SWA glanded in a plastic stuffing gland

Hi all, 

I’ve been trying to settle a difference of opinion and looking for advice. 
we have several supplies fed in SWA, they have all been glanded off with a CW gland into the DB. At the load end, the armouring has been taped up and a plastic stuffing gland has been used where it enters  metal EV Chargers, its been done deliberately to isolate the earth to the chargers. 
My colleague and I think this is poor practice and think an isolating gland should have been fitted or the armoured terminated into a plastic enclosure prior to entering the charger. the below regulations are what we believe are contravened. 

Regulation 134.1.1Good workmanship by competent persons or persons under their supervision and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation.

regulation 526.8 Cores of sheathed cables from which the sheath has been removed and non-sheathed cables at the
termination of conduit, ducting or trunking shall be enclosed as required by Regulation 526.5.

Our colleagues think we are incorrect, yet have conceded that the use of a stuffing gland isn’t to manufacturers instructions and agree that the stuffing gland isn’t supporting the cable like a SWA glad would by clamping the armour.

what is everyone’s view on here? 

Parents
  • Guessing why another electrician has done something will leaving you in whirlwind of three things: was it done with some logic, was it pure laziness, or ignorance to what should have been done, if we give the original installer the benefit of the doubt, their logic could have been, they did not want to use an insulating gland as this would make the gland its self an exposed conductive at the EV charger with the SWA connected to the buildings main earthing system. a problem if the supply earth is PME I am assuming it is based on the use of a OPEN device. 

    Meaning in the event of a OPEN fault the charger would be isolated but the gland could still be an accessible earth path from the MET and true earth posing a significant shock risk to anyone that came in Contact with the gland for example any one investigating why the charge point is not working in a PEN fault.

    If this was their logic the use of the dome top gland isn't a bad idea but it isn't the right idea.

    My opinion would be to use a CW gland at the EV charge point and the insulating gland at the OPEN device this way in normal working circumstances every thing is earthed via the main incoming earth, then in the event a OPEN fault the supply to the EV charger is isolated including the SWA and CW gland as this is now connected to the load side of the OPEN device.

  • My opinion would be to use a CW gland at the EV charge point and the insulating gland at the OPEN device this way in normal working circumstances every thing is earthed via the main incoming earth, then in the event a OPEN fault the supply to the EV charger is isolated including the SWA and CW gland as this is now connected to the load side of the OPEN device.

    But in many cases the O-PEN device (or RCD if it's being TTd) is integral to the charge point....

       - Andy.

Reply
  • My opinion would be to use a CW gland at the EV charge point and the insulating gland at the OPEN device this way in normal working circumstances every thing is earthed via the main incoming earth, then in the event a OPEN fault the supply to the EV charger is isolated including the SWA and CW gland as this is now connected to the load side of the OPEN device.

    But in many cases the O-PEN device (or RCD if it's being TTd) is integral to the charge point....

       - Andy.

Children