So does the requirement for non combustible materials in consumer units now mean the manufacturers will change to metal like Type A boards? This is going to be an issue for the cheap plastic CU's from the numerous videos on youtube it seems few of them are non combustable
You would like to think that is the case, but it seems that many are combustible, hence the reason for this being included. I spent a day with some fire investigators and they showed me an off the shelf unit staying lit after the flame was removed. I suppose the real question is, since this is in the installation side, does that mean the installer is ultimately responsible for ensuring the CU they fit is non combustible and do they end up in court when someone dies?
Consumer units don't self-combust, Craig. If the CU is installed properly and correctly then why would it catch fire? PVC burns but nobody has questioned that. Its a simple case of somebody with little else to do than invent problems that can be used as an excuse to print another bloody amendment to keep sales going. If the manufacturers are selling combustible CUs how can the liability for a death caused by fire be placed on the electrician? Its the manufacturer who will carry the can. I couldn't care less what I fit tbh, if it is compliant with the relevant BS then that's good enough for me. I can't be worrying about endless possibilities dreamed up by the IET morons with nothing else better to do than invent problems that quite frankly are misguided. Wrapping copper conductors in flammable PVC is okay but uPVC consumer units isn't? The next amendment will probably include non-flammable insulation for conductors.
I agree they won't self-combust, but should there be an issue then they don't want it continuing to burn, making things worse. It's known that households have a tendency to stuff all sorts in the cupboard under the stairs, blocking any airflow around the CU possibly causing it to overheat. I don't disagree with what you say, but if the requirement ends up in the installation side, then it suggests the installer is the one responsible for ensuring compliance?
I agree with every word UP said! If the installer fits something that complies with the relevant standards and fits it properly of course it isn't his responsibility. Maybe the next step will be to say that dwellings have to have a fire proof cabinet installed just in case !!!! What a load of bo*****s.
This is worth a read, when your all done sucking on your teeth. Cable Talk - April 2014 - M2 Electrical
We all work for insurance companies damage limitation now, what better way than to have a roll of people registered to throw the book at if they step out of line. What about all the unregistered idiots out there that no one since I have been in this game has ever prosecuted?
Always makes me wonder. Can't have the old Wylex boards with the wooden backs, but we can have plastic whic when alight will melt and set fire to whatever it falls on. Then I think why don't they stop making fire doors out of wood and instead use the same plastic that they use for CUs?
Hi Spin, Just a guess, but the wood used for fire doors has been tested and can resist burn for x amount of time, where as the Wylex wooden backs would offer no resistance at all. Just an assumption mate
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop