Advised to change plastic consumer unit

[SimonH2]

Code 3 (so still satisfactory), for plastic consumer units showing no signs of thermal damage.
Only a Code 2 (unsatisfactory)if signs of thermal damage.

Except that I have been advised - as far as I'm concerned by the IET and specifically someone directly involved in maintaining BS7671 - that it can be ignored (i.e. not even mentioned) if it's not in an escape route or under wooden stairs. Needless to say, when pressed, this person was quite happy to repeat the "personal opinion, not official statement by IET, blah, blah".
We know very well that the committee know it's a ****-poor regulation. As well as the aforementioned email exchange, I've also flagged it up when drafts of new versions have been out for review. Of course, I'm sure that that manufacturers who are represented on the committee have not allowed the extra sales opportunities of replacing otherwise perfectly acceptable (and often fairly newly installed) CUs to influence them in not correcting the regulation to make sense.

I wonder if, anyone on the regs committee has been monitoring the incidence of CU fires (including LFBs data) since the new reg's introduction?

Doubt it. Also, I would imagine there is also no data on whether any of the risks introduced by a conductive metal enclosure have materialised into events.

The number of CU fires would surely be the same, but their spread should have been limited due to the reg change.

Given that the (so called) "smart" meter rollout hasn't abated, I would agree with that. Except, there is no requirement for the box to actually control the spread of fire. The only requirement is that the box itself does not combust - there is nothing at all about how it behaves in containing any fire that might start within it. And that makes the regulation even more stupid. You could have a huge hole in the back of the box (common with rear-entry of cables), and if mounted on a stud partition wall, this hole could give a fire direct access to the timber inside the wall, and it's still compliant with the regs. So it doesn't even mandate the protection we all assume the reg is supposed to provide.

 

[pete01]

Yes sorry could also be no code in certain circumstances.

Personal opinion doesn't count, I dont like rewireable fuses but you can still use them.

 

[DiyNutJob]

that it can be ignored (i.e. not even mentioned) if it's not in an escape route or under wooden stairs.

My CU is above the main entrance door. It's definitely the escape route. Is that a problem?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Except that I have been advised - as far as I'm concerned by the IET and specifically someone directly involved in maintaining BS7671 - that it can be ignored (i.e. not even mentioned)

That's alright if you agree with him.

if it's not in an escape route or under wooden stairs.

Where did that come from?

Needless to say, when pressed, this person was quite happy to repeat the "personal opinion, not official statement by IET, blah, blah".

Needless to say that is blindingly obvious.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My CU is above the main entrance door. It's definitely the escape route. Is that a problem?

Every route in a dwelling is an escape route.

 

[Risteard]

The internet says there is no retrospective regs.

That's simply not correct.

 

[DiyNutJob]

That's simply not correct.

Then explain. Does a plastic CU installed in 2000 by the house builder need changing?

 

[ericmark]

Every route in a dwelling is an escape route.

It seems not, escape routes must have no flammable materials so no carpet, bare concrete walls in the main. There was a you tube on this, quite an eye opener, so yes it may seem the landing and stairs of a normal house is an escape route, but for the purpose of the regulations they are not, it needs to be a designated escape route which normally means not even paint on the walls.

As to retrospective regulations, although BS 7671 is not retrospective, it includes changes necessary to maintain technical alignment with CENELEC harmonisation documents, and they may be retrospective.

Also it clarifies, so when some thing like for example a RCD is introduced it may be seen as not forming a circuit, but later editions make it clear the RCD does form a circuit and the division of the installation rules includes the RCD.

Also when a rules is relaxed as long as some thing else is in place, like bonding in bathrooms, where it can only be left out if "All" circuits in the bathroom are RCD protected.

The inspector after reading the Pembrokeshire case needs to list faults, it is a watch my back exercise, very hard to say coding wrong, very easy to say you missed a fault, any code C1 needs locking off they may cost £3 but satisfy the needs a tool to remove, and can be removed by some one else, using a lock with key means returning to remove lock.

Code C3 is I realise not so easy, a fault has been highlighted, but it is left to the owner to decide what action to take, with lack of RCD this is telling the owner before you alter electrics this will need to be rectified. But does a plastic CU really need changing? We are looking at common sense, so a CU in the hall which is melting will likely set of smoke alarm and be reasonable clear what is going on, so as long as there is a way to isolate else where, not really a great danger, and likely anyone will be able to leave the house in time. The same with daughters old house where it was in the living room under the stairs, in plain view, and to get enough load to cause it to melt means items being used, so unlikely to happen over night, although could with E7 and immersion heaters I suppose. But less risk than a washing machine going on fire, so still low risk.

However is a cupboard under the stairs, now there is a risk of it going wrong and not being seen, I suppose stick a smoke alarm in cupboard, but the risk is greater.

The daft thing is, for my own house we have no smoke alarm in the utility room and washing is often done over night, but if we rented out our house we would need smoke alarms fitting.

I did change my plastic consumer unit for metal, but reason was not fire risk, it was loss of supply risk, and lack of RCD risk. Only ¼ of the property was RCD protected, and I know 30 mA RCD's do trip, so did not want to loose freezer supply when one tripped, so went all RCBO fitted 14 of them. It was not to reduce fire risk of the CU, if that was my aim, then also need to remove the DNO fuse and meter which are also made of plastic.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It seems not, escape routes must have no flammable materials so no carpet, bare concrete walls in the main.

Put it another way, then:

There are NO official escape routes in dwellings. I.e. it does not apply to dwellings.

 

[DiyNutJob]

Put it another way, then:

There are NO official escape routes in dwellings. I.e. it does not apply to dwellings.

Makes sense. I have never done a fire drill at home. Nor have I seen anyone else doing it where family members go stand outside for a while and then all go back in. I did experience an assembly of neighbors on the outside in an actual fire.

 

[ericmark]

I remember a bomb scare drill, and it being pointed out could not repeat it, there would need to be another secret assembly point.

But the fire drill on the Algeria made me laugh, there would be a management and workers rep, and they would stand outside with stop watch, real pain in the neck, and everyone strolled out, the workers rep said this was because it was done too often, and it was doing the reverse to intended, and was slowing not speeding up exit times.

So the management rep said if you can prove this, we will stop doing them, so he said I will shout as soon as I do start the stop watch, does not matter what I say, as long as I can prove in a real emergency they can get out fast.

So the words shouted was "manni has lost his camel spider", it beat all records.

 

[Risteard]

Then explain. Does a plastic CU installed in 2000 by the house builder need changing?

I never suggested that. I simply pointed out that claiming that no Regulations are "retrospective", as you have described it, is simply false. Prohibition against fused neutrals and wiring systems not being supported against premature collapse, as two examples, absolutely do require upgrading of existing installations.

 

[SimonH2]

That's alright if you agree with him.

But as with everything else, we use guidance to help us determine how to most appropriately code something.

Where did that come from?

From a person whose name and (IET) email address was listed in BS7671 as being a person to contact with any queries.
The way it was expressed, it was very clear that this was not one person's opinion, but an opinion formed by a committee after (I would imagine) a lot of queries.
The logic seemed to be along the lines of : if a burning CU is going to prevent the occupants getting out (i.e. a box spitting fire is in your only escape route) then a C3; if it's where it could smoulder away without raising an alarm and compromise the structural integrity of the stairs (i.e. it's burning the stairs out from underneath) then it's a C3. But if it's neither of those, then not even coded.
Specifically, this was seen as a pragmatic response to the situation where with one (badly written) rule change, they were rendering non-compliant many thousands of newly installed CUs which were in practice safe (at least to an ALARP level). And so they considered the advice they gave me as a reasonable approach to dealing with the potential PR fallout (sorry mate, that CU I fitted recently ? Got to be changed again now as it's been declared dangerous), plus the practical challenge (not enough electricians) if "many" CUs needed changing in a short space of time.

Needless to say that is blindingly obvious.

Not so - see above. It was "blindingly obvious" that this was the output of a group discussion, but the "not the official position of the IET or the committee" line was being used to avoid being held to account. Very much "this is how we think this rule should be applied, but we aren't prepared to put our names to that".
IMO as bad a situation as the bad rule writing that caused it.

As I say, there is absolutely zero credible explanation that the committee isn't well aware of the problem they have caused. The fact that they've missed at least two (IIRC) opportunities so far to fix that makes me "question the professional competence" of those writing/updating the BS. I know that in my line of work, had I produced something like that then I'd get a "fairly strongly given" instruction from above to fix it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do agree with your last two sentences - and the use of 'BS'.

 

[SimonH2]

The use of BS wasn't deliberate, honest