Depending upon the installation method, the circuit might need RCD protection anyway.

I assume that this would be a 3-phase installation, so is Open PEN compulsory?

And that is what this is all about. Products being marketed in a way that makes you believe it’s fully compliant when perhaps they could be a bit more up front about technicalities so that the installer/designer can make an objective and informed decision at point of purchase.

Pen fault devices as far as I’m aware are needed for any installation likely to be connected to PME, so TNCS and almost certainly TNS, the vast majority of chargers have PEN fault protection. The RCD issue aside, I think the Zappi has some of the best PEN fault protection on the market.

The big question here would be, if following an incident could the installer/designer argue that they bought the product in good faith believing the RCD protection was sufficient? The problem of liability isn’t an issue until the unexpected and unfortunate happens.

IronFreely said:

Pen fault devices as far as I’m aware are needed for any installation likely to be connected to PME,

That's one way of conforming to BS 7671 ... there are others.

IronFreely said:

the vast majority of chargers have PEN fault protectio

BS 7671 doesn't recognize PEN fault protection for TT installations ... in fact, with some designs out there at the moment, it is detrimental to the user because the charging point is less reliable (given that open-PEN touch-voltages arguably cannot occur on true TT).

IronFreely said:

The big question here would be, if following an incident could the installer/designer argue that they bought the product in good faith believing the RCD protection was sufficient?

No, that's not the question.

The question is, whether a court would find that the designer ought to be able to rely on the information provided by the manufacturer (or importer). For this purposes, as I posted previously, the principle of "caveat emptor" would of course apply; however, if the information is on the Declaration of Conformity in pursuance of relevant legislation, I think the legislation itself says that "presume it conforms unless there is reason to believe otherwise" occurs.

Not every one of us in this Forum are legal professionals, so at that point those of us who are not have to "duck out".

It's really complex, because you have cited "no test button" - but the test facility is only required if you are using the product standard for the RCD functionality, which I think we have already agreed is plainly not possible in this case ... so you can't rely on a provision of a standard in respect of "button" vs "self auto test" to determine whether the legislation is met (and also whether it's at least as safe as BS 7671).

What astonishes me, is that we have HUGE debates over issues that have been "brought to our attention", yet ignore the fundamental requirements of BS 7671 in the general case.

The requirement of 133.1.1 (and 511.1) is that all electrical equipment conforms to a relevant standard.

That is anything you use, effectively ... including insulating tape, crimp connectors, ferrules etc.

511.1 adds the additional requirement of not simply conforming to a standard of another country, but one that aligns with IEC requirements. This is for a very good reason, because, for  example, standards for USA and Canada are not aligned and require additional designer precautions to use in a BS 7671 installation.

SO ...

Do you check your insulating tape, ferrules, ring crimps, tiewraps, etc, are conformant to a standard?

And if so, which ones?

Do you keep records?

Could any of the above be used against you if anything were to go wrong (overheating, say of an accessory that caused a house fire)?

You see, when you sign the "certification" to say you conform to BS 7671, you are signing for all of the above ...

When considering personal liability in terms of compliance from tape to EV chargers…. In most cases we as the installer/designer rely on what you might call common sense, I know for example that if I go to my wholesalers or let’s say toolstation and ask for an RCD it is going to be BS7671 compliant in that it will be made to one of the previously mentioned standards. The onus is on them to sell products that conform to our standards, however I also know that it is my responsibility to choose say a type B over a type A from within those standards…. You simply don’t expect reputable suppliers to be stocking something that wouldn’t be compliant provided the designer chooses correctly within the standards according to the circuit design.

Right now my local place which happens to be a Kew Electrical (shout out to them, they’re very helpful), has dozens of RCDs on the shelf, some sold separately others as part of a kit (say a pre loaded consumer unit). Out of all those RCDs there is only ONE in the entire place that does NOT have a BSEN number stamped on the side, and it’s the one inside the last Zappi charger they have in the place… That is very telling.

Now why did they stock the Zappi in the first place? Because the MyEnergi rep let them believe that their product was fully compliant with BS7671 in terms of RCD protection (and other reasons to, such as PEN fault protection). Why did so many installers buy Zappis? Because in good faith they believed it was fully compliant with BS7671 in terms of RCD protection ect (actually if you went on the Zappi course, they directly told you that fitting an upfront RCD wasn’t just unnecessary, but that it may be non compliant with BS7671 as there would be no selectivity between the upfront and in product devices). And why has the last one sat there for ages and not been sold? Because installers talk to each other, we become mates at the wholesale counter, we help inform each other regarding RCD compliance. And now many of us voted with our feet and prefer to either purchase a charger that is compliant (as in you can see the RCD , you can push the test button, you can read BSEN 61008 stamped on the side) or you buy a cheaper charger and buy the RCD separately. Why? Because we recognise (unlike MyEnergi) the value in taking responsibility for what we sell to our clients, we want to do a good job, we want products that we know are fully compliant, we don’t want products that fall into a grey area forcing the manufacturer to release a confusing statement that may contradict itself to continue with a misinformation campaign that is designed to conceal the fact that the Zappi RCD actually failed to meet the 61008 standard yet was advertised as “fully compliant”. 

Agreed, you simply shouldn’t need a PEN fault device on a true TT system, I’ve heard some interesting discussions along the lines of, “what if the next door neighbour has TNCS and all bonding is in place, does that effectively mean PME conditions apply? There’s TT for that farm house on the hill and there’s TT for that terraced house in town… In the latter example you would hope that under PEN fault conditions the Installation earth rod would do what it needs to. In practice it was inappropriate for our DNOs to allow a hodgepodge of different earthing systems going in from one building to the next, less of a problem in past times but increasingly a concern now that we all want a tonne of metal on our driveway connected to the PME network! Yet if you contact the DNO and call in a Zs of over 0.35Ω and they often advise the installation of an earth electrode without considering it’s close proximity to other earthing arrangements on the street…. No surprise we are slowly heading towards more and more TNCS arrangements having a supplementary earth rod installed, currently it’s advisable in BS7671, will it evolve over time to be compulsory? I think it may.

IronFreely said:

You simply don’t expect reputable suppliers to be stocking something that wouldn’t be compliant provided the designer chooses correctly within the standards according to the circuit design.

I have to strongly disagree. I was able to purchase a product from a common industry supplier, that one would generally consider 'reputable', and available also from other suppliers that are considered 'reputable'. The product was from a brand one would normally consider 'reputable', and was declared to meet the relevant standard.

Sadly, there was a mistake in product marking - in this case, the marking is required by a standard mandated for the product in legislation. Quite simply, the product did not conform to the standard, and therefore if one were to install the product, also therefore it would not conform to BS 7671.

You would have thought marking was 'obvious' to see - it was large and clear enough to see without reading glasses - but I wonder how many have actually been installed and certification issued?

I'm sure John Peckham  could tell us how easy it can be for barristers to demonstrate lack of diligence on behalf of an installer, or possibly fraud if an EIC were issued declaring full conformity with BS 7671.

Luckily, there were no apparent safety issues with the product ... although there was a second non-conformity with BS 7671 with some internal "pre-wiring" (that the manufacturer's instructions included a warning that these are provided for convenience and the installer is to check connections) - tinned conductors in screw terminals - that could be addressed by an installer quite easily of course, with some ferrules, but another trap for the unwary installer.

Caveat emptor.

ADDENDUM

Before anyone asks, I will not name the product (or stockists of it) , because I don't think this meets the rules of conduct we sign up to when using this Forum. There is no need to name suppliers, or specific products, to illustrate my point. However, I do have evidence. I also think that contributors to this Forum, or indeed social media, ought to exercise caution when discussing products by name or designation.