RCBO advice

[Sharpend]

Usually large builders have detailed drawings and number of sockets is per OSG

 

[Sidewinder]

There is of course a counter argument:

CU boards are tested for compliance by the manufacturer without any units on board i.e. any MCB's etc.
Component parts RCBO's etc are tested individually by the manufacturer for compliance.

Why would putting all perfectly fitting Hager RCBO's into a Wylex board invalidate that compliance? IMO it would not, but a mixing of Hager and Schneider RCBO's or MCB's may due to different pitch's of the terminals either in length or depth and the need to bend rails or busbars, you are then modifying the manufacturers tested unit and that would invalidate the compliance.

Interesting discussion which I am sure will go on for some time.

Apart from the fact that whilst the enclosures and breakers may well be tested individually.
They are also tested as an assembly, else they are not compliant.
So this is why the final assembly is important, enclosure and protective devices.
So, yes mixing the brand of breakers WILL invalidate the compliance of the assembly.
You are modifying the type tested assembly by fitting components together which are not tested as part of an assembly, thus, no longer compliant, thus no longer the product it was, thus the installer becomes the manufacturer of the assembly.
So unless the installer CE marks the assembly it is not legal to be placed on the market.

 

[Murdoch]

@Murdoch i suspect that was a small independent build? Local builder and sparks with no planned drawings?

er no, not at all. Well known big name

 

[binky]

Having been in a few new builds recently I do wonder if the sparks have any training or knowledge. Talk about the fewest possible sockets and lights too.

One had a big kitchen diner with all 20 downlights on 1 switch. The customer wasn't impressed when I said I would have to cut lots of holes to split the 20 into 10 + 10

It's not unusual these days to find new builds have been penny pinched.

 

[Sharpend]

er no, not at all. Well known big name

Well how times have changed! Obviously a dash for the cash going on.

 

[Mike.J]

Apart from the fact that whilst the enclosures and breakers may well be tested individually.
They are also tested as an assembly, else they are not compliant.
So this is why the final assembly is important, enclosure and protective devices.
So, yes mixing the brand of breakers WILL invalidate the compliance of the assembly.
You are modifying the type tested assembly by fitting components together which are not tested as part of an assembly, thus, no longer compliant, thus no longer the product it was, thus the installer becomes the manufacturer of the assembly.
So unless the installer CE marks the assembly it is not legal to be placed on the market.

Does not work like that in the real world, aftermarket parts are a big industry in nearly all mass produced products and are CE marked and placed on the market, this has been tested in court with aftermarket parts on vehicles which are far more life threatening than changing out a breaker in a CU unit, I would expect if this is ever tested in court the findings would be the same, but first the loss will have to be attributed to the aftermarket part, which is going to be very difficult in a loss situation as I think it is reasonable to assume the replacement part would be destroyed and unrecognisable, the documentation would be the only route of identification if any existed. Until such time as this is tested in Court any conclusion that its illegal to replace with aftermarket parts is supposition considering it is done in all other mass produced products.

 

[Mike.J]

Thats cheap for a plumber / bathroom fitter - where in the UK are you

Kent.

 

[Fleeting]

Does not work like that in the real world, aftermarket parts are a big industry in nearly all mass produced products and are CE marked and placed on the market, this has been tested in court with aftermarket parts on vehicles which are far more life threatening than changing out a breaker in a CU unit, I would expect if this is ever tested in court the findings would be the same, but first the loss will have to be attributed to the aftermarket part, which is going to be very difficult in a loss situation as I think it is reasonable to assume the replacement part would be destroyed and unrecognisable, the documentation would be the only route of identification if any existed. Until such time as this is tested in Court any conclusion that its illegal to replace with aftermarket parts is supposition considering it is done in all other mass produced products.

But a non compatible protective device is not an aftermarket part.

 

[binky]

Does not work like that in the real world, aftermarket parts are a big industry in nearly all mass produced products and are CE marked and placed on the market,

aftermarket car parts are designed to work in place of the original, and the manufcacturers have accepted legal liability. I've never seen an MCB manufacturer claim their MCB can be used with another brand.

 

[kerching]

aftermarket car parts are designed to work in place of the original, and the manufcacturers have accepted legal liability. I've never seen an MCB manufacturer claim their MCB can be used with another brand.

Back in the day Wylex sent a letter to all contractors stating NOT to use Proteus/Centaur/Protec plug in MCBs in their boards

 

[Sidewinder]

Does not work like that in the real world, aftermarket parts are a big industry in nearly all mass produced products and are CE marked and placed on the market, this has been tested in court with aftermarket parts on vehicles which are far more life threatening than changing out a breaker in a CU unit, I would expect if this is ever tested in court the findings would be the same, but first the loss will have to be attributed to the aftermarket part, which is going to be very difficult in a loss situation as I think it is reasonable to assume the replacement part would be destroyed and unrecognisable, the documentation would be the only route of identification if any existed. Until such time as this is tested in Court any conclusion that its illegal to replace with aftermarket parts is supposition considering it is done in all other mass produced products.

Apart from the product standard requirements for a tested assembly & the legal requirements for CE marking of the assembly.
The situation is completely different to that with automotive aftermarket parts.

 

[Mike.J]

Interesting discussion with really only two views, would be interested in what that difference wold be in your opinion?

 

[Murdoch]

If it ain’t broken don’t fix it

 

[Sparky1958]

Apart from the product standard requirements for a tested assembly & the legal requirements for CE marking of the assembly.
The situation is completely different yo that with automotive aftermarket parts.

I can't imagine it works like that. Normally MCBs RCBs and RCBOs are normed in their size and connection positions. I never came across a board, which told me, that only the board producers own MCBs, RCBOs have to be used.

 

[Sidewinder]

I can't imagine it works like that. Normally MCBs RCBs and RCBOs are normed in their size and connection positions. I never came across a board, which told me, that only the board producers own MCBs, RCBOs have to be used.

The requirements for type testing of assemblies is in the product standard for the assembly.
So it does work like that.
I don’t do any sparky work any longer. All the work I do these days is product safety consultancy for manufacturers of equipment under the LVD & MD (& UK equivalent) PUWER and product safety expert witness works under the LVD & MD.
So I can assure you that my information is correct.

 

[Geoff1946]

No argument with what you say, but trying to view the overall perspective the "product" which an electrician delivers is the whole installation.
The choices and decisions made in assembling that are surely just as significant as the suitability of a protection device?

 

[Sidewinder]

No argument with what you say, but trying to view the overall perspective the "product" which an electrician delivers is the whole installation.
The choices and decisions made in assembling that are surely just as significant as the suitability of a protection device?

The whole installation is not a ready-made product which requires CE marking.
The consumer unit assembly is.
The consumer unit falls under EN 61439-3 (nee 60439-3).
The installation is bespoke to the premises, & is covered by BS 7671.

 

[Mike.J]

I can't imagine it works like that. Normally MCBs RCBs and RCBOs are normed in their size and connection positions. I never came across a board, which told me, that only the board producers own MCBs, RCBOs have to be used.

Its the statement "Follow manufacturers instructions" that is assumed to give that instruction.

 

[BorisJ]

There is no requirement to follow manufacturers instructions. They only have to be taken account of.

 

[Richard-the-Ninth]

Just a reminder to everyone
Feel free to "debate" just don't make it personal.