New Consumer Unit

[wreck-it-steve]

Hi, I know that a new rule has come in regarding the need for none combustible consumer units and just wanted to know if its a requirement to have an existing one changed. I'll be having some testing done next week and wanted to know if it will be flagged as needing to be changed.

Thanks

 

[RF Lighting]

No the regulations are not retrospective.

 

[Risteard]

The new Regulation does not come into force until the 1st January. From that point it will be up to the Inspector to determine how dangerous a non-compliance this is in respect of what recommendations it is likely to attract.

However the London Fire Brigade have demonstrated these to be a fire hazard, so there is no guarantee that the Electrician inspecting (after the 1st January) will give it a clean bill of health.

 

[Jackrae]

You'd better remove the floor boards as well 'cause they can also burn. If the elfin safety boys get their way we'll be back to living as troglodytes.

 

[Belboz]

Not exactly the whole story here. Below is an extract from The LFB site. As you can see, they are predominantly worried about faulty wiring and items fitted which are faulty (subject to product recall) The flammability of the unit is only one of their concerns.

Around five London house fires a week* are caused by fuse boards (consumer units) which is a fivefold rise in just 5 years. The increase is thought to be because many homes have fuse boards with components which are subject to a product recall. Another major source of these fires are wires that not being properly secured when the consumer unit is being installed or worked on.

Moreover, manufacturers have shifted to mainly using moulded plastics for the casings of consumer units, instead of metal or rigid plastics like Bakelite which were used previously and which have much more flame retardance.

Worse still, many fuse boards are located under the stairs so a fire starting in faulty wiring could spread to coats and other household items meaning the fire goes undetected until it’s too late.

LFB have been working with Electrical Safety First and the manufacturers’ association (BEAMA) to get a new regulation introduced into the wiring regulations to improve fire safety in the home and to highlight the risk of fire.

It is expected that the new regulation which will come into force in January 2015 will mean that all fuse boards fitted in UK homes will have to be made of fireproof material or be in a special fireproof box. While the Brigade is pleased with this expected change it is still concerned about the badly installed fuse boxes in London’s homes.

LFB along with the Electrical Safety First (ESF) are urging people to check their fuse boards for damaged or kinked wires. Home owners and landlords should also check their fuse board brand is not on the ESF’s recall list.

London Fire Brigade Deputy Commissioner Rita Dexter said:

“We are pleased with the new regulations as the Brigade has long argued that new fuse boards in the home should be more robust. Manufacturers will now be obliged to stop using moulded plastics for the casings which are not especially flame retardant.

“However, the problem remains that in many homes across London, poorly wired or faulty fuse boards pose a significant fire hazard that is often out of sight and out of mind.”

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wonder if they realise that Electrical Safety First is a sham "charity" whose real purpose is to promote NICEIC?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Would your accusation change the information on the recall list?
Are you saying that the information on the ESF site is incorrect?

 

[JohnW2]

I'm getting rather frustrated and confused by the lack of clear and consistent information/statistics about fires associated with consumer units. As Belboz has quoted, a statement (2014) on the LFB website says:

Around five London house fires a week* are caused by fuse boards (consumer units) which is a fivefold rise in just 5 years.

However in this 2012 document, LFB said:

The Brigade attended and investigated 108 plastic consumer unit fires over the last 5 years (October 2006 – October 2011)

Whilst I accept that there is a bit of a date difference, there is a very big difference between "5 fires per week" (about 260 per year) and "108 fires in 5 years" (about 22 per year). The 2014 LFB document then goes on to say:

The increase is thought to be because many homes have fuse boards with components which are subject to a product recall.

, but in the 2012 document they say:

In addition, since September 2011, the Brigade has investigated 15 fires with a particular manufacturing fault that has resulted in several injuries and four rescues by the Brigade

I presume that this is a reference to the faulty Electrium MCBs, but (quite apart from the fact that it was a 'one-off' problem which may possibly 'never' be seen again) 15 fires in about year can hardly go far in accounting for a 'five fold increase' in what the same document seemingly claims are about 260 CU-related fires per year.

Those are just individual matters of detail - but it does illustrate the lack of acceptable publicly-available data and information, hence any significant 'transparency' underlying the basis for the very wide-ranging change to BS7671. Does anyone know whether there is any real 'hard data' available anywhere?

I also note that the 2012 document includes:

The Brigade’s preferred option would be a change in the building regulations requiring that all consumer units are to be installed within a fire resisting compartment at the proposed height of 1400mm from the floor.

... that would have been an 'interesting' one to implement - even more 'wide-ranging' than what we have currently got

At least the LFB talk about 'flame retardant' rather than 'non-combustible' materials!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would your accusation change the information on the recall list?

No.

Are you saying that the information on the ESF site is incorrect?

It might well be, given that dubious scare-tactic claims seem to be a speciality of theirs. Elsewhere they say that nearly 1,000 people are seriously injured every day "because of electricity".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I also note that the 2012 document includes:

The Brigade’s preferred option would be a change in the building regulations requiring that all consumer units are to be installed within a fire resisting compartment at the proposed height of 1400mm from the floor.

... that would have been an 'interesting' one to implement - even more 'wide-ranging' than what we have currently got

Yes - heaven forbid that anybody should prefer to do something to attack the causes, rather than mitigate the symptoms. Much better to keep flaky CUs but put them in fire-resisting compartments than, for example, to mandate a change to terminal design and use of the correct torque.

At least the LFB talk about 'flame retardant' rather than 'non-combustible' materials!

And there are proper standards for those.

 

[flameport]

, hence any significant 'transparency' underlying the basis for the very wide-ranging change to BS7671. Does anyone know whether there is any real 'hard data' available anywhere?

Probably not. Even if there is, none of it will justify the use of metal or other non-combustible consumer units.

Of the data that is available:
a. The number of fires reported in the Greater London area involving consumer units in dwellings increased around 2012/2013 from a small number to a slightly larger number. About 250 per year or 5 per week appears to be the most widely available figure.
However, a couple of hundred fires a year in an area containing several million dwellings is statistically insignificant.

b. The actual cause of those fires was not published. There are many possible causes including defective MCBs, defective terminals, loose terminals, incorrect installation, tampering by various persons, etc.

c. The age of the electrical equipment involved in the fires was not mentioned. Neither were the specific brands or types of consumer unit, who installed them or what type of property they were in.

As for plastic consumer units and their locations:
1. Plastic consumer units have been available for decades.
2. Consumer units have been installed under the stairs and in exit routes since electricity was available.

The real point:

While the Brigade is pleased with this expected change it is still concerned about the badly installed fuse boxes in London’s homes.

Attempting to contain a fire is very different from preventing the fire in the first place.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1. Plastic consumer units have been available for decades.

And are, AFAIK, still acceptable in the rest of Europe.

Why are the streets there not full of wailing people picking their way around piles of smouldering rubble and charred corpses?

 

[JohnW2]

... for example, to mandate ...use of the correct torque.

Indeed - although, as I have observed before, I am uncomfortable with the tightening torques usually specified for MCBs, RCDs etc. If I tighten 'only' to those torques, the screws are often still 'worryingly loose' - far more so than would be the case if I just used my judgement with an ordinary screwdriver. Has no-one else experienced that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Does anyone know whether there is any real 'hard data' available anywhere?

Probably not. Even if there is, none of it will justify the use of metal or other non-combustible consumer units.

Quite.

a. The number of fires reported in the Greater London area involving consumer units in dwellings increased around 2012/2013 from a small number to a slightly larger number. About 250 per year or 5 per week appears to be the most widely available figure.

That's commonly quoted. However, although I gather that it did increase 'to a slightly larger number' in 2012/13, can you really square that with the LFB's figure of 108 in 5 years (~22 per year) up to late 2011 increasing to around 260 per year subsequently. That's not my idea of a 'slightly larger figure!!

b. The actual cause of those fires was not published. There are many possible causes including defective MCBs, defective terminals, loose terminals, incorrect installation, tampering by various persons, etc.

Indeed - and, as I've said, I'm not even convinced that all of the fires 'involving CUs' necessarily originated in CUs. As RF has illustrated, it's easy to set a plastic CU enclosure ablaze with an external source of fire/heat.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed - although, as I have observed before, I am uncomfortable with the tightening torques usually specified for MCBs, RCDs etc. If I tighten 'only' to those torques, the screws are often still 'worryingly loose' - far more so than would be the case if I just used my judgement with an ordinary screwdriver. Has no-one else experienced that?

Ha ha - having said what I did, I guess I should fess up to neither owning a torque setting screwdriver nor having looked to see what torques are specified. But many years of using my judgement with ordinary screwdrivers has not resulted in overheating, let alone fires, nor any screws shearing off.