Mixed brand MCBs and EICR coding

[JohnW2]

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.

I don't think the fact that you 'know' that it is an identical product alters anything in regulatory terms. If the manufacturer of the CU does not specify that make as an 'approved' device for the CU. then unless you can somehow demonstrate compliance with BS EN 61493-3 (whatever it might say), then I think that the situation would, strictly speaking, be non-compliant with 530.3.4.

That's the 'strict regulatory' siuation. As for a common sense view ....... !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Robin0577]

Thanks for the input everyone. This is a largely academic question anyway (at least for now)..

Although it was prompted by an actual installation I saw today, I was not there to carry out an EICR, just to quote for some minor additions that won't involve touching the DB other than to lock off. I may still have to append a page to the "comments on existing installation" section of the minor works certificate just to cover all the things I spotted in the 5 minutes I was there.

Even if I were to do an EICR, there are several other things it would fail on before even taking the lid off the board!

 

[kai]

It's a bit like GE making plug-in type breakers to specifically fit Wylex boards - yes I have seen them on sale in either Wickes/B&Q some years ago.

On din-rail mount system boards, a pick and mix selection breakers is a useful alarm bell, that DIY alterations may have been carried out an installation, and warrants further investigations.

You think someone must be pretty stupid in order to butcher a consumer unit and brute force another make of breaker onto its din-rail in order to get an extra circuit in.
It is much safer to install a dedicated shower unit instead.

 

[ericmark]

I have argued about this with my son, Father-in-law was electrician, father was in charge of a power station, I am an electrician, my son is an electrician, my son-in-law did an electrical and electronics degree so in real terms non of us live in a house under the control of an ordinary person so any coding would have to show what the code says.
So only code could be for "Improvement Recommended" i.e. C3 and the question is would improvement contribute to a Significant enhancement of the safety of the electrical installation. So can't really see how it can be coded.

There are cases like in the picture where some modification has been done. However even in the picture it is not plain to if the IP rating has been compromised or not. The real danger is not where we can see, but where without trying to remove the MCB you are really unaware if it is placing undue strain on the buzz bar and could that strain cause a false impression as to if there is a good connection on either the replacement or existing MCB's.

Main reason for me to fail a consumer unit is being able to remove the blanks without a tool. I see the Best Practice Guide does have some items I would not agree with. For example an immersion heater without a thermal cut-out is only a danger when the header tank is made from a thermal plastic, the header tanks designed for use with solid fuel heating will not fail if either the electric or solid fuel heat source was to cause the water to boil so it presents no danger.

This however raises the question is an electrician qualified to comment on non electrical danger if the under floor heating can heat the floor to over 55°C it does not comply with regulations, but most electricians would not even test to find if it complies or not.

If you find an item plugged into a socket which is not to the British Standard is that included? Should you give a C3 because there is a silly socket protector plugged into the socket? Or when still under the control of the builder do you C3 extension leads going to quartz lamps used to dry the plaster?

To put a note bundled with the report saying the consumer unit has a mixture of MCB's which could adversely effect their operation and you would suggest this is rectified is OK, putting in the report is going OTT.

 

[Robin0577]

On din-rail mount system boards, a pick and mix selection breakers is a useful alarm bell, that DIY alterations may have been carried out an installation, and warrants further investigations.

Yes, in 99% of situations that's exactly what I'd say.

In this case though it's a TP board installed within the last 3-4 years, still a current model and only 1 or 2 out of 20+ MCBs & RCBOs is correct. There are at least 3 different makes in there, could be 4 or could be just 2 versions of one of the makes. I'm confident it was done like that from new, and as far as I'm concerned there's no excuse for that, be it compliant or not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E.

 

[ericmark]

With the picture

my concern would be if the blank can be removed without a tool rather than the MCB.

 

[stillp]

non-compliant with 530.3..4 unless you were absolutely certain that it wasn't compliant with BS EN 61493-3

Among other things, 61439-3 requires type testing.

 

[stillp]

They're literally the exact same MCB but branded differently.

I don't think so. Not sure if one is a copy of the other, or if they're both copies of something else, but they come out of different factories.

 

[Iggifer]

With the picture

my concern would be if the blank can be removed without a tool rather than the MCB.

Definitely can, they're standard wylex snap on blanks, if I remember correctly. They're certainly not Eaton blanks, they're DIN rail mount.

 

[Iggifer]

They're literally the exact same MCB but branded differently.

I don't think so. Not sure if one is a copy of the other, or if they're both copies of something else, but they come out of different factories.

That's interesting. Gonna have to find two to break apart and have a look. In that case, one (or both of them) has(have) literally replicated it perfectly - can't see why ANYONE would want to copy protek!

 

[stillp]

Or CGD, come to that!

 

[stillp]

Gonna have to find two to break apart and have a look. In that case, one (or both of them) has(have) literally replicated it perfectly

Don't forget there are organisations in the Far East that reverse-engineer Western products and supply dimensioned drawings to anyone who'll pay. They don't of course know the material specs, or the manufacturing tolerances.

 

[ericmark]

Gonna have to find two to break apart and have a look. In that case, one (or both of them) has(have) literally replicated it perfectly

Don't forget there are organisations in the Far East that reverse-engineer Western products and supply dimensioned drawings to anyone who'll pay. They don't of course know the material specs, or the manufacturing tolerances.

There are also those who just fit a switch in the same package with no overload trip at all. In some cases it's well marked the 100A LoadMaster device was an isolator only up to 70A were MCB's others it is just a money making exercise and marking are the same but no guts. I think counterfeit products is a completely different case to swapping manufacturer.

What we don't know is what happens to the heat, all MCB's have a heater that's how they work, but the amount of heat may vary and how the heat is dissipated may vary and we really have no idea what MCB's can be put together.

 

[stillp]

the amount of heat may vary and how the heat is dissipated may vary

Also where the heat is produced, and where the magnetic fields are created, and where the parts that are sensitive to heat or magnetic fields.