According to the Hager guide, there is no need for a secondary RCCB near the car charger if the Consumer Unit is a newer version that already has a Type A RCCB, as shown below. It shows a image of a split board with two type A RCCBs protecting individual MCBs

Yes, I saw that as well… however I’d argue that BS7671 and the code of practice supersedes the opinion of one manufacturer.

I rang up technical help once during an EICR for coding advice, the adviser after reading the regulation suggested a C3 if the RCD met disconnection times while a vehicle was charging but a C2 if not, and also suggested that although the EVCP would have 6mA RDC-DD protection the other circuits sharing the RCD would not and therefore a combined imposition of more than 6mA DC could occur without either the RDC-DD nor the RCD disconnecting under fault conditions. If for example the EVCP introduce 5mA DC and other circuits introduced say 2mA DC.

interesting hey?

My understanding is that the RCD should be exclusively for the EVCP, so its own RBCO, or even its own "half" of a dual RCD board would do. However, the RCD could be within the EVCP at the point of entry of the supply.

Bear in mind that a lot of those dual RCD boards have type AC RCDs.

I think in the average dwelling the day of installing Dual or split load RCD board has passed.  Lots still sold with type AC rather than type A minimum.

Personally I think the CU/DB in a dwelling should be full RCBO with SPD as a minimum.  There are so many reasons for this.  A Few below

Overload or potential overload of the RCD in split way

Nuisance tripping

More and more requirement for circuits to have their own individual RCBO (RCD)

Earth leakage currents soon adds up to the 30mA for that half of the board

Segmenting circuits to remove single or multiple points fo failure.  (EG downstairs lights on same circuit as outdoor PIR flood light, fast forward 6 months or a year and the PIR flood fails probably with moisture ingress and hey presto downstairs light fault)

If there is an RCD fault it takes out half a board so maybe 6 MCBs

The cost of an average RCBO for a dwelling is a few pounds so why not fully populate a CU with them rather than a daul split load board.  I went to a Taylor Wimpey home 6 months ago after handover and it had a split load RCD CU.  In that situation the installer has to follow the design which means that the installation designer need to be educated/convinced/forced by BS7671.  House builders are more concerned about the buy in price of the CU and install cost rather than the ongoing cost.  Imagine the electrician who goes in next week to find a fault and there is 1 RCD module covering 6 MCBs

The reason for the "individually" requirement is that the RCD will be one that provides additional protection (I_Δn not exceeding 30 mA), and in that case it is expected that the residual currents expected for an EV charging point may approach the limit for "unwanted tripping" of a 30 mA RCD discussed in Regulation 531.3.2.

So, whilst it might be OK to have a board with only two 30 mA RCDs, you would need to restrict the RCD supplying the EVSE to just the EV circuit only.

The designer should also consider the effects of DC residual currents (which may occur in EV charging in N-PE faults, if not other situations, purely due to the pilot functionality).

I have a question regarding the use of RCBOs and the Hager guide. If a RCBO is installed, am I correct making  sure they are double pole? Furthermore, does following the Hager guide imply that the installer has complied with the manufacturer’s instructions for that particular consumer unit? I personally install an individual unit for the EV when I encounter split boards.

My interpretation is that the EVCP must have its own RCD somewhere, but as written, I do not think that 722.531.3.101 precludes the installation of one upstream. However I take the point about unwanted tripping.

I suppose that split boards were introduced: (1) to reduce the risk of tripping due to earth leakage (half as many circuits) and (2) to reduce the consequences of a trip - half the circuits stay alive.

531.3.2 seems rather ambivalent: on the one hand, RCDs should be selected and erected to "limit the risk of unwanted tripping"; but on the other hand, RCBOs in residential premises, etc. need only be "considered".

I conclude that whilst RCBOs are the preferred option, split boards remain compliant.

Yes part 7 requires that EVCPs are protected by a 30mA RCD that disconnects all Live conductors (part 2 defining live conductors as meaning line and neutral) thus a two pole or SP +N RCBO would be compliant.  61009 and 61008 are permitted along with at least one other standard that I can’t remember off the top of my head but may edit in once looking in the book. Thus a single pole RCBO is not sufficient and in many cases the incorporated RCD built into the charger may also not be compliant as many do not conform to the BSEN standards mentioned in Part 7 (usually because they don’t have a test button and manual reset switch, I personally think the manufacturers need shaking up on this issue as thier advertising is often misleading).

I also duly note that Hagar doesn’t make a single module two pole RCBO, theirs is a two module device, however many online stores incorrectly advertise their compact RCBO as a two pole or SP+N, in fact it is just a single pole and doesn’t disconnect the neutral… I know CEF are one culprit for falsely advertising the Hagar RCBO as two pole as seen here https://www.cef.co.uk/catalogue/products/4589447-16a-sp-1-module-6ka-type-b-30ma-compact-rcbo?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpZPS8_athAMVgZFQBh0njAbeEAQYCyABEgIIovD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds 

however if you check this model on the Hagar website it’s a single pole device p, also if you check diagram on the device it’s clearly labelled as single pole as well. So don’t be fooled. 

IronFreely said:

I know CEF are one culprit for falsely advertising the Hagar RCBO as two pole as seen here https://www.cef.co.uk/catalogue/products/4589447-16a-sp-1-module-6ka-type-b-30ma-compact-rcbo?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpZPS8_athAMVgZFQBh0njAbeEAQYCyABEgIIovD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

I don't think that is correct. Please do not confuse SPN with SPSN (or TPN with TPSN). In this case, the data sheet makes it very clear: "A compact single module, single pole and solid neutral device."

the water is further muddied by 'switched' and 'solid' both sharing an initial and SN used for both in different literature. If you mean double pole switched you really need to say so in full..

Mike