That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons. Mental health is a big issue nowadays.

Indeed, especially perhaps on this forum (!) 

Joking aside, I stand by my original answer - there is nothing for the original poster to worry about, 3 phase supplies are not especially more dangerous - actually most single phase supplies are derived from one. Far more important for EV charging are the earthing arrangements.

M.

David Stone said:

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons.

Apologies, what nonsense!

'Labelling' of this nature (a safety sign) is provided for very good Health & Safety reasons, according to the Hierarchy of Controls, or otherwise as required when applying a British or Harmonized [or Designated] Standard. The requirements for and usage of safety signs is governed by the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations.

The long-established HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations says that signs (with the exception of fire safety signs, see para 17) should only be used where 'there is a significant residual risk' and (see para 15 and 16).

No Graham, you are wrong. There is no perceptable safety risk in this situation, so signs are completely unnecessary to say anything. Did you not undersatnd your own post? :

The long-established HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations says that signs (with the exception of fire safety signs, see para 17) should only be used where 'there is a significant residual risk' and (see para 15 and 16).

Perhaps you would care to list the risidual risk in this case, there is none! Which user is going to dismantle the equipment? Is vandalism covered by HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations? No. I have no objection to signs stating that charging Li Batteries is dangerous and may cause fire, which is very difficult to extinguish and may cause serious structural damage to surrounding building structures.

No Graham, you are wrong.

I think there's been a bit of mis-reading both ways here. My reading was that Graham's reply was referring to labels in general (as your original reply could also have been read) rather than to the specific situation of 400V labels not being required in the OP's particular situation. I think Graham's point was that where labels are required, they shouldn't be omitted on the basis that they might worry people.

   - Andy.

David Stone said:

No Graham, you are wrong. There is no perceptable safety risk in this situation, so signs are completely unnecessary to say anything. Did you not undersatnd your own post? :

Sorry David, I'm not "wrong". I agree with the safety risk issue (not sure what 'perceptible' does as a qualifier) but what I didn't get was:

David Stone said:

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons. Mental health is a big issue nowadays.

In fact, I found the statement regarding mental health a  little abrasive and perhaps insensitive (although perhaps a poor turn of phrase and not an intention) ... but that's of course not part of the technical discussion.

AJJewsbury said:

My reading was that Graham's reply was referring to labels in general (as your original reply could also have been read) rather than to the specific situation of 400V labels not being required in the OP's particular situation.

Yes, as I said earlier, I don't agree that there is a risk (unless legislation has been broken at least twice) of accessing live conductors at the same time, in independent but simultaneously-accessible equipment fed from 2 phases, and therefore a safety sign ("warning notice" in BS 7671 speak) is not required, and the HSE guidance on the H&S(S&S) Regulations would back that up.

AJJewsbury said:

I think Graham's point was that where labels are required, they shouldn't be omitted on the basis that they might worry people

That ... and sadly comment regarding mental health and "worrying people" being a little too abrasive for my liking, perhaps bordering on offensive (although I'm sure that wasn't David's intention).

David Stone said:

No Graham, you are wrong. There is no perceptable safety risk in this situation, so signs are completely unnecessary to say anything. Did you not undersatnd your own post? :

Sorry David, I'm not "wrong". I agree with the safety risk issue (not sure what 'perceptible' does as a qualifier) but what I didn't get was:

David Stone said:

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons. Mental health is a big issue nowadays.

In fact, I found the statement regarding mental health a  little abrasive and perhaps insensitive (although perhaps a poor turn of phrase and not an intention) ... but that's of course not part of the technical discussion.

AJJewsbury said:

My reading was that Graham's reply was referring to labels in general (as your original reply could also have been read) rather than to the specific situation of 400V labels not being required in the OP's particular situation.

Yes, as I said earlier, I don't agree that there is a risk (unless legislation has been broken at least twice) of accessing live conductors at the same time, in independent but simultaneously-accessible equipment fed from 2 phases, and therefore a safety sign ("warning notice" in BS 7671 speak) is not required, and the HSE guidance on the H&S(S&S) Regulations would back that up.

AJJewsbury said:

I think Graham's point was that where labels are required, they shouldn't be omitted on the basis that they might worry people

That ... and sadly comment regarding mental health and "worrying people" being a little too abrasive for my liking, perhaps bordering on offensive (although I'm sure that wasn't David's intention).