Mixed brand MCBs and EICR coding

[Robin0577]

It's often been mentioned here that using another manufacturer's MCB in a consumer unit invalidates the type testing and I have no doubt that it is the case and I have no intention of doing it. However, when it comes to finding incorrect MCBs already in use, a couple of questions arise that Guidance note 3 doesn't seem to answer clearly...

Bearing in mind that BS7671 has recently changed the requirement to comply with manufacturer's instructions.

Assuming they physically fit and the CU has not been butchered, giving rise to IP breeches, exposed live bits, etc. Would you code it on a domestic EICR and if so, what code and under what reg?

Does the same type testing apply on light commercial (63A max per outgoing way) TP distribution boards?

Again, assuming they physically fit and the DB has not been butchered, giving rise to IP breeches, exposed live bits, etc. Would you code it on a commercial EICR and if so, what code and under what reg?

 

[Spark123]

133.1.1?
I'm thinking if it isn't type tested can it comply with the relevant British Standard etc?

 

[JohnW2]

... Assuming they physically fit and the CU has not been butchered, giving rise to IP breeches, exposed live bits, etc. Would you code it on a domestic EICR and if so, what code and under what reg?

530.3.4 requires that a DB "under the control of ordinary persons" (i.e. all domestic and much commercial, if not also some industrial) must either be compliant with BS EN 61493-3 or "be a consumer unit [defined in Part 2 as 'type tested'] incorporating components and protective devices specified by the manufacturer". I haven't got a clue as to what is required for compliance with BS EN 61493-3 so I would personally only be able to say that a CU was compliant with 530.3.4 if it was, indeed, a 'type tested' CU containing only components/devices as specified by the manufacturer.

Does the same type testing apply on light commercial (63A max per outgoing way) TP distribution boards?

As above, 530.3.4 (with its requirement for 'type testing') applies to any DB "under the control of ordinary persons", but only applies to supplies up to 100A, so I presume would not usually include boards with "63A per outgoing way".

Kind Regards, John

 

[Robin0577]

Thanks John, I've just read 530.3.4 and it certainly seem a pretty bullet proof answer for all domestic and some commercial installations. On that basis I think I'd go for "potentially dangerous under fault conditions" and therefore a C2

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks John, I've just read 530.3.4 and it certainly seem a pretty bullet proof answer for all domestic and some commercial installations. On that basis I think I'd go for "potentially dangerous under fault conditions" and therefore a C2

Opinions will obviously vary, but I personally think that would probably be a bit OTT - have you ever seen, or even heard of, a dangerous situation arising because of mixed (but fitting) devices in a CU (which was otherwise OK)?? Furthermore, you might actually be 'lying' in saying that it was non-compliant with 530.3..4 unless you were absolutely certain that it wasn't compliant with BS EN 61493-3 (and, as I've said, I, for one, haven't got a clue as to what is required for compliance with that Standard!)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Robin0577]

Fair point. No, I've never actually seen or heard of such a situation but that doesn't mean to say there isn't the potential for one to arise. Perhaps C3 would be more appropriate though. I'm not sure I like the new 3 code system, 3 categories doesn't seem enough...

 

[JohnW2]

Fair point. No, I've never actually seen or heard of such a situation but that doesn't mean to say there isn't the potential for one to arise.

How far does one take an argument like that? If, as I strongly suspect, no-one (or virtually no-one) has ever seen or heard of such a situation, then is it reasonable to talk about the potential for that 'never seen' situation to arise?

Perhaps C3 would be more appropriate though.

IMO, certainly 'more appropriate' but, as I said, unless you were certain that it was non-compliant with BS EN 61493-3, it might not be appropriate to code it at all. To give even a C3, let alone a C2, if one is not even certain that something is non-compliant would seem a little odd/inappropriate - at least, to me!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Robin0577]

Again, fair points. I'm forced to conclude that the only way to be sure would be to try and read BS EN 61493-3

 

[JohnW2]

Again, fair points. I'm forced to conclude that the only way to be sure would be to try and read BS EN 61493-3

Indeed - but that needs either a lot of money or (before stillp reminds me) maybe a lengthy trip to an appropriate public library! If it were me (and it never will be!), I don't think I would be very comfortable about 'coding' something because of my ignorance of something which might mean that it was actually compliant!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Iggifer]

Untitled

• Iggifer
• 28 Jul 2013
• 1

Don't think this one needs any discussion as to what code to give!

 

[Robin0577]

Untitled

• Iggifer
• 28 Jul 2013
• 1

Don't think this one needs any discussion as to what code to give!

No doubt at all in that example, but I did say in the original question "provided that the CU has not been butchered"

As tempting as it is to use the old favourite catch-all, 134.1.1 "good workmanship and proper materials", I suppose that's a bit too vague and leaving it as an uncoded observation might be better from a legal standpoint

 

[JohnW2]

As tempting as it is to use the old favourite catch-all, 134.1.1 "good workmanship and proper materials", I suppose that's a bit too vague and leaving it as an uncoded observation might be better from a legal standpoint

Again, just the opinion of an 'outsider', but if one can't think of any regulation more specific than 134.1.1 that has (in one's opinion, since that's what 134.1.1 amounts to!) been violated, then I think it's very questionable as to whether it would be appropriate to give anything more than a C3, if that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would just make a note of it.

 

[Iggifer]

How about the situation where a Protek mcb has been replaced with a ControlGear MCB?

They're literally the exact same MCB but branded differently. Sure other cheap makes use the same mould too.

 

[JohnW2]

I would just make a note of it.

If I were ever in that position (which I won't be), I'm pretty sure that that is also what I would do.

Kind Regards, John