Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 45 subscribers
  • Views 4330 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

CHANGES IN AMD 2 RELUCTANCE TO COMPLY

John Peckham

I heard before AMD 2 that compliance with the requirement to install AFDDs where required would stop clients having consumer units upgraded due to the additional cost. 

The requirement to fit as a "shall" is limited to 4 types of installation has anyone experienced a refusal to upgrade the installation with AFDDs when replacing a consumer unit?

Also has anyone experienced any reluctance when upgrading an installation where SPDs are required under the new provisions of AMD 2?

The same question as above, any reluctance to install smoke detectors in domestic premises where an SPD needs to be fitted to the circuit supply the smoke detectors?

Thanks

JP

 

Parents
  • 0

    I have had 2 instances. I explain the function and cost to the customer and leave it with them. They ask what I would do, I tell them that in my opinion these things are at best a very expensive and very long shot in the dark at solving a problem is not really prevalent, and at the very worst, nothing but a piece of very expensive snake oil and leave it at that. I don't mind the SPD boards so long as I can get the Fusebox items, but AFDDs? Not at £100+VAT a go! Not on your Nelly unless the customer expressly wishes for them to be fitted. I can stand a few C3s in future when the AFDD-free installations are due for their PIRs,and so can the customer.

  • 0 in reply to whjohnson

    Were those “Shall” requirements or a recommendation?

    I have already been picked up on this.

  • 0 in reply to Sparkingchip

    Mere semantics I reckon. They were fighting shy of compulsory introduction in the face of all the searing critical comments they received at the DPC but had to be seen to be doing something to please their BEAMA paymasters.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Sparkingchip

    Mere semantics I reckon. They were fighting shy of compulsory introduction in the face of all the searing critical comments they received at the DPC but had to be seen to be doing something to please their BEAMA paymasters.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines