At the end of the day, the argument about the DNO device not protecting the "tails" is what it is ... I'd guess their stance is also a result of the "consumer unit fires" issue also. Basically, in every case where the metal-cased REC isolator is not considered suitable, neither is a metal-clad consumer unit that doesn't provide double insulation or equivalent for the busbars (and upstream devices) feeding the protective devices that provide shock protection.
Absolutely - but at least BS 7671 is reasonably clear on that - at least for the obvious TT situation. (531.3.5.3.2.201)
At the end of the day, the argument about the DNO device not protecting the "tails" is what it is ... I'd guess their stance is also a result of the "consumer unit fires" issue also. Basically, in every case where the metal-cased REC isolator is not considered suitable, neither is a metal-clad consumer unit that doesn't provide double insulation or equivalent for the busbars (and upstream devices) feeding the protective devices that provide shock protection.
Absolutely - but at least BS 7671 is reasonably clear on that - at least for the obvious TT situation. (531.3.5.3.2.201)
