Blankety blank

[ericmark]

So, to be clear, what if you had written that? Are you now agreeing that (despite the first sentence of your OP) if a blank cannot be removed without a tool, then it does not need to be 'coded' at all if the only issue that it is "other manufacturer's blanks" (and therefore not part of the CU's 'type testing')?

Yes I see not problem with a blank which can't be removed without a tool and is either not metal or if it is metal is earthed or designed so it is impossible to be made live with a stray wire within the CU.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes I see not problem with a blank which can't be removed without a tool and is either not metal or if it is metal is earthed or designed so it is impossible to be made live with a stray wire within the CU.

Yes, but what about the start of your initial post - would you not be concerned if it were otherwise OK but was 'from another manufacturer'?

If you wouldn't (be concerned), what was the intend meaning/relevance of your initial statements in this thread?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Sorry I am dyslexic and it seems I have not explained my thinking, what I was thinking about is if a manufacturer supplies a push in plastic blank, how can any inspector say this is wrong? The John Ward video showed what came with the BG consumer unit and he shows the push in blanks, I can't see how any inspector can even issue a code C3 when clearly supplied by the manufacturer for that consumer unit.

On the other hand if the manufacturer recommends a more rigid type, using the cheap one may have issues.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry I am dyslexic and it seems I have not explained my thinking, what I was thinking about is if a manufacturer supplies a push in plastic blank, how can any inspector say this is wrong? .... I can't see how any inspector can even issue a code C3 when clearly supplied by the manufacturer for that consumer unit.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies for misunderstanding.

If that's the case then I don't necessarily agree with you, at least as a generalisation. ....

A non-compliance (or non-conformity) with BS7671 is a non-compliance with BS7671 and I don't think that, in general, a 'EICR inspector' can (or should) use "what the manufacturer supplied" as an excuse for 'overlooking' a non-compliance, and not coding it for that reason.

If a manufacturer supplies, say, a CU (or parts thereof) which does not satisfy BS7671's IP requirements, that is surely as much of a non-compliance if it relates to parts achieving the IP rating that can be removed without use of a tool as it would be if there were excessively large holes in it, isn't it? If so, an EICR inspector surely should code it (however he/she sees fit) as a non-compliance, shouldn't they?

I think there may be some confusion resulting from the fact that "push-in" by no means always means "pulls out". I could cite countless things that are easily 'pushed in' but then (because of 'clips' or other types of 'barbs') are next-to-impossible to 'pull out', even with a tool. It is therefore possible that at least some of the 'push-in' blanks we are talking about essentially cannot be removed 'without the use of a tool'.

Kind Regards, John=

 

[ericmark]

Interesting idea, if a manufacturer makes some think which would not comply with BS7671 it may still comply with regulations for other countries, so although we can not fit a Type F - Schuko socket as

553.1.2 Except for SELV or a special circuit from Regulation 553.1.5, every plug and socket-outlet shall be of the non-reversible type. with provision for the connection of a protective conductor.

in the UK, one can use one in Germany.

However Code C2 = Potentially dangerous not does not comply with BS7671, so as long as protected by a 16 amp overload device or less, it would not really attract a code.

So the big question does an inspector take any notice of BS 7671 when deciding is it potentially dangerous?

So not really worried about what BS 7671 says, we are deciding if it needs a code. And if a manufacturer has designed some thing one must be very sure before going against their design.

These are all manufactured however we know one to right not permitted in the UK, so yes there are times when we do say manufacturer is wrong, but the socket adaptor is not part of a type tested unit.

 

[SimonH2]

For a start, I don't know if/where there are any specific requirements in relation to the nature and scope of 'type testing' of CUs

There's a whole BS on it (BS EN 61439-3), which is long and very technical - and BS7671 says that for domestic installation we are required to use a CU, which is defined as a DB type tested to BS EN 61439-3 (sorry, CBA to look it up right now)
If you recall I did a thread a while ago about what it does, and doesn't, have to say about thing like it's ability to contain a fire and such likes.

 

[JohnW2]

There's a whole BS on it (BS EN 61439-3), which is long and very technical -... If you recall I did a thread a while ago about what it does, and doesn't, have to say about thing like it's ability to contain a fire and such likes.

I do recall that, and my vague recollections are that you discovered (not much to my surprise) that it did not actually 'require' most of the things that many people see to think (or claim, or even 'assert') it requires.

Kind Regards, John