davezawadi (David Stone): This will come up for much more discussion in JPEL/64 because they knew what BS7671 actually said and failed to provide the correctly rated product but sold it as compliant. A lot of replacement CUs free of charge very soon I should think, this is blatant misselling.
I am still surprised, and slightly shocked, that the Manufacturers ‘got away’ with supplying combustible enclosures, when the British Standard said they should be ‘non-combustible' (or similar wording) when they made plastic enclosures.
I don't recall any Manufacturers apologising, and offering to replace them with the correct item, made to the British Standard, the originals were sold as.
davezawadi (David Stone): This will come up for much more discussion in JPEL/64 because they knew what BS7671 actually said and failed to provide the correctly rated product but sold it as compliant. A lot of replacement CUs free of charge very soon I should think, this is blatant misselling.
I am still surprised, and slightly shocked, that the Manufacturers ‘got away’ with supplying combustible enclosures, when the British Standard said they should be ‘non-combustible' (or similar wording) when they made plastic enclosures.
I don't recall any Manufacturers apologising, and offering to replace them with the correct item, made to the British Standard, the originals were sold as.
