EICR What would you do?

[telectrix]

spoilsport.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Thanks BD. EICR = Electrical Installation Condition Report. Five bedroom bungalow, test out out of time, mixed MCBs and they're Proteus! - C2 or C3?

As long as the only thing wrong with them is that they are mixed, then why do you need to code anything? What is dangerous? They are all BS60898 as far as i can see, so they are compliant, good practice and personal opinion has sod all to do with. I would code the non RCD circuits C3, because as it does not comply with BS7671, but again this is IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED, it is not mandatory. Remember, you are there to give a professional opinion on the installation to assess if it is safe for continued use, and this must be factual, not personal opinion or other peoples ideas and preferences.

Cheers..............Howard

 

[willy fixit]

Yes Paul,
Think about the fact that we have argued the ---- over this one issue literally hundreds of times now and we are yet to agree.

No matter how many acronyms, statutory documents or EU directives you throw at me, you would never catch me in a month of Sundays C2'ing a different brand of breaker unless actual alterations had taken place to get it to fit.

Another one that I had also considered - I haven't taken the cover off yet and if the bus bar is bent or stressed in any way I think I will be well justified in my "unifying the MCBs argument" (not that there will be any argument).

 

[Doomed]

Also:
Sorry Mr customer, the cost of the two double sockets on a spur you wanted by the front door will cost you a consumer unit change as well because the £3 MCB for your board is no longer made and this identical one by another manufacturer would not comply.........
I think not.

 

[willy fixit]

As long as the only thing wrong with them is that they are mixed, then why do you need to code anything? What is dangerous? They are all BS60898 as far as i can see, so they are compliant, good practice and personal opinion has sod all to do with. I would code the non RCD circuits C3, because as it does not comply with BS7671, but again this is IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED, it is not mandatory. Remember, you are there to give a professional opinion on the installation to assess if it is safe for continued use, and this must be factual, not personal opinion or other peoples ideas and preferences.

Cheers..............Howard

Safe - Safer - Safest ? Thanks SB it's in the title "What would you do"

 

[netblindpaul]

Guys, you are missing the point.

You are NOT simply fitting a different compliant part.

60898 does not cover the fault performance of the device with respect to failure.
It only covers the performance of the device in protecting the outgoing circuit.

You are modifying a CE marked, TTA, or PTTA, thus, you are placing a new product into the market place without any verification that it complies with the statute law requirements for the product, of the standards that govern its design and manufacture.

You have no idea of how the replacement MCB will react under catastrophic failure and how this will interact with the remainder of the board, so that it meets the requirements of required safety.

I don't "like" it either, however, it is what it is, and we cannot change it.

Unless you can provide the required DRA, and type testing then you are not in compliance with the statute law for the product that you are producing, and like it or not you are producing a product.

One last comment to with regard to the Schneider post earlier with the mixing and matching of their breakers due to the branding changes, they have issued a "press release" saying that they are happy with this as long as the devices are compatible in their literature, so they will take the liability, so that one is a non-starter.

Look guys, like it or not, this is what we are lumped with, if you are not able to meet the requirements of the product standard for placing a new product into the market then don'd do it.

On an EICR, unless you can verify that the assembly meets the requirements, then it is a C2, as in the event of the device actually being required to function in anger, you have no control, or idea how the assembly will perform.
It could cause adjacent devices to also fail, this is the issue that you have, the unknown, and you have two potential failure modes required, hence the C2.

Rubbish situation, but that is the scenario that we are placed in, like it or not.


Damien, You can't tell me that you have not gone through the standards and found this out for yourself by now?

 

[sparksburnout]

Nobody will ever let you know
when you ask the reasons why
they'l just tell you that your on your own
fill your head all full of lies!

sorry, just thought it was a bit apt. Mixed MCB's Skelton bang on as usual, what a load of will young.

 

[Octopus]

Theres always the option of fitting the correct MCB in the first place! lol

 

[willy fixit]

Guys, you are missing the point.

You are NOT simply fitting a different compliant part.

60898 does not cover the fault performance of the device with respect to failure.
It only covers the performance of the device in protecting the outgoing circuit.

You are modifying a CE marked, TTA, or PTTA, thus, you are placing a new product into the market place without any verification that it complies with the statute law requirements for the product, of the standards that govern its design and manufacture.

You have no idea of how the replacement MCB will react under catastrophic failure and how this will interact with the remainder of the board, so that it meets the requirements of required safety.

I don't "like" it either, however, it is what it is, and we cannot change it.

Unless you can provide the required DRA, and type testing then you are not in compliance with the statute law for the product that you are producing, and like it or not you are producing a product.

One last comment to with regard to the Schneider post earlier with the mixing and matching of their breakers due to the branding changes, they have issued a "press release" saying that they are happy with this as long as the devices are compatible in their literature, so they will take the liability, so that one is a non-starter.

Look guys, like it or not, this is what we are lumped with, if you are not able to meet the requirements of the product standard for placing a new product into the market then don'd do it.

On an EICR, unless you can verify that the assembly meets the requirements, then it is a C2, as in the event of the device actually being required to function in anger, you have no control, or idea how the assembly will perform.
It could cause adjacent devices to also fail, this is the issue that you have, the unknown, and you have two potential failure modes required, hence the C2.

Rubbish situation, but that is the scenario that we are placed in, like it or not.


Damien, You can't tell me that you have not gone through the standards and found this out for yourself by now?

Thanks NBP - enough now I think. Merry Christmas and Happy new Year to all - Remember, there are no recorded incidents (as far as I know) of fatalities due to bad plumbing. (Yep! I do a bit of plumbing too as I like a challenge!)

 

[willy fixit]

Incomiiiing...!