MrBadger
Badger out
It all depends where the car is not where the charge point is. If your car can be charged outside from it, it needs to adhere to the stricter regs no matter where the charge point is.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Issues with Electrics - Dodgy Builder?
- Thread starter wolf123
- Start date
It all depends where the car is not where the charge point is. If your car can be charged outside from it, it needs to adhere to the stricter regs no matter where the charge point is.
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Good photos, thanks. Relocating the TWC inside the garage is fine, as long as the car is only charged when in the garage, and the tethered cable cannot reach a car parked outside.
There would seem to be three options:
1. Relocate the TWC inside the garage, to a location where the cable can reach the car when parked in there OK, but cannot reach a car parked outside. Remove the 32 A RCBO and blank that slot in the CU. Install a new small CU adjacent to the existing CU, that contains a main switch, a Type B RCD and a 32 A or 40 A MCB. Feed this from Henley blocks fitted to the existing tails that supply the main CU, with additional 25mm tails running to the new CU. Connect the TWC to this new secondary CU. This option doesn't require open PEN fault protection, as the car would be considered to be within the PME "earthed envelope", so all exposed conductive parts, including the garage floor, would be considered to be equipotential.
2. Leave the TWC outside, where it is currently located, but check that it isn't practical to be able to touch the car bodywork when parked outside and the exposed conductive parts in the garage, i.e. the pipes, tap etc. 2m is a sensible separation distance between two earthing systems. Install an earth electrode adjacent to the TWC, in a safe location, well away from incoming services to the house etc. As above, install a small secondary CU containing a main switch, Type B RCD and sutable MCB, ensuring that the two earthing systems (TT for the TWC and PME for the house) are kept separate.
3. Keep the TWC in its present location and install a secondary CU that includes both DC tolerant earth leakage protection and open PEN fault protection. There are then no concerns with separate earthing systems needing to be kept apart by 2m and this may well be cheaper. Ecoharmony do a suitable small box that can do this: EVSE Connection Centre with PEN Loss detection - IP65
If it were me, then I'd go for option 3, and connect that protection box to the incoming meter tails via a couple of Henley blocks, remove the 32 A RCBO from the main CU and blank that slot and re-route the TWC cable to the Ecoharmony box. It's only an hour or two's work, and would make for a neat and safe installation.
@Glan gluaisne - I think I'll actually go Option 1 (if the electrician is willing) as the builder decided to go for the 2.5m version instead of the 7.5m which means that I need to park extremely close to wall for the cable to stretch (he didn't realise that the charging point was on the left hand side!)
I think it all depends on what the electrician/builder is willing to do. To be honest, as long as the install is safe and functional, I will be happy. The guidance on here has been invaluable!
I think it all depends on what the electrician/builder is willing to do. To be honest, as long as the install is safe and functional, I will be happy. The guidance on here has been invaluable!
Last edited by a moderator:
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Option 1 seems sensible with a short tethered lead that cannot reach outside. The electrician can either fit a small secondary CU that contains a main switch, Type B RCD and 32 A or 40 A MCB, or could still opt to fit the Ecoharmony box, even though open PEN protection isn't really needed in those circumstances. The advantage of the Ecoharmony connection unit it that it's an all-in-one connection and protection solution (I have no connection with them at all) and the cost would be about the same as buying all the separate components and assembling them. It makes for a quicker to install option, and generally that ends up being cheaper overall. It would also future proof the installation, as if you wanted to move the TWC outside at any future date, it would just be a matter of running a new cable, the protection needed for an outside installation would already be there.
Most electricians will not be registered for OLEV grant and the Tesla charge point doesn't qualify for one anyway. The only value to you of them being registered is that it implies they know what they are doing with regard to installations of charge points.
The electrician came and fitted something today - pictures to follow
In the meantime - I'm likely going to migrate to Octopus - @Glan gluaisne - are you on Octopus and want to refer me? If not- anyone else from this thread want to send me a referral?
In the meantime - I'm likely going to migrate to Octopus - @Glan gluaisne - are you on Octopus and want to refer me? If not- anyone else from this thread want to send me a referral?
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Hope things have been properly sorted now.
I'm not on Octopus (no smart meter - can't get a signal here to connect to the WAN yet), but I believe several people may have their referral codes tucked away in their profile here.
I'm not on Octopus (no smart meter - can't get a signal here to connect to the WAN yet), but I believe several people may have their referral codes tucked away in their profile here.
MrBadger
Badger out
Used your code Ian.
The electrician installed this O-PEN:EV CONSUMER UNIT Hopefully its safe this time. It seems to be working OK
The electrician installed this O-PEN:EV CONSUMER UNIT Hopefully its safe this time. It seems to be working OK
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Well, I guess that's about 50% of the way to making the installation safe and compliant with the current regs. Still needs a DC tolerant earth leakage protection device, though, as this capability isn't built in to the Tesla Wall Connector. Not sure why the electrician opted to just do half the job. given that fitting a box with the mandatory DC tolerant earth leakage protection and open PEN fault protection would have cost no more, and would have been exactly the same in terms of labour to install it.
On a separate point, that advert for the O-PEN: EV CU seems to be at best misleading, and at worst downright wrong. It states that the unit is (my highlights):
• BS7671 18th edition compliant
• Able to protect all types of EV charge points
• Built-in Type A RCBO providing overload & 30mA fault current protection
• Built-in electrical contactor
• No Earth Electrode/Rod Required
Lets see exactly what it states in BS7671:2018, Amendment 1, and judge as to whether that O-PEN unit, together with the TWC, is compliant:
In this instance, Note 3 does not apply, as the TWC has no compliant internal protection. Also, the second part of 722.531.3.101 does not apply either, as there is no other residual direct current detection device within the O-PEN: box.
This means that, in order to comply with BS7671:2018, an RCD Type B must be fitted to the supply to the TWC, not the Type A that is fitted in the O-PEN: box as standard. It may be that the Type A RCBO that's in that box has been swapped with a Type B RCD plus a 32 A or 40 A MCB, which would make it compliant, but that seems a bit unlikely. Easy to spot a Type B RCD, they are 50% wider than a Type A RCD or DP RCBO.
On a separate point, that advert for the O-PEN: EV CU seems to be at best misleading, and at worst downright wrong. It states that the unit is (my highlights):
• BS7671 18th edition compliant
• Able to protect all types of EV charge points
• Built-in Type A RCBO providing overload & 30mA fault current protection
• Built-in electrical contactor
• No Earth Electrode/Rod Required
Lets see exactly what it states in BS7671:2018, Amendment 1, and judge as to whether that O-PEN unit, together with the TWC, is compliant:
In this instance, Note 3 does not apply, as the TWC has no compliant internal protection. Also, the second part of 722.531.3.101 does not apply either, as there is no other residual direct current detection device within the O-PEN: box.
This means that, in order to comply with BS7671:2018, an RCD Type B must be fitted to the supply to the TWC, not the Type A that is fitted in the O-PEN: box as standard. It may be that the Type A RCBO that's in that box has been swapped with a Type B RCD plus a 32 A or 40 A MCB, which would make it compliant, but that seems a bit unlikely. Easy to spot a Type B RCD, they are 50% wider than a Type A RCD or DP RCBO.
MrBadger
Badger out
Was that their choice?
I would ask which part of the setup offers the 6mA smooth DC fault protection. It won't be the Type A RCD unless there is a separate DC protection unit.
I would ask which part of the setup offers the 6mA smooth DC fault protection. It won't be the Type A RCD unless there is a separate DC protection unit.
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Sadly not, that's a Type A residual current characteristic, Type C overload time characteristic, 40 A RCBO.
I get the feeling that whoever the electrician is, he just hasn't read the regulations that he is supposed to abide by, specifically the part quoted earlier, that states very clearly that:
"Except where provided by the EV charging equipment, protection against DC fault currents shall be provided by:
(i) an RCD Type B, or
(ii) an RCD Type A or Type F in conjunction with a residual direct current detecting device (RDC-DD) complying with BS IEC 62955 as appropriate to the nature of the residual and superimposed currents and recommendation of the manufacturer of the charging equipment.
RCDs shall comply with one of the following standards: BS EN 61008-1, BS EN 61009-1, BS EN 60947-2 or BS EN 62423."
Customers shouldn't have to put up with this sort of thing, they should be able to trust that someone who purports to being a qualified trades person is actually competent to do what is a pretty simple electrical installation job. If this person cannot get something like this right, then I really hate to think of the way they might handle a far more complex job, like a rewire.
The fact that this person has apparently added a 32 A MCB ahead of a 40 A RCBO alone shows that he/she really doesn't know what they are doing. The over current protection part of that 40 A RCBO will never operate, so is redundant, as the lower rating (both in terms of current and operating time) 32 A MCB will operate first if there's an over current fault.
I will ask the question. Unfortunately I was in meetings all day so didn't have a chance to ask him these questions. I gave @Glan gluaisne's advice to him but clearly he hasn't listened.
The TWC certainly doesn't give DC fault protection.
One step forward, one step back....
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
I'm afraid this sort of thing really annoys me. I spent some time, many years ago, teaching electrical engineering science to apprentice electricians. Not the most rewarding of jobs, but it was a second job, in the evenings, teaching the 7pm to 9pm slot for day release City and Guilds and ONC students, and at the time (late 1970's) it paid well (far more than my daytime job in terms of hourly rate).
Back then, I saw apprentices getting a very thorough training from their employers, with a lot of attention to getting key details right. My experience of working with quite a few electricians since then has been that there are a lot of younger people around who really don't know their arse from their elbow, and don't have the right to call themselves trades people.
One problem is that there are a lot of so-called competent electricians around that have done the shortest training course available (typically 14 to 16 weeks, believe it or not) and then feel that they have the same level of competence as someone that has served a 3 year apprenticeship. The bottom line is that many of these short training schemes are just money making scams, IMHO, aimed at a rapid turnover without regard for the true competence of the people they unleash on the unsuspecting public. A side effect of this is that the IET have to keep creating new requirements in order to try and compensate for the incompetence of some who call themselves electricians.
Back then, I saw apprentices getting a very thorough training from their employers, with a lot of attention to getting key details right. My experience of working with quite a few electricians since then has been that there are a lot of younger people around who really don't know their arse from their elbow, and don't have the right to call themselves trades people.
One problem is that there are a lot of so-called competent electricians around that have done the shortest training course available (typically 14 to 16 weeks, believe it or not) and then feel that they have the same level of competence as someone that has served a 3 year apprenticeship. The bottom line is that many of these short training schemes are just money making scams, IMHO, aimed at a rapid turnover without regard for the true competence of the people they unleash on the unsuspecting public. A side effect of this is that the IET have to keep creating new requirements in order to try and compensate for the incompetence of some who call themselves electricians.
ACarneiro
Active Member
I very much suspect that an erosion of standards and quality of training has been a constant in pretty much every profession over the last 20 years at least.
My sister, an airline pilot, is worried for the future of the industry.
I am worried for the future of mine.
My sister, an airline pilot, is worried for the future of the industry.
I am worried for the future of mine.
What I find ridiculous is that as a non-electrician, I provided details instructions that were kindly offered by the forum and he still got it wrong! I'm expecting another battle with the developer/electrician...
Pic to see how he put everything together
Pic to see how he put everything together
