"Consumer's Panel"

[bernardgreen]

So were you saying that the forensic engineers employed to establish the causes of fires identified the causes

In most cases they did establish the origin of the fire and the source of ignition. Scientist is more accurate than engineer in this type of investigation where chemistry is frequently involved.

and then decided that nothing should be done to address those causes?

I assume you are pushing the loose terminal as the main cause of fires in consumer units. They probably are the most likely cause but not the only one.

Quite a lot of effort was put into reducing the risk of a loose terminal. One outcome of that effort was the adoption of maintainance free terminals. Good idea if it was reliable when applied to terminals in consumer units. For some reason which I have yet to discover they were not considered reliable enough for use in consumer units. One Fire Brigade ( not London ) did suggest that by law electrical installations should be examined at least once every 5 years for loose terminals. The overall concensus was that loose terminals cannot be prevented.

 

[JohnW2]

I assume you are pushing the loose terminal as the main cause of fires in consumer units. They probably are the most likely cause but not the only one.

I would certainly think that loose connections would be by far the most common/likely cause of fires originating in CUs.

Other than faulty devices (which is a rather different issue), what other causes of fires originating in CUs do you think are even 'slightly likely'?

Furthermore, if you believe that the 'forensic investigators' ascertained the underlying causes of (most) CU fires, what did they conclude?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would appear that they concluded that nothing should be done to stop the fires starting, but that metal containment should be used to slow the spread.

 

[JohnW2]

There are all sorts of measures one could take to reduce the risk of fires starting within CUs and/or to sound an alarm if they do. However, the LFB don't seem interested in that but, instead, seem to prefer to allow the fires to start, without any warning, and then merely require that the enclosure itself cannot burn easily (although I imagine that, with a raging fire within, it would soon get hot enough to ignite nearby items).

 

[bernardgreen]

It would appear that they concluded that nothing should be done to stop

It would appear that they concluded that nothing COULD be done to ensure there would be no more fires in consumer units

 

[JohnW2]

It would appear that they concluded that nothing COULD be done to ensure there would be no more fires in consumer units

Given that the word "ensure" is in the same league as 'guarantee', 'always', 'never' etc. etc., you or I could have told them that without the need for expenditure of time, effort or cost on any sort of 'expert forensic investigation'.

What would, in my opinion, be far more sensible/realistic would be to consider what measures might reduce the incidence of fires in consumer units - or, if they had no useful ideas along those lines, at least to advise that, if the fire was to be contained within a metal enclosure for an initial period, an alarm should be fitted so as to warn people before the metal box got so hot that, in many cases. it would probably ignite all sorts of things around it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[john4703]

My main fuse, meter and consumer unit are all in a porch that has a flat roof. The flat roof occasionally leaks, I'm very happy to keep my plastic consumer unit with a full set of RCBOs, as on those rare occasions when it gets wet it feels safer to dry a plastic consumer unit than it would be to dry a metal one. (A new porch is on my list of things to do but it needs to wait for my bank balance to allow it - my last temporary repair seems to be 100% watertight)

 

[JohnW2]

My main fuse, meter and consumer unit are all in a porch that has a flat roof. The flat roof occasionally leaks, I'm very happy to keep my plastic consumer unit with a full set of RCBOs, as on those rare occasions when it gets wet it feels safer to dry a plastic consumer unit than it would be to dry a metal one.

Theoretically, although the risk is extremely small even with a plastic one, it ought to be safer touching (to dry) the outside of an wet earthed metal CU than a wet plastic one.

However, that doesn't alter my feeling that the enforced change to metal CUs in domestic premises (or, at least, the reasons given for than enforced change) is very questionable - except, perhaps, as a gesture towards reducing the amount of plastic waste that gets into our oceans in years/decades to come

Kind Regards, John

 

[Blueflash]

What is wrong in an emergency to switch power of by main switch on cu ? it could stop a lot more damage to property or life's.
Every body should now where the main cu switch is and how to use it, so in an emergency they can operate it correctly.

Also there main stopcock for water as well, many people don't know where they are or if the work?

Do you mean the CP main switch ?

Dave