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 3335 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
    UKPN:

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

    You will be John until you pass us the evidence. 

    C1, C2, C3, Apparently Another code of practice, let's see the evidence, John. Most likely DNO PME fails, because if the installs were simple TT, there would be no problem. 


    Here is a press release from ECA.


    It seems that the whole EVCP installation from service head to the charge point itself was audited. It also accepts that there were some false "positives". What we are not told is where the inadequacies were.

    132.16 and 644.1.2 should ensure that the installation is inspected and tested all the way from the service head to the EVCP, but I suspect that in reality it starts from the garage CU in plenty of cases.


Reply
  • 0
    UKPN:

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

    You will be John until you pass us the evidence. 

    C1, C2, C3, Apparently Another code of practice, let's see the evidence, John. Most likely DNO PME fails, because if the installs were simple TT, there would be no problem. 


    Here is a press release from ECA.


    It seems that the whole EVCP installation from service head to the charge point itself was audited. It also accepts that there were some false "positives". What we are not told is where the inadequacies were.

    132.16 and 644.1.2 should ensure that the installation is inspected and tested all the way from the service head to the EVCP, but I suspect that in reality it starts from the garage CU in plenty of cases.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines