Rich Mc said:

Thanks Graham, appreciate your input. 

Risk is still there but managed and with correct labelling  

I did not say it required (or could be managed with) labelling. I said it's now considered not an issue because the risks associated with this particular hazard (simultaneous contact with live conductors of two phases in separate pieces of equipment at once) have to be managed in other ways. There's no requirement in BS 7671 to put a voltage warning label on a 400 V 3-phase AC charging point either (but of course it may be provided if a risk assessment says otherwise).

Providing a label indicating a potential danger or hazard would be a Warning Notice (this is reflected in BS 7671:2018+A2:2022) ... Warning Notices are, certainly in places of work, governed by the Health & Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations, and therefore, except in cases where required by BS 7671 or another applicable standard, should only be applied as a result of a risk assessment, and then only where the Hierarchy of Controls has been applied to the relevant hazards. Safety signs are a last resort, and not a "catch all".

I would also note that warning 'ordinary persons' of the presence of 400 V AC, particularly without the relevant symbol (BS EN ISO 7010-W012 on a safety sign or IEC 60417-6042 where the manufacturer applies to equipment) without some further accompanying informative text, may well be pretty meaningless to most people.

Rich Mc said:

514 refers. 

Well, I disagree. Regulation 514.10 clearly identifies a "warning notice" for "voltage", but only on equipment or an enclosure within which the nominal voltage to earth exceeds 230 V, and even then only where the voltage would not be expected. In a three-phase 400 V system, the nominal voltage to earth does not exceed 230 V (it is 230 V).

If you put a notice on a single-phase charging point, that 400 V exists within it, that would not be true in any case ...

The Regulation is clearly not there to identify the fact that in an area, it's possible to simultaneously touch equipment on two phases!

lyledunn said:

Surprising the number of folk in the industry that don’t know that. I still see it on specifications, although I suppose designers are quite at liberty to go above and beyond 7671 requirements. 

Agreed ... but would also point out the safety legislation aspect of this, and also the potential uselessness where used to advise ordinary persons.

Turning this on its head, presence of a voltage warning notice in this type of installation accessible to ordinary persons would make me ask whether there's another issue to be investigated, and perhaps look harder for "the problem" (sometimes safety signs are used when someone knows something's not right, as a "stop-gap" that becomes a "permanent feature").

And I did not mention warning notices!!

However in terms of that, whether a requirement or not I would always err to avoid any confusion which is what the regulation requires. 

In terms of labeling in my comment and what was intended, perhaps i should have been more specific. Call me old fashioned but I would much prefer to attend to an installation whether to inspect or maintain that was labelled correctly using functional labelling clearly and permanently fixed on all switchgear and equipment. Enhances safety, saves time, and avoids confusion.

This whole labeling debate regarding warning notices, whilst useful and informative was not what was intended and it seems has been jumped on by various persons joining the post!! 

Rich Mc said:

For me it is good practice, the chargers are remote from main switch-gear. 514 refers. 

Hopefully that clarifies. 

gkenyon said:

I would also note that warning 'ordinary persons' of the presence of 400 V AC, particularly without the relevant symbol (BS EN ISO 7010-W012 on a safety sign or IEC 60417-6042 where the manufacturer applies to equipment) without some further accompanying informative text, may well be pretty meaningless to most people.

I venture to suggest that it may be counter-productive. As an ordinary person, would you prefer the EVCP with the notice or the one without? Surely, the one without appears to be safer.

gkenyon said:

Turning this on its head, presence of a voltage warning notice in this type of installation accessible to ordinary persons would make me ask whether there's another issue to be investigated, and perhaps look harder for "the problem" (sometimes safety signs are used when someone knows something's not right, as a "stop-gap" that becomes a "permanent feature").

Maybe like this.

no retaining screws

in a commercial kitchen of a large social club.

Apologies to OP, I don’t mean to jump on the kernel of your post. 

lyledunn said:

Maybe like this.

Absolutely. We now have specific standards for 'Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons (DBO)' and only those should be accessible to ordinary persons without the use of a tool ... or potentially a key in an environment such as many workplaces, where access can be limited to skilled and instructed persons (electrically) by a key.

lyledunn said:

Maybe like this.

Absolutely. We now have specific standards for 'Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons (DBO)' and only those should be accessible to ordinary persons without the use of a tool ... or potentially a key in an environment such as many workplaces, where access can be limited to skilled and instructed persons (electrically) by a key.