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 53 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3309 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

NON COMPLIANT NEW EV INSTALLATIONS

John Peckham
I was sent some information from the ECA concerning an audit undertaken by the Office of Low Emission Vehicles.


The sites inspected were those installed by "qualified" and "registered" installers claiming the OLEV subsidy.


0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3). That makes 46% of new EV installations by qualified and registered persons to be non-compliant.


Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?





  • 0
    I don’t suppose it says how many were audited?


    That implies that eight out of a thousand are dangerous C1, which is actually a hell of a lot.


    Indeed less than one in five of the PRS inspections are likely to be recorded as a C2.


     Andy B.
  • 0
    Is it a surprise though?
  • 0
    John Peckham:

    I was sent some information from the ECA concerning an audit undertaken by the Office of Low Emission Vehicles.


    The sites inspected were those installed by "qualified" and "registered" installers claiming the OLEV subsidy.


    0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3). That makes 46% of new EV installations by qualified and registered persons to be non-compliant.


    Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?





     


    Disgrace? Yes! Surprising, no. One assumes they must have surveyed at least 125 units with one being given a code 1. That is bad but with nearly 20% seen as potentially dangerous, that is truly bad. I would love to know what the codes were awarded for. No doubt there were some that failed to meet the PME criteria with earth rods banged in without consideration to location or resistance. Inappropriate or no load management seems like another likely concern along with RCD issues probably making it in to the C2 and C3 boxes. Have you any further details John?

     


  • 0
    Non compliant with what? 


    Regards, UKPNZap
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Non compliant with what? 


    Does anyone know what document other than BS7671 uses these codes?

    0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3


    Regards


    BED
  • 0
    It is the DNO that sets the standard for EV. Of course, there are those that believe otherwise,

    normally on this forum. As a proportion of EV chargers are PME earth protected, when I ask "compliant with what?" If it is not to the PME requirements of the local DNO, then various "codes" do not apply. If an installation is found to be dangerous, ie the rod resistance is too high, the method of earthing should be changed to an independent type ie 1/1 transformer. 


    Just to clarify, if something is dangerous, its no good giving a "C1" and walking away, it should be made safe immediately. Similar to the new rules in Landlords EICR where a dangerous situation must be made safe immediately.


    Regards, UKPNZap
  • 0
    But as you well know UKPN there is nothing in law (unlike gas safe, for gas) that allows an electrician to disconect an unsafe installation, unlike a DNO that can.
  • 0
    On the plus side 57% were acceptable, around about the same percentage as the electricians passing of the Wiring Regulations exam.


    So it appears that around 60% of electricians have the required knowledge and skills to complete a job satisfactorily.


    It’s good the DNO are on top of things and ensuring customers installations are safe 
  • 0
    No Andy, about 90% passed the exam, at least the ones I have taught. The pass mark is 60%. A 61% pass is not having sufficient knowledge is it? If the pass mark were 90%, I'm afraid very few would pass. This is an open book exam, and it is perfectly possible to look up ALL the answers in the time allowed (quite hard work though). The major problem is that there is not enough basic knowledge to even find the entry in the index which relates to the question. This is not rocket science. A surprising number of people had not ever done more than flick through the book, and thought they had read it, and then could not use the index. Training levels are woefully inadequate.
  • 0
    A friend of mine (plumbing and heating trade) paid a lorra money to do a 4 week course.

    He stated that it taught him nowt about electrics or the regs, just how to pass the exam.


    I must admit, the last regs course I did was all about getting a pass and not really about understanding the regs themselves. Compared to my pre 2000 course and exam it was carp (and expensive)

Community Rules & Guidelines