How often do you come across fires which have originated inside the enclosure of a cut-out or meter?
Kind Regards, John
Metal distribution board needed for safety report?
- Thread starter Corazones
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Mostly allan key socket head screws nowadays installed using a torque device owing the the risk of splitting aluminum conductors
[QUOTE)How often do you come across fires which have originated inside the enclosure of a cut-out or meter?
[/QUOTE]
Similar numbers as CUs generally the plastic is in too small a quantity or of a design to burn.
Mostly if it's load related it just tends to melt and emit a lot of smoke (and smell). If on our meterboards they are fireproof as well.
[/QUOTE]
Similar numbers as CUs generally the plastic is in too small a quantity or of a design to burn.
Mostly if it's load related it just tends to melt and emit a lot of smoke (and smell). If on our meterboards they are fireproof as well.
Given that the new reg appears to be a response ('knee-jerk'??) to what the LFB perceive themselves to be seeing, one can but presume that they believe that they see more fires that have originated in CUs than in meters or cutouts.
I suspect that you would probably regard a return to metal cut-outs (or meters) as being a backward step, safety-wise, wouldn't you?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Aren't cutouts generally some sort of fibreglass type material?
I don't know - the 'plastic' ones look like plastic to me
. In any event, 'fibreglass' doesn't by any means ensure low 'combustibility' - although glass fibres are obviously not very 'combustible', the resin can be.Kind Regards, John
Thanks to all for your responses (and other spin-offs) to my question. Thanks for pointing out that there is no such thing as a landlord's electrical safety certificate, another piece of misinformation which I picked up from a letting agent which I no longer use. I now know that all I need is for my periodic inspection to be up-to-date (though, interestingly enough, what I do need is an energy efficiency assessment). I have since spoken to another contractor who was very open and honest about what wiring I did and did not need to change (very little in fact), and the reason why an updated distribution box - not necessarily metal - would be advisable (which was because only the ring main and none of the other MCBs was covered by the single RCD). The two electricians were like chalk and cheese, and - assuming the work is carried out to my satisfaction - it will be a pleasure to recommend the latest one for his honesty!
Alec.
Alec.
Indeed - and, as far as I am aware, the odd thing about the energy efficiency assessment is that it doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' the assessment is - one simply has to have it!
The pedantic amongst us might argue (because no-one really understands the new, badly written, regulation) but, if you did have the CU replaced, it would probably be sensible to have it replaced to a metal one - since that's the only thing which we are currently sure would be compliant with the regs come next year! If you had it replaced, this year, with a plastic one there would be no obligation to have it 'upgraded' come January 1st (or any time thereafter) but (since CUs tend to stay in place for many years), you might just as well have something which would be reg-compliant for a good while - if not only to avoid constant 'recommendations' by electricians to have it 'brought up to current standards'!
Kind Regards, John
I have some interesting news. I put the first contractor on the spot and asked him exactly what regulation he was talking about that insisted on metal distribution boxes. He replied that it was Amendment 3 to the 17th Regulation of the NEC, which he must follow as of April this year. Now I'm really confused!
Alec
Alec
No. You have been told about the actual situation.
It is the 'electrician' who is 'confused' - i.e. wrong.
That's all very contorted and incorrect! The current regulations in question are the 3rd Amendment of the 17th edition of the Wiring regulations (aka BS7671:2008) (not as decribed by the contractor) published by the IET and BSI (not "NEC"). Most of the regulations in Amendment 3 came into force on 1st July 2015 (not April), apart from the one about 'non-combustible' CUs, which doesn't come into force until 1st January 2016! Furthermore, once he's found the right regulation, as has been discussed here, it doesn't insist on metal CUs from 1st January, but merely requires any new ones fitted from then to be 'non-combustible' (giving metal as an example of an acceptable material) - and everyone is trying to find out what that means!
Kind Regards, John
As well as getting the date wrong, he is still wrongly telling you that an existing CU must be replaced. Even after Jan 2016, existing combustible CUs can remain in situ. It is only if the CU is being replaced for some other reason (and I don't think yours is, is it?) that the replacement must comply with the new regulation.
Thanks to you both, JohnW2 and endecotp. It's good to have the correct information. There is another reason which makes me consider replacing my board, however, as I now know that it is a very old type in which the single RCD doesn't cover all of the MCBs. And, according to the (honest) contractor, he can now get metal boxes at no greater cost than the plastic, and his estimate was very reasonable. Just to be completely satisfied, I'll be getting a third opinion on all this. I may have been a pensioner for 13 years but I know when I can sense something suspicious, and your support has been invaluable. Thanks again!
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
