We are now going to mix two conversations and discussions.

I read some of the comments on YouTube and it seems that installing a new tails from Henly blocks and a new consumer unit alongside the existing is seen as the way to install a supply for EVSE, to avoid taking any responsibility for any issues in the existing installation, rather than fitting a two pound fifty MCB in the existing consumer unit and working from that.

In the video there is a SPD in the new consumer unit, but it’s not OEM from the consumer unit manufacturer, which doesn’t help the argument in favour of fitting an additional consumer unit because the existing has “obsolete” devices.

I can't understand the objection to the fact that the manufacturer can only test what they have available?

Or are we saying that BS EN 60947 series ought to provide more standardization in terms of physical properties?

Having said that, things are a little more tricky these days, as products to other standards are incorporated into these Assemblies.

The best advice I can give, is to provide proposals for the relevant standards (in this case, that's not BS 7671), and perhaps to concede the fact that a manufacturer of a product cannot be liable for every eventuality of the in-service use or modification of their products.

I can't understand the objection to the fact that the manufacturer can only test what they have available?

Or are we saying that BS EN 60947 series ought to provide more standardization in terms of physical properties?

Having said that, things are a little more tricky these days, as products to other standards are incorporated into these Assemblies.

The best advice I can give, is to provide proposals for the relevant standards (in this case, that's not BS 7671), and perhaps to concede the fact that a manufacturer of a product cannot be liable for every eventuality of the in-service use or modification of their products.

That we should have standards is not in question. The problem to me is that standards suffer from mission creep and tend to over-arch into areas which should not be of their concern. There is a lot of money made from creating 'standards' which in reality are introduced to enable profits to be enhanced rather then the product quality.

I reckon the 'standards' system could be very much simplified. One thing is form factor. The footprint for a mcb/rcbo should be standardized to enable fit inter compatibility across what are essentially simple enameled metal boxes with a small strip of copper connecting the internals together. It is no more complicated than that, nor should it need to be.

All these distractions about grouping devices from different brands is just a smokescreen for protectionism.

We used to knock up our own enclosures from sheet steel, then add some DIN rail and fit whatever was in the stores at the time, and we never experienced any problems nor detrimental effects as a consequence of doing so. Sometimes, and more often than not, a Rittal box was simply unavailable in time.