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 3331 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?





Parents
  • 0
    Going back to the original post - about the audit on EV chargers - I suspect that this shows something is fundamentally wrong with the regulations around this topic.

    Maybe the people writing the regs were so preoccupied about getting "perfect" safety that they introduced so many hoops that the installation ended up more dangerous than a far simpler system would be, even it it was not "perfect".

    OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

    A fundamental principle of safety regulation is that you take the risk into consideration and the likelihood of three concurrent rare events is very rare indeed. We now have the proof that incorrect installation is not a rare event and perhaps the regulations need to take this into account as well and be made a lot simpler.
Reply
  • 0
    Going back to the original post - about the audit on EV chargers - I suspect that this shows something is fundamentally wrong with the regulations around this topic.

    Maybe the people writing the regs were so preoccupied about getting "perfect" safety that they introduced so many hoops that the installation ended up more dangerous than a far simpler system would be, even it it was not "perfect".

    OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

    A fundamental principle of safety regulation is that you take the risk into consideration and the likelihood of three concurrent rare events is very rare indeed. We now have the proof that incorrect installation is not a rare event and perhaps the regulations need to take this into account as well and be made a lot simpler.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines