Hager Metal Consumer Units

[uksparks]

Hi,

This morning in my local wholesalers they had a selection of the latest Hager metal consumer units that comply with amendment 3. I have to say I was quite impressed with the look of them, especially the Design 30.

 

[shanky887614]

i dont mind metal db's the one thing i would like them to change is get rid of all knockouts, there always in the wrong place

 

[Engineer54]

I don't need to be a rebel for my life to mean something. I am not only a sparky but I am in business. It is just not good business to go against BS7671 IMO.

So all those sole traders out there aren't in business then?? lol!!
So what do you do when you can't find a definitive answer in BS 7671 or in any of it's picture books??

Don't tell me, come on here to get half a dozen different answers...

 

[Essex_]

So all those sole traders out there aren't in business then?? lol!!
So what do you do when you can't find a definitive answer in BS 7671 or in any of it's picture books??

Don't tell me, come on here to get half a dozen different answers...

Of course they are. I was a ST for a long time also. I am simply saying. For me, it makes good business sense to follow the regs. To the laymen all they want is to know that their installation is installed to the regs.

I know squat about building a house but what I do know is that if a builder said to me 'listen mate, don't you worry about building regs 'cause parts of it are BS. I will do what I think is best." I would say goodbye.

 

[UNG]

Some interesting reading here . Looks like electrical distribution accounts for about 10 - 12% of dwelling fires over the last 3 years yet cooking appliances account for 52% of the dwelling fires in the same period. Pity they don't further breakdown / analyse the cause of the electrical distribution fires which obviously includes the DNO equipment

It seems to be with the new amendment acceptable to contain a fire which IMO could pose a greater risk by it not being detected early than to actually review why the numbers of fires have increased so dramatically over the last few years.

Using the LFB stats it could be argued that the number of consumer unit fires is 11 times greater now than 6 years ago, 5 times greater now than 5 years ago and 3.5 times greater now than 4 years ago, so should the IET be looking a little closer to home as it would appear that this has all happened under the 17th edition regs couple this with Part P increasing the safety of electrical work in the domestic sector and the perceived skills shortage that was addressed with 17 day and 5 week courses it really does give food for thought as to whether anybody has actually looked at the bigger picture

The last 5 - 6 years has probably seen the highest number of consumer unit swap outs due to not being "compliant" with the 17th edition since electricity came into general use given the factors highlighted previously is it any wonder why this is happening statistics can have a use but are generally flawed by a lack of analysis or swayed by those producing them and can provoke knee jerk reactions that don't actually address the cause as appears to be the case with this change.

The "eg metal" has been jumped on to prempt wholesale change to metal consumer units without looking at whether any of the moulded variants comply or could comply with modification are we going back to the days of that rusty consumer unit on the garage wall because metals good plastic is bad.

This issue could have been dealt with by amending the building regs with the type of consumer unit installed or housing containing it based on risk to occupants should a fire occur if it is in the escape route

For info LFB stats
Number of fires

• 2005/06 - 27
• 2006/07 - 28
• 2007/08 - 33
• 2008/09 - 21
• 2009/10 54
• 2010/11 - 73
• 2011/12 - 71
• 2012/13 - 220
• 2013/14 - 253

 

[UNG]

Of course they are. I was a ST for a long time also. I am simply saying. For me, it makes good business sense to follow the regs. To the laymen all they want is to know that their installation is installed for the lowest price.

I know squat about building a house but what I do know is that if a builder said to me 'listen mate, don't you worry about building regs 'cause parts of it are BS. I will do what I think is best." I would say goodbye.

Corrected that for you

 

[Essex_]

Corrected that for you

Then it becomes a moral thing. We can all do it for the lowest price but where do you draw the line?

 

[Engineer54]

Some interesting reading here . Looks like electrical distribution accounts for about 10 - 12% of dwelling fires over the last 3 years yet cooking appliances account for 52% of the dwelling fires in the same period. Pity they don't further breakdown / analyse the cause of the electrical distribution fires which obviously includes the DNO equipment

It seems to be with the new amendment acceptable to contain a fire which IMO could pose a greater risk by it not being detected early than to actually review why the numbers of fires have increased so dramatically over the last few years.

Using the LFB stats it could be argued that the number of consumer unit fires is 11 times greater now than 6 years ago, 5 times greater now than 5 years ago and 3.5 times greater now than 4 years ago, so should the IET be looking a little closer to home as it would appear that this has all happened under the 17th edition regs couple this with Part P increasing the safety of electrical work in the domestic sector and the perceived skills shortage that was addressed with 17 day and 5 week courses it really does give food for thought as to whether anybody has actually looked at the bigger picture

The last 5 - 6 years has probably seen the highest number of consumer unit swap outs due to not being "compliant" with the 17th edition since electricity came into general use given the factors highlighted previously is it any wonder why this is happening statistics can have a use but are generally flawed by a lack of analysis or swayed by those producing them and can provoke knee jerk reactions that don't actually address the cause as appears to be the case with this change.

The "eg metal" has been jumped on to prempt wholesale change to metal consumer units without looking at whether any of the moulded variants comply or could comply with modification are we going back to the days of that rusty consumer unit on the garage wall because metals good plastic is bad.

This issue could have been dealt with by amending the building regs with the type of consumer unit installed or housing containing it based on risk to occupants should a fire occur if it is in the escape route

For info LFB stats
Number of fires

• 2005/06 - 27
• 2006/07 - 28
• 2007/08 - 33
• 2008/09 - 21
• 2009/10 54
• 2010/11 - 73
• 2011/12 - 71
• 2012/13 - 220
• 2013/14 - 253

Statistic's again, .... without ALL of the base information used to compile these statistics being available, those statistics are practically meaningless, no matter who publishes them. Many household fires are put down to electrical faults when factual means of cause are not known.

However, perhaps what even these low level statistic's show, is that there has been a significant increase in household fire's since the inception of the Part P Providers, that were specifically created to improve Safety in the Domestic sector of our industry. Clearly that has not been the case, and if anything actually shows a steep increase in household fires during there time in office (so to speak) So perhaps it's time they took an in depth look at what these providers are actually bringing to the domestic industry?

One things for sure, the increase in household fires has not been the result of installing plastic CU/DB's, they have been around for a very long time now and have had improvements made to the material they are manufactured from along the way to boot. It's rather, down to the quality those installing those CU/DB's, and to the quality of the components within those enclosures...

 

[Midwest]

Just for your information Midwest, the golden age WAS all metal CU/DB's not plastic. The majority 99% or more, of all electrical panels on virtually all of my current and past projects are or have been metal!!

One of the problems with the introduction of all metal domestic CU/DB's in the UK as i see it, is that the majority of these unskilled chancers that abound in there 1000's, are going to make more of a problem using them, than the easy plastic ones. It certainly isn't going to solve any existing problems....

Ohhh someone's tired. Anyhow thought this thread was about the spankey new metal Hager consumer unit, not another wot a lot pants reg. 421.1.201 is.

 

[Essex_]

Statistic's again, .... without ALL of the base information used to compile these statistics being available, those statistics are practically meaningless, no matter who publishes them. Many household fires are put down to electrical faults when factual means of cause are not known.

However, perhaps what even these low level statistic's show, is that there has been a significant increase in household fire's since the inception of the Part P Providers, that were specifically created to improve Safety in the Domestic sector of our industry. Clearly that has not been the case, and if anything actually shows a steep increase in household fires during there time in office (so to speak) So perhaps it's time they took an in depth look at what these providers are actually bringing to the domestic industry?

One things for sure, the increase in household fires has not been the result of installing plastic CU/DB's, they have been around for a very long time now and have had improvements made to the material they are manufactured from along the way to boot. It's rather, down to the quality those installing those CU/DB's, and to the quality of the components within those enclosures...

So that stats are good enough for you to use to slam Part P but not good enough to use for fires caused by electrical faults?

 

[UNG]

Then it becomes a moral thing. We can all do it for the lowest price but where do you draw the line?

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make with the moral thing with most things price is the overriding factor most customers have no idea what Part P is about let alone what edition and amendment of the regs we are working to they just want it to work at the lowest possible cost.

It is difficult to find customers who don't moan about the cost or who shop around and want you to price match the lowest because they know your work I have a few customers who use me who never ask for a quote and just want me to do it and trust me not to rip them off as for them knowing the regs

 

[Essex_]

Some interesting reading here . Looks like electrical distribution accounts for about 10 - 12% of dwelling fires over the last 3 years yet cooking appliances account for 52% of the dwelling fires in the same period. Pity they don't further breakdown / analyse the cause of the electrical distribution fires which obviously includes the DNO equipment

It seems to be with the new amendment acceptable to contain a fire which IMO could pose a greater risk by it not being detected early than to actually review why the numbers of fires have increased so dramatically over the last few years.

Using the LFB stats it could be argued that the number of consumer unit fires is 11 times greater now than 6 years ago, 5 times greater now than 5 years ago and 3.5 times greater now than 4 years ago, so should the IET be looking a little closer to home as it would appear that this has all happened under the 17th edition regs couple this with Part P increasing the safety of electrical work in the domestic sector and the perceived skills shortage that was addressed with 17 day and 5 week courses it really does give food for thought as to whether anybody has actually looked at the bigger picture

The last 5 - 6 years has probably seen the highest number of consumer unit swap outs due to not being "compliant" with the 17th edition since electricity came into general use given the factors highlighted previously is it any wonder why this is happening statistics can have a use but are generally flawed by a lack of analysis or swayed by those producing them and can provoke knee jerk reactions that don't actually address the cause as appears to be the case with this change.

The "eg metal" has been jumped on to prempt wholesale change to metal consumer units without looking at whether any of the moulded variants comply or could comply with modification are we going back to the days of that rusty consumer unit on the garage wall because metals good plastic is bad.

This issue could have been dealt with by amending the building regs with the type of consumer unit installed or housing containing it based on risk to occupants should a fire occur if it is in the escape route

For info LFB stats
Number of fires

• 2005/06 - 27
• 2006/07 - 28
• 2007/08 - 33
• 2008/09 - 21
• 2009/10 54
• 2010/11 - 73
• 2011/12 - 71
• 2012/13 - 220
• 2013/14 - 253

Great post. These stats are alarming. NC DBs ain't going to change anything I suspect though

 

[Engineer54]

So that stats are good enough for you to use to slam Part P but not good enough to use for fires caused by electrical faults?

I don't think you have the slightest idea about statistics, how they are made or how they can be manipulated to support either way in any dispute using exactly the same numbers!!

What i have stated is, that as low level as these statistics are, you can make a damn good case for slamming the Scams, but it's a very different matter when determining the cause of household fires when i know for a fact that FB will often miss call a fire as being electrical in nature...

 

[D Skelton]

So that stats are good enough for you to use to slam Part P but not good enough to use for fires caused by electrical faults?

Read his post again.

As for statistics, I have seen an unbiased and broken down set straight from the horses mouth. Put it this way, we have seen a ten fold increase in house fires caused by faulty wiring since the inception of Part Pee. The numbers are as clear as day, unfortunately however, we have the scams which will do everything in their power to justify their own existence. They blame it on the materials, they've even gone as far as to convince the LFB that the materials are to blame. They know full well though that it's their members to blame. You won't catch them admitting that though!

 

[Essex_]

I don't think you have the slightest idea about statistics, how they are made or how they can be manipulated to support either way in any dispute using exactly the same numbers!!

What i have stated is, that as low level as these statistics are, you can make a damn good case for slamming the Scams, but it's a very different matter when determining the cause of household fires when i know for a fact that FB will often miss call a fire as being electrical in nature...

I agree with your first comment completely.

 

[UNG]

So that stats are good enough for you to use to slam Part P but not good enough to use for fires caused by electrical faults?

Not entirely sure what you are getting at there is a significant rise in the number of electrical distribution fires in recent years, the introduction of Part P which led to the quick training endorsed by the incompetent persons scams and the 17th edition regulation change are all significant factors in that time period.

Please enlighten us as to what you attribute this rise in electrical distribution fires to


Struggling to find any national stats that show electrical distribution fires pre 2008 although the 2008 stats in the link I posted earlier do have a comparison to the 2007 stats

 

[Essex_]

Read his post again.

As for statistics, I have seen an unbiased and broken down set straight from the horses mouth. Put it this way, we have seen a ten fold increase in house fires caused by faulty wiring since the inception of Part Pee. The numbers are as clear as day, unfortunately however, we have the scams which will do everything in their power to justify their own existence. They blame it on the materials, they've even gone as far as to convince the LFB that the materials are to blame. They know full well though that it's their members to blame. You won't catch them admitting that though!

I agree with you.

 

[Engineer54]

Not entirely sure what you are getting at there is a significant rise in the number of electrical distribution fires in recent years, the introduction of Part P which led to the quick training endorsed by the incompetent persons scams and the 17th edition regulation change are all significant factors in that time period.

Please enlighten us as to what you attribute this rise in electrical distribution fires to


Struggling to find any national stats that show electrical distribution fires pre 2008 although the 2008 stats in the link I posted earlier do have a comparison to the 2007 stats

I'm suggesting that this is the major cause of the rise in electrical distribution fires, and has little to do with plastic enclosure CU's....

 

[Essex_]

Not entirely sure what you are getting at there is a significant rise in the number of electrical distribution fires in recent years, the introduction of Part P which led to the quick training endorsed by the incompetent persons scams and the 17th edition regulation change are all significant factors in that time period.

Please enlighten us as to what you attribute this rise in electrical distribution fires to


Struggling to find any national stats that show electrical distribution fires pre 2008 although the 2008 stats in the link I posted earlier do have a comparison to the 2007 stats

You may have misunderstood me. I am not disputing the figures at all. And I agree with your reasoning. My point with that post was that E54 in the first paragraph said the figures are BS and then in the second paragraph used the same figures to slam Part P.

I fully believe that lack of checks and short courses are to blame for these fires. For me the only way to change this would be a license approach. If people could loose the right to work within their trade standard would improve. But that debate is not for this thread.

 

[Essex_]

I'm suggesting that this is the major cause of the rise in electrical distribution fires, and has little to do with plastic enclosure CU's....

Part P is not the problem. The lack of proper checks to ensure compliance is the problem I think.

 

[D Skelton]

Part P is not the problem. The lack of proper checks to ensure compliance is the problem I think.

No, the admittance of 5 day wonders on to the schemes registers is the problem!

 

[Essex_]

No, the admittance of 5 day wonders on to the schemes registers is the problem!

Could not agree more.

 

[ipf]

No, the admittance of 5 day wonders on to the schemes registers is the problem!

All for the sake of cash.....who's bothered about cu's causing fires?....there's more to be made.

 

[Guest77]

You may have misunderstood me. I am not disputing the figures at all. And I agree with your reasoning. My point with that post was that E54 in the first paragraph said the figures are BS and then in the second paragraph used the same figures to slam Part P.

I fully believe that lack of checks and short courses are to blame for these fires. For me the only way to change this would be a license approach. If people could loose the right to work within their trade standard would improve. But that debate is not for this thread.

No misunderstanding at all, UNG has you summed up lol.

 

[richy3333]

Statistic are like a woman in a bikini. They reveal a lot but hide the essential facts.

I've seen no more hard evidence that these fires are attributable to Electrical Trainee than they are to Martians. If anyone has any links to some proof then I'd be interested to read it. Maybe all these fires were caused by eastern Europeans doing cut price electrical work and maybe not?

This year I've seen the results of one C U fire. The usual ****ty plastic MK dual RCD £30 nonsense. Fitted by a 60 year old apprenticed 'been a spark all my life' and still think MK is as good as it was 30 years ago bloke. The cause of the fire was a loose neutral.

Nah, stuff it, its all the fault of Electrical Trainee

 

[HappyHippyDad]

1. Because people these days have some sort of natural aversion to charging for what they're worth. Mainly because there are so many people out there who aren't worth jack $h!t so prices remain low.

2. You haven't really been paying attention of late have you? What is required is a board made of non-combustible material. Steel is an example of such a material, nothing more. In fact, if a board complies with BS EN 61439-3 then it is by definition non-combustible. There are numerous plastic boards that comply with this standard.

It does look like a nice bit of kit, I can't argue with that. What I will say though is that it's a complete and utter waste of money considering Hager's current plastic boards also comply with AMD 3.

Buy it and all you do is play in to the hands of the manufacturers who are doing all in their power to perpetuate this myth that new boards 'have' to be steel. Put it this way, come January, unless we as a trade start to wise the f**k up, where the board manufacturers are concerned, all their Christmas's will have come early!

Read his post again.


Regulation 421.1.201 states that the CU has to comply to BS EN 61439-3 AND be made from non-combustible material, so I cant see how if the unit complies to BS EN 61439-3 that means it is non-combustible otherwise they wouldn't have added the 'AND'. BS EN 61439-3 costs a fortune so its impossible to get a look at it, although I think you have access to it Mr DS so some actual facts about why complying to BS EN 6139-3 implies that non-combustible materials have been used would be interesting and useful to see, and a reason as to why you think reg 421.1.201 feels the need to put in the word 'AND'.

 

[Delboybully]

No, the admittance of 5 day wonders on to the schemes registers is the problem!

So what you and ENG54 are saying is that all CU fires are caused by 5WWs. Is there some evidence for this or is this your assumption. If all CUs that have caught fire have been installed or worked on by 5WWs then I will agree with you otherwise I think you should keep to evidence based statements.

Have you considered the cause of these fires may be due to the inferior quality of modern day CUs?

 

[D Skelton]

Read his post again.


Regulation 421.1.201 states that the CU has to comply to BS EN 61439-3 AND be made from non-combustible material, so I cant see how if the unit complies to BS EN 61439-3 that means it is non-combustible otherwise they wouldn't have added the 'AND'. BS EN 61439-3 costs a fortune so its impossible to get a look at it, although I think you have access to it Mr DS so some actual facts about why complying to BS EN 6139-3 implies that non-combustible materials have been used would be interesting and useful to see, and a reason as to why you think reg 421.1.201 feels the need to put in the word 'AND'.

It's all explained in this thread here: http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk/electrical-wiring-theories-electrical-regulations/99771-amd-3-hopefully-busting-myth-metal.html

As for why they included the word 'and' in 421.1.201 I couldn't say?

BS 7671 and BS EN 61439 are written by different people, so maybe it's because many of those involved in the decision making process of Regulation 421.1.201 haven't actually read the product standard in full, instead they've been given just the general jist of it?

Maybe it's because BS EN 61439 itself doesn't actually define 'non-combustible', instead it details just the very specific set of criteria that equipment manufactured under it must meet, therefore those writing 421.1.201 simply didn't follow the paper trail to the harmonised standard that does actually define 'non-combustible'.

Maybe it's because the final draft of Regulation 421.1.201 was created in a matter of minutes on some fella's desk, it was then dictated and the dictaphone handed to an office lackey to type up and somewhere, things got lost in translation.

Or, maybe, the word 'and' was just added to emphasise the point. The fact that 99.9% of sparks aren't going to have access to BS EN 61439 could contribute to the decision to make it damn clear in 421.1.201 that the enclosure must be non-combustible even though by meeting BS EN 61439 it already will be. Giving steel as an example is essentially one way of saying "look, we're not expecting you to do your own research here, so install steel and you'll definitely be fine".

Who knows?

All I know is that 1. steel is not the only non-combustible material on the planet. And 2. The IET aren't exactly well known for their ability to put things on paper in plain English!

 

[D Skelton]

So what you and ENG54 are saying is that all CU fires are caused by 5WWs?

Show me where I've said this please?

 

[D Skelton]

Statistic are like a woman in a bikini. They reveal a lot but hide the essential facts.

I've seen no more hard evidence that these fires are attributable to Electrical Trainee than they are to Martians. If anyone has any links to some proof then I'd be interested to read it. Maybe all these fires were caused by eastern Europeans doing cut price electrical work and maybe not?

This year I've seen the results of one C U fire. The usual ****ty plastic MK dual RCD £30 nonsense. Fitted by a 60 year old apprenticed 'been a spark all my life' and still think MK is as good as it was 30 years ago bloke. The cause of the fire was a loose neutral.

Nah, stuff it, its all the fault of Electrical Trainee

In the last year there has been a 500% rise in Romanian nationals in the capital. In the same period there has been a 100% rise in cash point fraud. Are those statistics hard evidence that Romanian criminals are contributing to this rise in cash pint frauds? No, but it sure as hell is pointing a rather large finger in their direction!

Bury your head in the sand all you like mate, ignore what the statistics are suggesting, that's your look out. I for one see quite a worrying correlation though, and the fact that the whole weight of the justification for your point rests on the shoulders of one experience suggests that it is you that is making the snap judgements here, not I.

 

[GB.Kayak]

Read his post again.


Regulation 421.1.201 states that the CU has to comply to BS EN 61439-3 AND be made from non-combustible material, so I cant see how if the unit complies to BS EN 61439-3 that means it is non-combustible otherwise they wouldn't have added the 'AND'. BS EN 61439-3 costs a fortune so its impossible to get a look at it, although I think you have access to it Mr DS so some actual facts about why complying to BS EN 6139-3 implies that non-combustible materials have been used would be interesting and useful to see, and a reason as to why you think reg 421.1.201 feels the need to put in the word 'AND'.

Damien Skelton has already posted on this subject:

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...99771-amd-3-hopefully-busting-myth-metal.html

He is the one person to have brought together the relevant parts of the applicable standards in a single thread. Unfortunately, his conclusion is that a CU that is self-extinguishing is the same as a non-combustible CU.

 

[Essex_]

In the last year there has been a 500% rise in Romanian nationals in the capital. In the same period there has been a 100% rise in cash point fraud. Are those statistics hard evidence that Romanian criminals are contributing to this rise in cash pint frauds? No, but it sure as hell is pointing a rather large finger in their direction!

Bury your head in the sand all you like mate, ignore what the statistics are suggesting, that's your look out. I for one see quite a worrying correlation though, and the fact that the whole weight of the justification for your point rests on the shoulders of one experience suggests that it is you that is making the snap judgements here, not I.

Absolute rubbish. So what you are doing is picking two figures that have risen and decided they go together. There has also been a 400% rise in traffic wardens so why are they equally not responsible cash point thefts.

I hear enough of this crap in the media and my son (who is half Romanian) is scared to admit his ancestry because of comments like this.

 

[D Skelton]

Absolute rubbish. So what you are doing is picking two figures that have risen and decided they go together. There has also been a 400% rise in traffic wardens so why are they equally not responsible cash point thefts.

I hear enough of this crap in the media and my son (who is half Romanian) is scared to admit his ancestry because of comments like this.

Ah sorry, I forgot that because your son is half Romanian I am no longer allowed to point to statistics that at least suggest a certain cause, thus meaning I am automatically talking rubbish. I forgot that a viewpoint that might offend a small minority of people automatically becomes invalid simply because of the offence it may cause.

Traffic wardens don't exactly have a history of running gangs that target cash points do they?!

The point I was making is clear. This thread is not about cash point thieves, however there is an argument to be made, and a very valid one I might add, that a rise in house fires caused by faulty wiring since the inception of Part P could be caused by a rise in under trained, unqualified chancers that have also been on the rise since the inception of Part P.

At no point did I say it was all down to them, similarly I'm sure not all cash point fraud is down to Romanian criminals. A lot of it is though.

 

[Marvo]

We have a politics forum for this kind of debate.

If this thread doesn't get back on and stay on topic it will be closed.

 

[D Skelton]

In rolls the silencer of free debate.

Welcome oh great one.

It was off topic the second we started talking about anything other than the new Hager Design range of boards. Better close this whole mess down now! Before you know it we'll be talking about tripping RCDs! God forbid!

 

[ipf]

We have a politics forum for this kind of debate.

If this thread doesn't get back on and stay on topic it will be closed.

Who's to say Hager (and the rest) aren't getting into the ACM game.....next stage...need a card and PIN to get into a steel CU....even if it is on fire.


Just to bring us back on topic, Marvo..:icon12:

 

[Delboybully]

In rolls the silencer of free debate.

Welcome oh great one.

It was off topic the second we started talking about anything other than the new Hager Design range of boards. Better close this whole mess down now! Before you know it we'll be talking about tripping RCDs! God forbid!

I think that is harsh on Marvo.

This thread started on Hager metal CUs, moved onto Electrical Trainee bashing and then you, to make a point, started moving it onto Romanians. I understand why you used the Romanians to make your point but I suspect without Marvos involvement this thread would go completely off topic.

Marvo just said that if you want to talk about politics then maybe you should start a thread in a different area, he is just stepping it to stop the thread going off topic

 

[Engineer54]

Statistic are like a woman in a bikini. They reveal a lot but hide the essential facts.

I've seen no more hard evidence that these fires are attributable to Electrical Trainee than they are to Martians. If anyone has any links to some proof then I'd be interested to read it. Maybe all these fires were caused by eastern Europeans doing cut price electrical work and maybe not?

This year I've seen the results of one C U fire. The usual ****ty plastic MK dual RCD £30 nonsense. Fitted by a 60 year old apprenticed 'been a spark all my life' and still think MK is as good as it was 30 years ago bloke. The cause of the fire was a loose neutral.

Nah, stuff it, its all the fault of Electrical Trainee

Are you saying that this MK plastic CU actually caught fire, or that the RCD did??

Yep i agree, and you wouldn't be far wrong either!! lol!!

 

[Engineer54]

I think that is harsh on Marvo.

This thread started on Hager metal CUs, moved onto Electrical Trainee bashing and then you, to make a point, started moving it onto Romanians. I understand why you used the Romanians to make your point but I suspect without Marvos involvement this thread would go completely off topic.

Marvo just said that if you want to talk about politics then maybe you should start a thread in a different area, he is just stepping it to stop the thread going off topic

No, it was/is a direct threat of closure, where none is/was warranted or needed.
It was on and off topic all the way through, that's what generally happens during any debate...

 

[UNG]

Statistic are like a woman in a bikini. They reveal a lot but hide the essential facts.

I've seen no more hard evidence that these fires are attributable to Electrical Trainee than they are to Martians. If anyone has any links to some proof then I'd be interested to read it. Maybe all these fires were caused by eastern Europeans doing cut price electrical work and maybe not?

This year I've seen the results of one C U fire. The usual ****ty plastic MK dual RCD £30 nonsense. Fitted by a 60 year old apprenticed 'been a spark all my life' and still think MK is as good as it was 30 years ago bloke. The cause of the fire was a loose neutral.

Nah, stuff it, its all the fault of Electrical Trainee

So how do you interpret the statistics given the changing circumstances of the industry during the period they represent you have analysed one fire only another 779 to analyse and thats just the LFB stats

So what you and ENG54 are saying is that all CU fires are caused by 5WWs. Is there some evidence for this or is this your assumption. If all CUs that have caught fire have been installed or worked on by 5WWs then I will agree with you otherwise I think you should keep to evidence based statements.

Have you considered the cause of these fires may be due to the inferior quality of modern day CUs?

The figures for the LFB show a 10 fold increase so only 90% could really be attributed to Part P, Electrical Trainee, 17DW and the 17th edition regs. What it needs is some joined up stats as to whether any notifiable work had been carried out where the fires occurred

Absolute rubbish. So what you are doing is picking two figures that have risen and decided they go together. There has also been a 400% rise in traffic wardens so why are they equally not responsible cash point thefts.

I hear enough of this crap in the media and my son (who is half Romanian) is scared to admit his ancestry because of comments like this.

Strange how the media is crap when it's going against you. I suppose the 400% increase in traffic wardens is responsible for more parking offences being committed

 

[richy3333]

In the last year there has been a 500% rise in Romanian nationals in the capital. In the same period there has been a 100% rise in cash point fraud. Are those statistics hard evidence that Romanian criminals are contributing to this rise in cash pint frauds? No, but it sure as hell is pointing a rather large finger in their direction!

Bury your head in the sand all you like mate, ignore what the statistics are suggesting, that's your look out. I for one see quite a worrying correlation though, and the fact that the whole weight of the justification for your point rests on the shoulders of one experience suggests that it is you that is making the snap judgements here, not I.

Given the considerable in depth research you have undertaken on the subject of this new 'requirement' please can you direct me to the evidence that has come to light that these CU fires are caused by Electrical Trainee? I ask out of genuine interest not as provocation. I still maintain that statistics can be manipulated read whatever a person wants. Politicians do it all the time.