Poll: EICR Coding of a 'plastic' CU in domestic installation

What code on an EICR do you think should be given to a plastic CU in a domestic installation?

  • None

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Always C3

    Votes: 10 50.0%
  • Always C2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • C2 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise C3

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • C2 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • None of above

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • C3 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
55,907
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Given recent discussions, I thought it would be interesting to get a feel of what people think about the EICR coding of 'plastic CUs' in domestic installations.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Surely if anyone thinks it C2, then it has ALWAYS been potentially dangerous - more than electricity in general.
 
Sponsored Links
C3 if not damaged, overheated or similar. C2 / C1 otherwise.
I would say the same.

The question should have said "an otherwise OK, but plastic, CU" - but I can't find a way of editing the question. I'll ask the mods if they can change it but, in the meantime, would everyone please note that the question was intended to say that.

Flameport, do I take it that yours is the 'none of the above' vote? If so, the poll is set up such that you can change your vote if you wish, given what I've just said about what the question was actually intending to ask (the fact that a damaged CU will usually deserve a C2 or C1 is obvious, but that rather muddies the actual question of interest!).

Kind Regards, John
 
Surely if anyone thinks it C2, then it has ALWAYS been potentially dangerous - more than electricity in general.
We've been over this ground umpteen times.

For a start, irrelevant though it is, my personal view is that plastic CUs are not, and never have been, sufficiently 'potentially dangerous' to warrant this wide-ranging regulatory change - and, even for those who disagree with me, to introduce a regulation which requires 'non-combustible material' but which does not require 'fire containment' is just plain daft!

However, returning to the much-discussed point, what is regarded as 'unacceptably potentially dangerous' in 2020 might not have been considers as 'unacceptably potentially dangerous' in 2015, 1992, 1966 or any other date in the past.

Kind Regards, John
 
I don't know. Trying to get people to change their vote! We live in the UK lol
It was just a suggestion that might 'tidy' things, given that Flameport had indicated that he would have voted differently had I worded the question better!

I suppose I had assumed that people would understand, given context, that I was not talking about a CU which was damaged (which, as Flameport said, might even deserve a C1) - but, rather, was asking about how it should be coded "just because it was plastic". However, I suppose I can't blame him (only myself!) for answering the question I wrote 'literally'!

Kind Regards, John
 
.... was asking about how it should be coded "just because it was plastic".
Having had a couple of off-list comments/questions, I would like to underline the above. I thought it would be obvious, but what I was trying to ask was how one should code an (otherwise fine) CU "just because it is plastic".

In terms of what I actually wrote, Flameport's response (and, I presume, vote) was fair enough but it doesn't reflect the point of interest, since there is presumably no disagreement about the fact that a damaged CU may well warrant a C2, or even C1, even if it is metal and nowhere near the stairs or other escape routes.

Kind Regards, John
 
Are there "official" escape routes in single dwellings? No?

Isn't everywhere an escape route depending on where the fire is? Yes?
 
Are there "official" escape routes in single dwellings? No? Isn't everywhere an escape route depending on where the fire is? Yes?
I basically agree.

I think that even in 'single dwellings' (I presume you mean dwellings occupied by a single household) with more than two stories there is an "official" escape route consisting of stairs/landings/halls (hence requirement for 'fire doors' on rooms opening into that space).

I suppose that, in any house, the stairs (hence special consideration of 'under the stairs') can reasonably be considered to be part of a potential escape route, but that's about all.

Kind Regards, John
 
I think that even in 'single dwellings' (I presume you mean dwellings occupied by a single household)
I meant normal houses.

with more than two stories there is an "official" escape route consisting of stairs/landings/halls (hence requirement for 'fire doors' on rooms opening into that space).
Really?

I suppose that, in any house, the stairs (hence special consideration of 'under the stairs') can reasonably be considered to be part of a potential escape route, but that's about all.
Perhaps - logically - but not officially in what is meant by 'escape routes' in flats and offices - and not a lot of good when the hall or stairs are on fire and the window is the escape route.
 
Certainly in the past (I haven't had reason to look for many years), and I find it hard to believe that the regs will have got any less demanding with the passage of time.

It used to be (and probably still is) an issue in relation to 'loft conversions' - since, by adding a 'third storey' to what was originally a 2-storey house, one invoked the need for all doors opening into landings/halls to be 'fire doors' (plus some other requirements).
Perhaps - logically - but not officially in what is meant by 'escape routes' in flats and offices - and not a lot of good when the hall or stairs are on fire and the window is the escape route.
Otyher than for the above, I agree that there are no "official escape routes" defined for 'normal houses' (which is perhaps why BS7671 removed the reference to 'escape routes' in the reg about cable fixation).

However, we're down to common sense. If one can reduce the risk of stairs catching on fire, then one will reduce the need for people to resort to windows for escape from an upper floor in the event of a fire.

Kind Regards, John
 
However, we're down to common sense. If one can reduce the risk of stairs catching on fire, then one will reduce the need for people to resort to windows for escape from an upper floor in the event of a fire.
Yes, surely the (London) Fire Brigade should demand that stairs (and other parts) be constructed of non-combustible material.
 
I meant normal houses. ... Really? ... Perhaps - logically - but not officially in what is meant by 'escape routes' in flats and offices - ...
Approved Dic B does, in fact, talk about "escape routes" in dwellings (and also seem to confirm what I said about fire doors etc.) ...
Approved Document B said:
Section 2: Means of escape – dwellinghouses

Escape from the ground storey

2.1 See Diagram 2.1a. All habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following.
. a. An opening directly onto a hall leading to a final exit.
. b. An emergency escape window or door, as described in paragraph 2.10.
Escape from upper storeys a maximum of 4.5m above ground level
2.2 See Diagram 2.1b. Where served by only one stair, all habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following.
. a. An emergency escape window or external door, as described in paragraph 2.10.
. b. Direct access to a protected stairway, as described in paragraph 2.5a.
2.3 Two rooms may be served by a single window. A door between the rooms should provide access to the window without passing through the stair enclosure. Both rooms should have their own access to the internal stair.
Escape from upper storeys more than 4.5m above ground level
2.4 Dwellinghouses with one internal stair should comply with paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6. In dwellinghouses with more than one stair, the stairs should provide effective alternative means of escape. The stairs should be physically separated by either of the following.
. a. Fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30).
. b. More than one room.
Dwellinghouses with one storey more than 4.5m above ground level
2.5 See Diagram 2.1c. The dwellinghouse should have either of the following.
. a. Protected stairway – a stair separated by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) at all storeys, that complies with one of the following.
. i. Extends to a final exit (Diagram 2.2a).
. ii. Gives access to a minimum of two ground level final exits that are separated from each other by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) and fire doorsets (minimum E 20) (Diagram 2.2b). Cavity barriers or a fire resisting ceiling (minimum EI 30) should be provided above a protected stairway enclosure (Diagram 2.3).
. b. Alternative escape route – a top storey separated from lower storeys by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) and with an alternative escape route leading to its own final exit.

... and, if one gets 'taller' ....
Approved Document B said:
Dwellinghouses with two or more storeys more than 4.5m above ground level
2.6 See Diagram 2.1d. In addition to meeting the provisions in paragraph 2.5, the dwellinghouse should comply with either of the following.
. a. Provide an alternative escape route from each storey more than 7.5m above ground level. At the first storey above 7.5m, the protected stairway should be separated from the lower storeys by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) if the alternative escape route is accessed via either of the following.
. i. The protected stairway to an upper storey.
. ii. A landing within the protected stairway enclosure to an alternative escape route on the same storey. The protected stairway at or about 7.5m above ground level should be separated from the lower storeys or levels by fire resisting construction (see Diagram 2.4).
. b. Provide a sprinkler system throughout, designed and installed in accordance with BS 9251.

... and, as I mentioned ...
Approved Document B said:
Loft conversions
2.21 Where a new storey is added through conversion to create a storey above 4.5m, both of the following should apply.
. a. The full extent of the escape route should be addressed.
. b. Fire resisting doors (minimum E 20) and partitions (minimum REI 30) should be provided, including upgrading the existing doors where necessary. NOTE: Where the layout is open plan, new partitions should be provided to enclose the escape route (Diagram 2.2).

Kind Regards, John
 
Last edited:

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