New Consumer Unit ?

[EFLImpudence]

"A particular type of distribution board comprising a type-tested co-ordinated assembly for the control and distribution of electrical energy, principally in domestic premises, incorporating manual means of double-pole isolation on the incoming circuit(s) and an assembly of one or more fuses, circuit-breakers, residual current operated devices or signalling and other devices proven during the type-test of the assembly as suitable for such use."

 

[davelx]

Excellent - by that definition, my distribution board (see avatar) is not a Consumer Unit, as it contains a device that was not included in the type-testing .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And that's important/useful/excellent why?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Excellent - by that definition, my distribution board (see avatar) is not a Consumer Unit, as it contains a device that was not included in the type-testing .

Surely that just makes it a CU with a device that was not included in the type-testing?

If you fitted the wrong tyres to your car, would you claim that that meant it was no longer a car?

 

[davelx]

Excellent - by that definition, my distribution board (see avatar) is not a Consumer Unit, as it contains a device that was not included in the type-testing .

Surely that just makes it a CU with a device that was not included in the type-testing?

If you fitted the wrong tyres to your car, would you claim that that meant it was no longer a car?

The DEFINITION of a car does not specify a specific tyre. If the DEFINITION of a car specified a specific type of tyre, then BY DEFINITION, it CANNOT BE A CAR if it does not have that specific type of tyre.

(The was there for a reason).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it did, and you did put the wrong ones on, which of the following do you think would be your chances of successfully arguing that you didn't need to tax it:

1. None
2. Zero
3. Nada
4. Zilch
5. Snowball in hell
6. Smaller than a small thing that's very small.

 

[davelx]

If it did, and you did put the wrong ones on, which of the following do you think would be your chances of successfully arguing that you didn't need to tax it:

1. None
2. Zero
3. Nada
4. Zilch
5. Snowball in hell
6. Smaller than a small thing that's very small.

That's not the point. I'm having a pop at the definition of a CU.

Suppose I took an enclosure by one manufacturer, the DP isolator from another and the protective devices from a third, and made whatever mods were needed to ensure that the busbars are firmly connected. By THE DEFINITION that would NOT be a CU, since it would not be a "type-tested co-ordinated assembly". We would still want its installation to be notifiable, wouldn't we?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We would.

Since the law does not reference the definition in BS 7671, good luck trying to persuade a court that because you put another make device in it it was no longer a CU and therefore did not need notifying.

 

[kai]

Here is a Hybrid Unit, with an MK enclosure, Wylex devices and busbar inside it.

MK_WYLEX_FUSEBOX_HYBRID

• kai
• 21 Feb 2016

 

[Iggifer]

Here is a Hybrid Unit, with an MK enclosure, Wylex devices and busbar inside it.

MK_WYLEX_FUSEBOX_HYBRID

• kai
• 21 Feb 2016

And your point is.....?

 

[stillp]

And your point is.....?

That he likes posting that photo?

 

[PBC_1966]

"A particular type of distribution board comprising a type-tested co-ordinated assembly for the control and distribution of electrical energy, principally in domestic premises, incorporating manual means of double-pole isolation on the incoming circuit(s) and an assembly of one or more fuses, circuit-breakers, residual current operated devices or signalling and other devices proven during the type-test of the assembly as suitable for such use."

Thanks.

So as far as the current definition in BS7671 is concerned, it's not a consumer unit if it doesn't meet the requirement of being a type-tested co-ordinated assembly etc. But that still leaves open to interpretation the meaning of "similar switchgear assembly" with regard to whether whatever it is needs to be "non combustible" or not.

Since the law does not reference the definition in BS 7671, good luck trying to persuade a court that because you put another make device in it it was no longer a CU and therefore did not need notifying.

But as we've discussed before, surely it depends upon what this new assembly is replacing, if anything? The law doesn't require notification for the installation of a consumer unit, but for the replacement of a consumer unit. So whether what's going in is classed as a consumer unit or not is irrelevant if whatever you're removing is not a consumer unit. But of course, as you say, the law doesn't define what is meant by the term anyway, so we're still none the wiser as to whether that switch-fuse-MCB-busbar-whatever assembly being pulled out is, according to the Building Regs., a consumer unit or not.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But as we've discussed before, surely it depends upon what this new assembly is replacing, if anything? The law doesn't require notification for the installation of a consumer unit, but for the replacement of a consumer unit. So whether what's going in is classed as a consumer unit or not is irrelevant if whatever you're removing is not a consumer unit.

...and also irrelevant, but notifiable, if:

whatever you're removing IS a consumer unit.

 

[securespark]

Thanks EFLI.

That is the same definition as printed in the BGB.

 

[PBC_1966]

...and also irrelevant, but notifiable, if:
whatever you're removing IS a consumer unit.

Indeed, that's what I was implying as well. And we still have no idea what the law regards as being within the definition of "consumer unit."

I doubt anyone really cares by now though!