This device is described by Hagar as single pole. CEF advertise it as single pole and neutral (sometimes described as SP+N)… If you look at the diagram printed on the device itself it shows that the device provides over current protection on the line, RCD protection and when the device operates it it disconnects the line only, as far as I can tell should not be described as single pole and neutral or SP+N.

when I go down the wholesaler and ask for a Single pole plus neutral RCB O I expect a device that gives over current protection on the line, RCD protection and when operates switches both line and neutral. I don’t think I’m wrong on this but happy to be educated, because I love knowing what all the diagrams mean.

Yes, I know - see my quote from Hager, but I think that "single pole switched neutral" would be the usual interpretation.

All RCBOs have a neutral!

sooo what is your interpretation of the CEF advertising the device as “Single Pole and Neutral” surely it’s meant to get you to believe this device switches the neutral when it operates? Which it doesn’t. Are you saying they’re simply stating the obvious that it has a neutral?

Wylex version says : double pole type B etc. on the spec it says 1p&N, same as the Hager. On another site the spec says for number of poles - double.

Whether it’s double pole or not seems to be the least of the worries associated with EV charging. Way back when deliberations about 722 were completely consumed by open pen considerations, I felt a more serious threat was being neglected. Now that the relatively tight control of installation integrity has all but disappeared due to the withdrawal of the grants and the lash it in brigade are in the ascendancy, fire risk will inevitably surface to become a primary concern. 

I completely agree. In a presentation IET or NAPIT someone said that DC leakage comes mainly from the EV and not the EV charger point, therefore not fixed. They also said that in tests at least one model of car was found to have 5mA of DC leakage (all from memory so excuse errors).

If the 5mA of DC leakage is added to say another 3mA from other circuits, or quite commonly now days a second EV on a granny charger the total is well over 6mA as potentially the RCD is blinded.

Napit covered the subject in a 10 most common questions video Jan 2023 and said we can not have an EVCP sharing an RCD with other circuits. They have clouded the sittuation by taking the opposite position prior to Jan 2023 and apparently the technical help line is still giving wolly answers.

As far as I can see given the model of EV connected to the charge point is unknown. There will be socket circuits and led lighting on the other circuits, which will have varying loads connected. Overall there is no way of being at all sure that the cumulative DC leakage will stay below 6mA.

Personally I think NAPIT, NICEIC etc need to take a firm line and stop bowing to pressure from developers etc.

Regarding how CEF advertise hager RCBO's I agree it's very misleading. I even sent feedback to them on this issue and they came back saying they believed their description was accurate. There are other similar issues with RCBO descriptions. A common one is that manufacturers have done something like append an A to the end of an RCBO or RCD part number to show it's now a type A. The resellers haven't bothered to make the change or to change their product photo, making it very unclear what they are selling.

I now always check manufacturers web site and also confirm what the re-seller is selling.

Yes.

FWIW, the Wyles ones appear to be described unambiguously.

The technical  problem is we have no idea how most legacy split load CUs  with RCD sockets either RCD or just MCBs for the  lights will perform with any particular car or charger.  The RCDs may well pre-date the testing against unsmoothed DC, - i.e. are what would now be called a type 'AC', and may or may not be blinded by any amount of DC in the N-CPC loop.

Let's not fool ourselves that all the installations in the UK are shiny and new and to any particular version of the regs. We are not a country where most houses are new build, and in some ways that is not a bad thing either, but the wiring does reflect this.

The political problem is that if we want electric cars to catch on among those who are not in the market for a brand new car and employing an expensively specialist installer, (and there is a similar problem with solar power by the way), then the level of supervision and inspection will have to fall, and the tolerance for an increase in other risks will have to rise to match the reality that this is the only way to make it happen.

Is the chance of an occasional  blinded RCD a realistic worry, and what fraction of RCDs never save anyone anyway in their entire operating lifespan from installation to replacement ? (Consider that it is not that long ago that they were only needed on TT and then only outside sockets after all.)

Is it any more serious than the environmental threat to us all if we do not go all-electric in the next 50 years or so ?

Now I have no idea of the answers or even who does, but that is the way the questions need to be framed, as bigger societal ones, not just looking at the minutiae of the electrics in isolation.

Consider that the risk of mobile phones to health, directly in terms of battery fires, slowly in terms of EM radiation, and now mental health all seems to have been accepted as preferable to missing out on the chance to watch cat videos at the bus stop. Folk are generally not logical, dispassionate creatures, even the ones who actually would like to be.

Mike.

I personally think EV charge points have been used as a good way to force in a fair bit of improvement in terms of replacing, repairing existing domestic electrical supply equipment. 

when I look at the process to follow in terms of DNO notifications, we’re obliged to provide photos of the metering equipment, cut out and consumer unit… at the very least they’re collecting useful data that may or may not be used to do some upgrades. Where you’ve got an unknown DNO cut out size, where maximum demand may exceed 60A or any concerns about the supply equipment such as deterioration or looped supply, it needs to be notified to the DNO 10 days prior to installation of an EVCP and in training we’re heavily encouraged to have 60A supplies upgraded to 100A as diversity and maximum demand calculations guides are cautious to say the least. Initial inspections can reveal all sorts of issues from looped supplies to undersized tails or DIY TNS. So in short lots and lots of installations should (if you’ve got decent installers) be getting a visit from the DNO, who where I am, if asked, will generally take the opportunity to replace the old biscuit tin and if possible put in a new 100A fuse head and connect to PME or remove the EC15 pipe clamp and install TNS properly ect. Obviously I’m checking and improving things like bonding and giving advice regarding full RCD/RCBO protection along side all of this. All in all driving forwards a lot of improvement in terms of upgrading antiquated domestic supply arrangements and earthing arrangements.

Sadly many installers (especially those larger organisations who do so called fixed price installations without ever doing a pre quote site survey) don’t seem to care. Thankfully it’s more likely that the additional load is going to blow the DNO fuse than cause a fire, so we get them soon enough. I’ve seen some impressively bad EVCP installations, I made a video on this one as the installation company wanted “evidence” before agreeing to even look at it! youtu.be/NGPu7SP_bdc

Given the opportunity I’d also make it compulsory for suppliers to install a suppliers isolator switch to facilitate the installation of any LCT or consumer unit. The cost of which should either be free of charge or fixed at a reasonable affordable price. And they should be obliged to do this within a relatively short time frame, say two weeks. Again this practice would drive forward improvements such as replacing older fuse heads, tails upgrades ect.

This is all good fun but in reality the lithium shortage will start reducing the number of electric vehicles long before we have solved most of the other associated problems. Tata motors are investing in air powered vehicles, one possible future.