EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

Yes Simon, it matters to me. I take your point about just installing a socket and I agree up to a point, The charger is not the only appliance I can foresee being plugged in there, vacuum, pressure washer etc.

But I know that the primary use will be to plug in the car overnight. I don't know the characteristics of the RCD in the charging lead, therefore don't know whether the upstream RCD I install will be blinded by any DC leakage currents. 722.1 Scope says "..circuits intended to supply electric vehicles for charging purposes", it will be a new circuit.

Andy B, exactly. The socket should be labelled "EV" and "suitable for electric vehicle charging", 722.55.101.0.201.1 (i) so with such a label the client could feel inclined to invite friends with other vehicles and charging leads to use it. 


Edit; I know I could take it out of the scope of 722 by spurring off an existing ring circuit, but that does not feel right to me.

A 13 amp socket used for charging an EV is supposed to be marked as being suitable for the purpose, so that’s something to check for compliance.


Then there’s the bathroom mirror with the built in LED lighting and the shaver socket that the customer bought through EBay, that’s got its own tick box on the schedule of inspections to confirm it complies with British Standards.


Chances are you will often struggle even to identify the manufacturer of either.


Andy B.

OlympusMons:

I was recently asked to install an external 3-pin socket for a Misubishi PHEV car. The lead that comes with the car, made by Yazaki, is CE marked and has "residual current limit I(delta)n 20mA" on the data plate. I asked Yazaki for details of the device and they replied they were under contract with Mitsubishi not to divulge details of the lead. I asked Mitsubishi UK for details of it and they confirmed there was an RCD in it but did not know any more details, such as type. In the maufacture's handbook for the car (if I downloaded the right one) there is no DOC for the lead, there are some for radio, tyres etc 

The property presents as TNS, but as it is in London, and UKPN cannot confirm that the supply cable is not PME (as the majority in London are), it must be treated as PME. The curtilage is not huge around the property and where the car will be parked there is an electric gate within 2 metres.

This would be my first EV charging point and I am a bit stuck as to what to suggest.

It would be good to have a lead that complies with the new 722

 

If it's just a normal 13A socket, does it matter to you?


If someone wants a new outdoor socket to plug in their lawnmower, do you check that the lawnmower is CE marked and comes with a Certificate of Conformity, or do you just install the socket to BS7671?  Whatever plugs into it is just an appliance, and beyond the scope of the standard.

Andy, are you ever surprised by such folk? Never, I suspect you`d say, at least not these days, maybe when you started out.


In another vein but still pertinent perhaps, just look at attitudes and actions recently ref the virus, if you`d written a book beforehand listing such behaviour folk woulda` found it unbelieveable


There`s nowt as daft as folk!

I was recently asked to install an external 3-pin socket for a Misubishi PHEV car. The lead that comes with the car, made by Yazaki, is CE marked and has "residual current limit I(delta)n 20mA" on the data plate. I asked Yazaki for details of the device and they replied they were under contract with Mitsubishi not to divulge details of the lead. I asked Mitsubishi UK for details of it and they confirmed there was an RCD in it but did not know any more details, such as type. In the maufacture's handbook for the car (if I downloaded the right one) there is no DOC for the lead, there are some for radio, tyres etc 

The property presents as TNS, but as it is in London, and UKPN cannot confirm that the supply cable is not PME (as the majority in London are), it must be treated as PME. The curtilage is not huge around the property and where the car will be parked there is an electric gate within 2 metres.

This would be my first EV charging point and I am a bit stuck as to what to suggest.

It would be good to have a lead that complies with the new 722

I raised an observation about two interlinked hardwired smoke alarms made by two different manufacturers recently on an EICR, I did email one of the manufacturers who replied saying they were incompatible, so there was no point perusing it with the other manufacturer. So if anyone comes back and queries my report I can refer them to the manufacturer.


If I do an EICR and there is an EV charger that appears to be unsatisfactory because of its design I should be able to refer to the manufacturer’s documentation provided for me to refer to along with the installation instructions and installation certificate, all of which will be made available to me by the person ordering the work or their agent, assuming it’s not stored adjacent to the consumer unit.


However that’s how it’s really going to happen is it? So faced with a lack of information most people reach for their phone to have a look at the manufacturers website, now that’s really the place a copy of all the relevant documents should be immediately available.


But it appears that isn’t going to happen either, so without documentation being handed to the inspector for reference or information on the manufacturers website the next alternative is to contact the manufacturer. So the inspector sends an inquiry by email, without receiving a reply with the required document the options really have all been used up.


Presumably the EV charger is installed and presumably in use, compliance with the current edition of BS7671 cannot be confirmed, without being able to precisely identify an issue or indeed if there even is an issue the code can only be FI.


Ten minutes seems a reasonable amount of time to spend trying to resolve this before coding it FI and failing the whole installation. Ask the person ordering the work for documentation, check on site for documentation, check the manufacturers website, email the manufacturer and read their reply.


The person reviewing the EICR may not appreciate it being  coded FI, but actually they were the first person the inspector asked to supply the information, so maybe unwittingly become part of the problem, if asked for information they should provide it if they want a satisfactory report. Okay, they might not have realised they should have the information or may not have realised the importance of keeping it to hand.


Ultimately if inspector cannot write a report without relevant manufacturers information concerning installed equipment it is not the inspectors job to source that information.


There’s a bit of a denial culture when it comes to responding to requests for previous certification, EICRs and other information about electrical installations for which an EICR has been requested, many people appear to think they are being clever or “getting their monies worth” if they do not provide the inspector with any information at all as they will do “a proper job” rather than “just copying” the last report.


Then they wonder why EICRs are so expensive.


Andy Betteridge 

Andy


Down to the contractor I think as they should have provided an EIC that one or more individuals has designed the installation to BS 7671, installed the installation to BS 7671 and has been inspected and tested the installation for compliance with BS 7671 and those person(s) have certified compliance with their signatures.



I would only FI an apparent non-compliance if I was unsure if the EV charging equipment was not compliant after I had made inquiries with the equipment manufacturer. Using an FI without making reasonable inquires because the inspector cannot make an effort is not exercising due diligence in my book.

Paul


Thanks. I have no intention of specifying anything that is non-compliant to comply with my statutory duties and common law duties as a principle designer. Also I have no intention of certifying on the EIC that my design is compliant if I have specified a component that is not compliant.


So far I have looked at one big market player that is not issuing a DoC that is compliant with the LVD. Another market player who's device does not contain an RCD compliant with 722.531.2.101 but has current coils that are connected to a printed circuit board.


My search goes on.