RCBO tripping, no load attached to it

This reg, no doubt was made to happen, by the manufacturers who have undue influence over JPEL/64, obviously worried about 3rd party products costing them profit.
It's not really anything to do with any 'regulation' but, rather, that the product Standard for devices in CUs do not force Standard-compliant products to be interchangeable, regardless of 'make' (as is the case, for example, with "plugs to BS1363").

As previously said, I strongly suspect that 'commercial pressures' were behind it - and I fear that the trade organisations which one might have hoped would resist this (on behalf of electricians and consumers) were also under the same 'commercial pressures'
 
Sponsored Links
It's not really anything to do with any 'regulation' but, rather, that the product Standard for devices in CUs do not force Standard-compliant products to be interchangeable, regardless of 'make' (as is the case, for example, with "plugs to BS1363").

As previously said, I strongly suspect that 'commercial pressures' were behind it - and I fear that the trade organisations which one might have hoped would resist this (on behalf of electricians and consumers) were also under the same 'commercial pressures'

Bottom line is its another pointless change that quite a few people ignore.

I suspect also it was changed to help justify updating the regs too. Kerching
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
The one about stopping mix and match in CUs 18th iirc
Is that actually true?

Prior to the 18th, there was a requirement to comply with Manufacturer's Instructions (not just 'take them into account', as it is now) and, as far as I can remember MIs back then always said that only 'approved' (i.e. 'their') devices should b used in their CU's?
 
Is that actually true?

Prior to the 18th, there was a requirement to comply with Manufacturer's Instructions (not just 'take them into account', as it is now) and, as far as I can remember MIs back then always said that only 'approved' (i.e. 'their') devices should b used in their CU's?

As usual it’s the poorly worded regs
 
One or two, I agree, are badly worded. Others are “called poorly” worded by people who do not understand the words.
I agree qualitatively, but not quantitatively - i..e, I think that there are far more than just "one or two" that genuinely are 'poorly worded'.

Writing totally clear and unambiguous rules, regulations, instructions or even legislation is far from trivial or easy task. The one crucial step which is often omitted is to 'field test' ones's drafts, in order to ascertain how clear and unambiguous it actually is to someone who has not seen it before. Those writing, or even proof-reading, the drafts usually cease being able to 'see' glaring' mistakes or potential problems after they have read the same document a few times.

Kind Regards, John
 

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
Back
Top