e.g. about the make/model of CU components and the interval since they had been put into service.

We do need to keep these figures in perspective. The absolute increase in allegedly CU-initiated fires between 2011/12 and 2012/13 was 149 fires (71 vs. 220). If thousands, or tens of thousands of components from a defective batch suddenly appeared on the market at some point in time, those 149 fires would represent a pretty small proportion of the number installed, and so would not be beyond belief.

You and BAS talk about "Chinese tat/junk" but, of course, the one issue we do know about is the fire hazard which resulted in recall of Electrium MCBs manufactured mainly in 2009. That might possibly have some bearing on the figures we are looking at, particularly the more modest and gradual increase that was seen during 2007 - 2011.

Having said all that, my opinion remains that by far the most likely explanation for the figures relates to possible changes in the way in which they were collected - particularly changes in the extent to which they 'went looking for' possible CU origination of fires.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

When did the makers and purveyors of cheap/counterfeit/dangerous Chinese tat hit their stride?

I could see that having a longer-term influence, but surely it would need a sudden and huge changeout of switchgear to the Chinese junk over a very short period of time to account for the sort of jump in the statistics shown in that graph? Is that likely?

Remember those are absolute numbers, not percentages. Given the number of new builds and refurbs in Greater London that could well be the explanation. Many of the Chinese CUs have no flame retardent in the plastic.

 

[maxantax]

Dear All,

I would never have imagined that my query would have sparked such a heated debate. Diplomatically, I will point out that every time new regulations come into force, it is inevitable that some grey areas emerge, which will have to be clarified by subsequent practice.

Thank you very much to those who posted replies to my initial query, especially EFLImpudence, stillp and ban-all-sheds. I was suspicious that this electrician might be exaggerating the amount of work required and I had my suspicions confirmed.

I have since called another electrician, who has given me advice in line with what suggested by your posts.

Thank you again and keep up the good work!

Max

 

[JohnW2]

Remember those are absolute numbers, not percentages. Given the number of new builds and refurbs in Greater London that could well be the explanation.

Indeed - I made the same point about a minute before you (I typed fast enough for once!!).

Many of the Chinese CUs have no flame retardent in the plastic.

As I've suggested, I don't think that the material of the enclosure which is really the issue - if there was a real change of the suggested magnitude and speed (which I still doubt), it is far more likely to have been due to the underlying originator of the fire (i.e. component within the CU), rather than the enclosure which subsequently became involved in the fire.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would never have imagined that my query would have sparked such a heated debate. Diplomatically, I will point out that every time new regulations come into force, it is inevitable that some grey areas emerge, which will have to be clarified by subsequent practice.

True, but this is a particularly badly worded regulation, which has therefore inevitably stimulated a lot of debate and discussion. Your question just happened to appear at a point in time, just a couple of months before the regulation comes into force, at which everyone is particularly keen to know what they are meant to be doing next year!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

It seems a no-brainer that JPEL/64 should have said "Fine - go off and get the law changed then, because we don't want any part of it". They aren't meant to bend and twist in the winds of ignorance and superstition, they are meant to be engineers.

Would you have preferred MPs to introduce legislation? Who knows what they might have written!
That might also have been the thin end of a wedge that might have resulted in the banning of DIY electrical work, as in some other countries.

 

[stillp]

Would it be possible for you to give us a rough idea of what that definition says?

3.1.1 ... low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly (ASSEMBLY)
combination of one or more low-voltage switching devices together with associated control, measuring, signalling, protective, regulating equipment, with all the internal electrical and mechanical interconnections and structural parts
ha ha..

Thanks. I take it that it does not go on to say 'how much of that' is needed to qualify? If it doesn't, do I take it that, for example, switched FCUs, any switch with a neon, dimmers etc. come within that definition?!!

Kind Regards, John

This is why I didn't quote the definition. FCUs, light switches etc, are not switchgear, they are wiring accessories.

 

[JohnW2]

This is why I didn't quote the definition. FCUs, light switches etc, are not switchgear, they are wiring accessories.

Sure - that's what you, I and common sense (and even BEAMA) would say, but they would seem to come within the scope of that definition, wouldn't they? Is this yet another case of a badly written/thought-out definition?

Kind Regards, John