EICR's after 1st Jan 2019 ....

[Octopus]

So you are doing an EICR next year and you are inspecting a consumer unit with these 2 "makes" of RCBO's in it ...

So is it:

 

[Nigel]

No code. BS7671 does not mention what sticker is on the RCBO. It is who manufacturers it that is important.

 

[Toneyz]

As from experience and manufacturers, direct information both the RCBO's are identical except for the printed livery on the casing so no code if it was a Hager and Wylex I would tend to say C3 improvement recommended especially if the incorrect RCBO was easily still purchasable.

 

[Pete999]

So you are doing an EICR next year and you are inspecting a consumer unit with these 2 "makes" of RCBO's in it ...

View attachment 44663

So is it:

 

[Octopus]

^^ er and your comment is?

 

[Nigel]

^^ er and your comment is?

He does that all the time.

 

[Toneyz]

He does that all the time.

Some people will do anything to keep the top poster of the month.
Spit it out Pete I know that you trying to say something.

 

[Adam W]

The manufacturers of those two RCBOs have made a conscious attempt to differentiate them selves from each other by branding them differently.

It's not for the end user, installer or even inspector to jump to the conclusion that just because both manufacturers have used the same style of casing, which may well be made by the same manufacturer, that the product inside is exactly the same - I think I would struggle to form a decent court-worthy argument that the reg relates to the manufacturer of the casing and because they look similar the different brands can be ignored.
Substituting a product which looks similar but carries a less well known brand is almost always done for financial reasons and I think a judge or jury would be likely to pick up on that.

C3.

 

[Strima]

Can you guarantee they’ve been manufactured to the exact same standards?

C3 for me.

 

[Toneyz]

The photo of the two RCBO's I was told when enquired by the manufacturer in this case hence the comment.

 

[Ian1981]

The manufacturers of those two RCBOs have made a conscious attempt to differentiate them selves from each other by branding them differently.

It's not for the end user, installer or even inspector to jump to the conclusion that just because both manufacturers have used the same style of casing, which may well be made by the same manufacturer, that the product inside is exactly the same - I think I would struggle to form a decent court-worthy argument that the reg relates to the manufacturer of the casing and because they look similar the different brands can be ignored.
Substituting a product which looks similar but carries a less well known brand is almost always done for financial reasons and I think a judge or jury would be likely to pick up on that.

C3.

Same manufacturer in the op picture but I agree with your comments regarding different brands used

 

[Dillb]

Can see there will be lots of calls and emails to manufacturers in the new yesr regarding this, hooefull they are prepared and have the daya to hand or even better a data sheet for each DB which they could issue if requested.

 

[Ian1981]

It’s an issue that deserves attention now and not only when the 18th edition is in full force

 

[Octopus]

It’s an issue that deserves attention now and not only when the 18th edition is in full force

I've given you a disagreed because I don't think I've ever seen an EICR where different OEM parts have even been commented on , let alone coded

 

[Leesparkykent]

No code for me as lewden brought CGD ages ago. They are manufactured in the same plant they’ve always been and a simple email to lewden will confirm they are designed for boards labeled as CGD. No different to when Schneider brought square D.

 

[Ian1981]

I've given you a disagreed because I don't think I've ever seen an EICR where different OEM parts have even been commented on , let alone coded

I report on them all the time.
I had a Hager rcbo stuffed into a 3 phase dorman Smith DB which did not line up on the bus bar properly so it was coded.

 

[Octopus]

I report on them all the time.
I had a Hager rcbo stuffed into a 3 phase dorman Smith DB which did not line up on the bus bar properly so it was coded.

What code did you apply?

 

[Ian1981]

What code did you apply?

As the rcbo did not fit on the din rail and the cover had been filed so it fit then I applied a C2 in that case.
DB was located in a hallway in an office, no cupboard and a missing hinged cover/door

 

[bigspark17]

No code, would only code appropriatly if was not sitting right on busbar.

 

[Pete999]

^^ er and your comment is?

I don't have one I did have one, but thought better of it and pressed the button, does that answer your questions, Murdoch and Anthonybragg and to add I couldn't really give a ---- about top poster, so that remark was uncalled for.

 

[Pete999]

Couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant regulation regarding this issue, something you should all be aware of.

 

[Pete999]

No code for me as lewden brought CGD ages ago. They are manufactured in the same plant they’ve always been and a simple email to lewden will confirm they are designed for boards labeled as CGD. No different to when Schneider brought square D.

As long as they are not subject to a product recall. for whatever reason, if my memory serves me well.

 

[Octopus]

Couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant regulation regarding this issue, something you should all be aware of.

I would say that as usual, BS 7671 has poor wording so as this thread clearly demonstrates, different people will interpret the reg differently .... and confusion will reign ...

 

[Risteard]

I report on them all the time.

Likewise.

 

[Toneyz]

I don't have one I did have one, but thought better of it and pressed the button, does that answer your questions, Murdoch and Anthonybragg and to add I couldn't really give a **** about top poster, so that remark was uncalled for.

Was only jesting with you Pete as I am sure were ESSEX and Murdoch, Sorry if you didn't see it in the same light.

 

[Pete999]

Was only jesting with you Pete as I am sure were ESSEX and Murdoch, Sorry if you didn't see it in the same light.

Right OK

 

[Nigel]

Right OK

See. Another pointless post just to get your post count up. :mtongue:

 

[Pete999]

Was only jesting with you Pete as I am sure were ESSEX and Murdoch, Sorry if you didn't see it in the same light.

No need for apologies Ant

 

[suffolkspark]

No comment required on cert for this example as they are the same, some manufacturers gear is type tested for use in others an example being surge protection devices ltd whos spds have been type tested for use in lewden/cgd boards.

 

[Dave OCD]

The manufacturers of those two RCBOs have made a conscious attempt to differentiate them selves from each other by branding them differently.

It's not for the end user, installer or even inspector to jump to the conclusion that just because both manufacturers have used the same style of casing, which may well be made by the same manufacturer, that the product inside is exactly the same - I think I would struggle to form a decent court-worthy argument that the reg relates to the manufacturer of the casing and because they look similar the different brands can be ignored.
Substituting a product which looks similar but carries a less well known brand is almost always done for financial reasons and I think a judge or jury would be likely to pick up on that.

C3.

You know I think we can get a bit carried away at times on here, I'd love to know where two different makes of RCBO in the same DB, both correctly fitted and of identical dimensions and characteristics could result in an installer or inspector ending up in front of a judge and jury !

 

[ruston]

Instead of putting the onus on the installer/tester the manufactures should have to bite the bullet as we do and declare their compatible, or otherwise components.

 

[Adam W]

Same manufacturer in the op picture but I agree with your comments regarding different brands used

I didn't realise it was the same brand - I don't often use Lewden.

 

[Nigel]

You know I think we can get a bit carried away at times on here, I'd love to know where two different makes of RCBO in the same DB, both correctly fitted and of identical dimensions and characteristics could result in an installer or inspector ending up in front of a judge and jury !

Agreed. Ridiculous comment.

 

[Selfmade]

I bought a CED consumer unit from QVS when I'd not long started and it came with some Excel (QVS own brand I believe) MCBs. They were identical to the CED ones and already installed in the CU. Would this stand up in court? I still have some Excel MCBs and plan to fit a couple in a CED consumer unit which currently has an incorrect Hager MCB fitted for one circuit.

 

[Selfmade]

MEM & Eaton. Obviously the same and seen them mixed in a board many times. Possibly GE too.

 

[Selfmade]

Shirly the only thing that matters from a technical perspective is that the bus bar makes proper contact with the feed terminal of the breaker.

 

[Nigel]

Shirly the only thing that matters from a technical perspective is that the bus bar makes proper contact with the feed terminal of the breaker.

There is heat dissipation between adjacent MCBs too.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This has been in force since the 17th 3rd amendment.

 

[Adam W]

You know I think we can get a bit carried away at times on here, I'd love to know where two different makes of RCBO in the same DB, both correctly fitted and of identical dimensions and characteristics could result in an installer or inspector ending up in front of a judge and jury !

Maybe unlikely, but do you not think if anything (perhaps unrelated) were to go wrong a solicitor would jump on the fact that a 'professional' had wilfully ignored their own industry's code of best practice?

 

[Adam W]

Agreed. Ridiculous comment.

So you would just disregard that regulation then would you Neil?
What other regulations would you choose to ignore? All of them?
It's people like you that give the industry a bad name.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - my 20p worth - if it's been fitted correctly then no code on a report. I don't think it's dangerous or would be improved by changing it out. Tin hat on ...

 

[Nigel]

So you would just disregard that regulation then would you Neil?
What other regulations would you choose to ignore? All of them?
It's people like you that give the industry a bad name.

I was talking about the judge, jury and executioner comment over an MCB made in the same factory, by the same people but with a different sticker on.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

what are peoples thoughts in mixed brands when it comes to say a lewden rcd with MK mcbs?
had a split load board recently on an eicr and one of the rcds had been swapped out for a lewden one. other rcd and all mcbs were MK.
I would argue that a different rcd to mcbs is no different to having an upfront rcd, covering the whole installation. unlikely to be the same make. Its presence offers additional protection and coincidentally lined up and sat on rail fine.
I put it as a C3 as improvement recommended

 

[Adam W]

I was talking about the judge, jury and executioner comment over an MCB made in the same factory, by the same people but with a different sticker on.

Which comment was that then? Because the comment I made (which you disagreed with) was about not assuming that different products are the same just because they come in similar looking packaging.

So what would be your reasoning for departing from regulations relating to mixing different brands in the same distribution board?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My thoughts have always been, that Type tested boards are just to increase breaking capacity.
Type tested boards under the old standards, were rated at 16kA, whereas the individual components may only have been rated at 1kA.
As such, as long as every component fits correctly and has an individual breaking capacity greater than the PFC, there would have been no problem.

This new requirement which came into force for domestic installations with the 17th edition 3rd amendment and will now apply to all installations, requires all boards to be type tested and I assume have an overall breaking capacity of 16kA.
How that applies to installations with a PFC greater than 16kA, I do not know?
Perhaps the overall breaking capacity for non-domestic boards will be greater?

My main concern, is that this is another requirement that does nothing to improve safety.

I also wonder whether this requirement is legal?
Back in the 80s, the government started a process that is supposed to increase our choices.
We can now get our electricity from from a supermarket, our gas from a phone company our water from..... actually, we’re not allowed to get water from anyone other than our local water company, but you get the gist.

 

[Nigel]

Which comment was that then? Because the comment I made (which you disagreed with) was about not assuming that different products are the same just because they come in similar looking packaging.

So what would be your reasoning for departing from regulations relating to mixing different brands in the same distribution board?

You are not reading what I am typing. I am talking about the comment about being up
In front if a judge over it. Which I still stand by - a ridiculous comment.

 

[Selfmade]

My thoughts have always been, that Type tested boards are just to increase breaking capacity.
Type tested boards under the old standards, were rated at 16kA, whereas the individual components may only have been rated at 1kA.
As such, as long as every component fits correctly and has an individual breaking capacity greater than the PFC, there would have been no problem.

This new requirement which came into force for domestic installations with the 17th edition 3rd amendment and will now apply to all installations, requires all boards to be type tested and I assume have an overall breaking capacity of 16kA.
How that applies to installations with a PFC greater than 16kA, I do not know?
Perhaps the overall breaking capacity for non-domestic boards will be greater?

My main concern, is that this is another requirement that does nothing to improve safety.

I also wonder whether this requirement is legal?
Back in the 80s, the government started a process that is supposed to increase our choices.
We can now get our electricity from from a supermarket, our gas from a phone company our water from..... actually, we’re not allowed to get water from anyone other than our local water company, but you get the gist.

Off topic but you can have a private water supply.

Very interesting and informative post overall though.

 

[Selfmade]

Duplicate deleted.

 

[Selfmade]

Don't know how this would fit with EICRs but on an EIC, how about noting it as a non-compliance and detailing what one had done to ensure an equivalent level of safety?:

- Visual inspection for correct connection to bus bar.

- Ensuring breaking capacity of the individual component exceeds Isc.

- Not sure about heat dissipation as mentioned by Essex, but I'm thinking this may not be a safety issue as it will likely mean that the MCB will trip at a lower current than its rated current.

 

[MFS Electrical]

The manufacturers of those two RCBOs have made a conscious attempt to differentiate them selves from each other by branding them differently.

It's not for the end user, installer or even inspector to jump to the conclusion that just because both manufacturers have used the same style of casing, which may well be made by the same manufacturer, that the product inside is exactly the same - I think I would struggle to form a decent court-worthy argument that the reg relates to the manufacturer of the casing and because they look similar the different brands can be ignored.
Substituting a product which looks similar but carries a less well known brand is almost always done for financial reasons and I think a judge or jury would be likely to pick up on that.

C3.

It would be up to the inspector to contact the manufacturer(s) to confirm whether or not they are compatible the two pictured above are actually both lewden I believe but in the case of a Hager with a Wylex I’d code it but on the other hand a Schneider in a Merlin Gerin board I would not because Schneider is merlin gerin and have confirmed that their breakers are fine to use in a merlin gerin board