The second electrician says the first one shouldn't have issued a satisfactory EICR.

[ebee]

The components inside an MCB or RCBO etc might be sited differently too and each manufacturer must ensure we do not get hotspots etc so if we mount all of make A with Make As in a make A consumer unit and makes Bs only with other make Bs in a make B consumer unit it makes them, in theory, all OK but if we mix we might do so at our peril.
Sometimes we might get several brands being exact or near exact copies or even all made by the same person but with differing brand stamped on them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Except, as I said, if the so called "type testing" is the same for everyone but they just don't tell us.

 

[JohnW2]

Except, as I said, if the so called "type testing" is the same for everyone but they just don't tell us.

The 'type testing', ill-defined though it is, surely involves 'testing' the CU when used whilst populated with a combinations of devices from the same manufacturer, doesn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The components inside an MCB or RCBO etc might be sited differently too and each manufacturer must ensure we do not get hotspots etc so if we mount all of make A with Make As in a make A consumer unit and makes Bs only with other make Bs in a make B consumer unit it makes them, in theory, all OK but if we mix we might do so at our peril.

That is the argument used by those who support the concept of 'type testing' (and oppose 'mixed -make devices').

Whilst not a theoretical impossibility, I do seriously doubt that the devices are anything as 'marginal' as that would suggest. If one is concerned about 'hot spots' (which I suspect don't usually exist to any appreciable extent, anyway), one should perhaps be more concerned about, say, a 6A MCB being adjacent to a 45A one (both being of the 'correct make') than about, say,, two 32A ones (mechanically/physically compatible of different makes- even though the former is apparently 'OK' and the latter not.

Sometimes we might get several brands being exact or near exact copies or even all made by the same person but with differing brand stamped on them.

I'm sure that's quite common. However, if they are differently branded there's usually no way of knowing for sure that they are identical unless that is 'given away' by, say, 'part numbers'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The 'type testing', ill-defined though it is, surely involves 'testing' the CU when used whilst populated with a combinations of devices from the same manufacturer, doesn't it?

Well, yes - but presumably all manufacturers will be required to achieve the same results.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, yes - but presumably all manufacturers will be required to achieve the same results.

Of course - those 'same results' presumably relating primarily to the lack of overheating of a combination of devices when simultaneously 'loaded' to some specified extent (since I can't reeally think of much else they could 'test').

However, as I said, that testing will presumably be undertaken specifically with a combination of the manufacturer's own devices, not including anyone else's devices - and, whilst I personally seriously doubt that it would be likely to make much difference, that theoretically leaves open the possibility that 'different results' might be seen if some 'alien devices' were involved?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

Back to the original question - I suspect that a new EICR is in order - but maybe get somebody who a friend has used.

I guess its too much to expect to ask if the person who changed the CU and added circuits provided any certification?