Should this really be replaced?

[ban-all-sheds]

They aren't supposed to be left with no fuses installed either.

 

[JohnW2]

They aren't supposed to be left with no fuses installed either.

I presume you mean 'no fuse carrier installed'. However, what about my previous question - how does these FCU fuse carriers differ conceptually from those still found in many a CU?

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

It doesn't IMO, both are IP40 when fully assembled but both can be reduced to a lower rating (3x or 2x) wihout the use of either tools or excessive force. Further as installations age both are likely to end up left in the reduced IP state on a long term basis.

So really there are two seperate questions IMO. Firstly are such devices acceptable when in their fully assembled state and secondly are they acceptable if left in the reduced IP state on a long term basis? (as the original poster says some of the FCUS in his installation were).

 

[JohnW2]

It doesn't IMO, both are IP40 when fully assembled but both can be reduced to a lower rating (3x or 2x) wihout the use of either tools or excessive force. Further as installations age both are likely to end up left in the reduced IP state on a long term basis.

Indeed.

So really there are two seperate questions IMO. Firstly are such devices acceptable when in their fully assembled state and secondly are they acceptable if left in the reduced IP state on a long term basis? (as the original poster says some of the FCUS in his installation were).

... and, perhaps, there is a third, overriding, question - whether one can get from the first to second of those situations without use of a tool. After all, many an item in an electrical installation (e.g. a whole CU) would clearly become a problem if left without it's front cover on ('in a reduced IP state').

Kind Regards, John.