DB in kitchen cabinet?

jeepers101

Anyone know if there are any regs relating specifically to the above? Providing its within the correct height limit.

tomdempsey200

not allowed I'd say

that would be considered a storage cupboard I think

which isn't allowed

jeepers101

Any specific regs you can guide me to? What I have in mind will be a cabinet dedicated to the board. It won't be used as storage.

tomdempsey200

it's in the rules section on distribution boards

storage or airing cupboards I think it says

Sir Arthur Daley

Maybe a kitchen cabinet was built around the DB that was not initially planned, often see this happen in utility rooms.
If it is the case the cabinet maker should read up on the building regs as there are alot of regs in around the kitchen which certain appliances minimum distance etc. I dont think the DB should be removed if this is the case and wrong to be saying that it is installed incorrectly too.

tomdempsey200

I would think you could argue the case

if it's a dedicated cupboard space

Sir Arthur Daley

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

I would think you could argue the case

if it's a dedicated cupboard space

It depends on the op, if the cupboard was an after thought i.e the home owner didnt like looking at the fuseboard and decided to put in a unit to cover it there is no arguing in that case.

tomdempsey200

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

It depends on the op, if the cupboard was an after thought i.e the home owner didnt like looking at the fuseboard and decided to put in a unit to cover it there is no arguing in that case.

no arguing with what?

if it's in a storage or airing cupboard it doesn't comply, doesn't matter which came first

not saying that's the case here
I think you can argue it's a dedicated space

Sir Arthur Daley

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

if it's in a storage or airing cupboard it doesn't comply, doesn't matter which came first

If for example the DB was in a utility and at the initial first fix it was agreed location of DB and house completed etc. 5 years down the line and a new family needing more storage so they decide to build cupboards along the wall where the DB is.
Are you telling me that the electrician was wrong here?

jeepers101

Thanks lads, seems a bit subjective imo. A cupboard is only a storage cupboard if its used for storage.

2011

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

if it's in a storage or airing cupboard it doesn't comply, doesn't matter which came first

Exactly.

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

If for example the DB was in a utility and at the initial first fix it was agreed location of DB and house completed etc. 5 years down the line and a new family needing more storage so they decide to build cupboards along the wall where the DB is.

Then they the installation no longer complies with the regulations.
The same logic would apply if the utility was turned into a shower room.

Are you telling me that the electrician was wrong here?

Who is right or wrong is not relevant.
Apart from the fact that it is against the regulations the DB is unlikely to be as accessible, it may accidently become covered with items being stored in the cupboard which could contribute to it overheating and becoming a fire hazard.
In short, this is simply not a good idea.

frankmul

jeepers101 wrote: »

Thanks lads, seems a bit subjective imo. A cupboard is only a storage cupboard if its used for storage.

I agree with 2011. We all know that if something is built around a DB and there is storage space in it, it will eventually be used for storage

tomdempsey200

I think you could prob argue the case with an inspector if it happened by accident on a new job

if the door was labelled

DISTRIBUTION BOARD
NOT TO BE USED FOR STORAGE

you might get away with it

but you wouldn't put it there by design as the OP proposes

2011

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

I think you could prob argue the case with an inspector if it happened by accident on a new job

if the door was labelled

DISTRIBUTION BOARD
NOT TO BE USED FOR STORAGE

you might get away with it

but you wouldn't put it there by design as the OP proposes

Forget the inspector and apply common sense.
This is not a good idea period!

jeepers101

2011 wrote: »

Forget the inspector and apply common sense.
This is not a good idea period!

Point taken

Sir Arthur Daley

2011 wrote: »

Then they the installation no longer complies with the regulations.

Right, so now we have a non compliant installation thanks to the home owner watching too much Grand Designs and a trip to Ikea thus building the press.
What do we do now to get it compliant?

2011

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Right, so now we have a non compliant installation thanks to the home owner watching too much Grand Designs and a trip to Ikea thus building the press.
What do we do now to get it compliant?

There are 2 options available:
1) move the DB out of the cupboard
2) remove the cupboard from around the DB

It is not the purpose of the regulations (ET101) to offer practical solutions to unsafe practices.

tomdempsey200

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Right, so now we have a non compliant installation thanks to the home owner watching too much Grand Designs and a trip to Ikea thus building the press.
What do we do now to get it compliant?

it will be the homeowners problem if he encloses the DB at a later stage.. he will have to pay for relocation if it's a problem on a periodic inspection or the like

on a new installation it will be a problem for the REC as he can't sign off and may be partly/wholly to blame depending on the circumstances

I still think you "might" be able to argue that it complies if the door was labelled etc..assuming it happens accidentally

2011

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

I still think you "might" be able to argue that it complies if the door was labelled etc..assuming it happens accidentally

What do you base this assumption on ?
It is clearly not permitted.

Your assumption is based on everyone being able to read, understand English, the notice never being removed, the notice being obeyed and an acceptance of a clear breach of regulations following an investigation if the DB went on fire.

tomdempsey200

2011 wrote: »

What do you base this assumption on ?
It is clearly not permitted.

Your assumption is based on everyone being able to read, understand English, the notice never being removed, the notice being obeyed and an acceptance of a clear breach of regulations following an investigation if the DB went on fire.

you may be right

i am merely trying to play the devils advocate

Sir Arthur Daley

2011 wrote: »

There are 2 options available:
1) move the DB out of the cupboard
2) remove the cupboard from around the DB

Option 2 would be my choice.

2011 wrote: »

Your assumption is based on everyone being able to read, understand English, the notice never being removed, the notice being obeyed and an acceptance of a clear breach of regulations following an investigation if the DB went on fire.

Interesting point you brought up there, say if a DB cought fire due to a cupboard around it, insurance assessor comes in and sees the damage and states the cause of it, home owners insurance wont cover insurance so they go claiming off electrician would this be fair as the cabinet maker was the one who put it there.

2011

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

say if a DB cought fire due to a cupboard around it, insurance assessor comes in and sees the damage and states the cause of it, home owners insurance wont cover insurance so they go claiming off electrician would this be fair as the cabinet maker was the one who put it there.

So in your hypothetical scenario, an electrician completes an electrical installation which complies fully with the regulations, following this the cupboard is built around the board? I don't think that any sane person could hold the electrician responsible for a third party building a cupboard that causes the installation to cease being the wiring regulations.

If the electrician installed the DB properly it should not go on fire in the first place. Theoretically if the cupboard was full of clothes that were packed tightly around the DB they could be a contributing factor, but there would have to be some sort of a fault in the first place.

Sir Arthur Daley

2011 wrote: »

So in your hypothetical scenario, an electrician completes an electrical installation which complies fully with the regulations, following this the cupboard is built around the board? I don't think that any sane person could hold the electrician responsible for a third party building a cupboard that causes the installation to cease being the wiring regulations.

I have the same opinion as you on that, kitchen fitters, carpenters should be more educated as I posted earlier in this thread, I must run through the building regs to see is there any regs on it.

Theoretically if the cupboard was full of clothes that were packed tightly around the DB they could be a contributing factor, but there would have to be some sort of a fault in the first place.

If clothes were packed tight like you say and heat generated off a bell trafo, mcbs on the limit the risk of fire would be a real presence and no fault.

2011

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

If clothes were packed tight like you say and heat generated off a bell trafo, mcbs on the limit the risk of fire would be a real presence and no fault.

I am saying that although I certainly would not recommend doing anything that would make it harder for for a distribution board to cool I do not believe that this alone would cause a fire.

Sir Arthur Daley

Some type bell trafos do get very hot though.

2011

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Some type bell trafos do get very hot though.

If there was a real danger of a properly installed bell transformer overheating I would expect some sort of warning on the accompanying documentation.
I would not use a bell transformer that is normally hot.

Sir Arthur Daley

2011 wrote: »

If there was a real danger of a properly installed bell transformer overheating I would expect some sort of warning on the accompanying documentation.

Alot of trafos dont come with any paperwork or packaging so on that there must not be.

I would not use a bell transformer that is normally hot.

I have yet to install a type that don't run hot.

2011

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Alot of trafos dont come with any paperwork or packaging so on that there must not be.

Well once it is CE marked and there are no special installation instructions then I would not expect it to go on fire to easily. The same can not be said for certain grid dimmer switches that come with explicit warnings about spacing etc..

I have yet to install a type that don't run hot.

Well I jest checked mine, it is warm and definitely not "very hot" and it isn't anything fancy

Bruthal

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

If clothes were packed tight like you say and heat generated off a bell trafo, mcbs on the limit the risk of fire would be a real presence and no fault.

I don't think that's realistic myself.

Sir Arthur Daley

Bruthal wrote: »

I don't think that's realistic myself.

It could contribute to a fire hazzard though would you agree?

Bruthal

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

It could contribute to a fire hazzard though would you agree?

They will contribute to fueling a fire once started, but not to the risk due to causing DB components overheating.

Just the same as furniture will fuel a fire, rather than causing one.