Are all EV charge point installers this bad?

[catdog1121]

So I am a fully qualified spark with my own company, however I also have a few properties I rent out. One of my tenants asked if they can have an EV charge point put on the house paid for by his company, being the good landlord I said of course no problem just let me know when they are there so I can check they are going to do it right.... So the company employed was Pod point...

Guy turns up, first thing I ask is Do you know its a looped supply? He looks at it and says, "umm well I don't think it is", I said "No I know its a looped supply, I have checked with next door and although there is only one cable coming in here there is two in the neighbours", I then showed him WPD map of the property showing the power cable, I had checked with WPD and they can give permission to install one and unloop it at a later date. He got a bit flustered and said he might not be able to install it then (So he shouldn't install it but was going to anyway), I asked if the paperwork had been sent to WPD, and fair enough he didnt know and would check before installing.

I then ask him what his plan is, he wanted to split the tail and fit a new CU in the meter cupboard, I told him the meter cupboard was for electricity supplier, you can put a meter in there, an isolator, hell even henly blocks I think is ok, but not a consumer unit, he then tried to tell me E-on had given them permission, I said what about WPD and what if the tenant changes supplier and quoted from the efixx video the response from the ENA who basically said no, he insisted they have fitted loads and they are allowed, I then said well your not fitting it there, but gave him another option which was feed off the current CU a 40A non rcd circuit and put their new CU next to the existing one from that, to which he said they can't really touch existing installations, unless it is easier and has type A RCD's. I said its ok, I have the correct bus bars and a 40A mcb for that CU and ill even do the work, he then said this was ok..

I move on to ask him will the new CU come with an SPD? (Current install does not have an SPD and although I know I am being picky a new circuit I was told by both NAPIT and IET you have to fit an SPD), he said nope we don't bother fitting SPD's, he had checked before and higher ups had said if you want an SPD then you need to find a local sparkie to fit one. I said ok ill take it up with pod point, the guy then waited for ages and could not get hold of his company to find out if it was ok to install so I phoned my contact in WPD who checked and said there was no paperwork for the install so they had not gained permission.. So the install got delayed.

I had a look online and pod points install instructions suggest they you should have an SPD at the source of the installation, I phoned up and they confirmed they were installing to BS7671 amendment 2 so I quoted regulation 443.4.1 which states that protection for transient voltage for indirect lighting strike shall be provided unless the owner refuses, and stated it even said in their own literature that they recommend one is fitted so why are they not installing, the result I got to was they install it to their standards only and its their interpretation...

I know I am being a bit pedantic as the current installation does not have an SPD but I plan to change the consumer unit in the property have some renovations when the current tenant moves out, and it might even be a complete rewire and I might move the current CU, but the EV charger CU I might just split the tails to keep that in the current position so an SPD would be a good idea...

I am appalled by pod point, first the guy almost installed on a looped supply without first checking, second they want to install in the meter cupboard and thirdly they don't fit SPD's despite them recommending them and it now being a mandatory device, how do they get away with it? I have made a complaint to the NICEIC although I doubt they will do much, failing that I might let them install it then do an EICR afterwards as the guy didnt fill me with confidence when I asked him to provide me with the EIC and building compliance certificate as its a rented property its an EIC will cover that part for 5yrs, he just said "Oh its ok ill test it". I think if it doesnt have an SPD I will deem it unsatisfactory and disconnect it and send the report to the tenants company for them to engage pod point to come and rectify the situation.

Years ago I wanted to get into the EV install market but it was after looking at pod points prices where it was only about £200 more than the unit to have it installed I worked out the costs and the materials were close to that alone so I would make no money, now I know why they can install so cheaply..

Would be interested in what others think... (Have to admit I was a bit ranty, for the average joe they don't have a clue).

 

[nicebutdim]

443.4.1 suggests options still exist, although limited.

It would be easy to take certain regulatory statements at face value and conclude that opinion of homeowner absolves designer of any responsibility, but 534.1 would also need to be considered and homeowner's thoughts on that are of no relevance.

GN1 also provides advice on this matter, but I don't have a current copy of it

I asked specifically what @slartybartfast was using as basis for their opinions as I suspect it is (now superseded) blue book.

I commissioned a board this evening in a newly rewired property and the homeowner expressed no opinion on fitment of SPD as I didn't ask for their thoughts on the matter. Difference in price between a main switch board and this main switch board with SPD (+ additional MCB) was £25+vat. If those few pounds had been a deal breaker, I suspect there were many other aspects of my quote that would have been more of a problem.

 

[Mike Johnson]

If, as should be done, a Hazard Analysis is carried out first and concludes that the Hazard does not exist or is of a very low consequence then a Risk Assessment does not have to be carried out.

 

[mainline]

I can see that there is an argument for SPD on say, mains powered linked smoke alarms (and medical, alarms etc). But you are far more likely to have a power failure which renders smoke alarm system inoperable than you are a surge. So for the SPD requirement to make sense, a UPS needs to be mandated. Mission critical systems always have a UPS and just putting an SPD on is a waste. That of course will come in later iterations of the regs....but for now it ain't there !

Placing a surge suppressor in front of the UPS isolates it and its connected equipment from major surge events. The IEEE Standard Section 9.11 states that networked SPD protection is needed and describes protecting a UPS with SPDs

 

[mainline]

If, as should be done, a Hazard Analysis is carried out first and concludes that the Hazard does not exist or is of a very low consequence then a Risk Assessment does not have to be carried out.

What's the difference between a Hazard analysis and a risk assessment when dealing with this scenario.

 

[mainline]

I can see that there is an argument for SPD on say, mains powered linked smoke alarms (and medical, alarms etc). But you are far more likely to have a power failure which renders smoke alarm system inoperable than you are a surge. So for the SPD requirement to make sense, a UPS needs to be mandated. Mission critical systems always have a UPS and just putting an SPD on is a waste. That of course will come in later iterations of the regs....but for now it ain't there !

There is no argument it's a requirement.

And even if the owner declares that surge protection isn't required, then the equipment still has to comply with the rated impulse voltage.
And would need to check that the data, signal, and telecom lines require protection to preserve lighting protection Zones LPZ concept 443.1.1, 534.1

 

[Mike Johnson]

What's the difference between a Hazard analysis and a risk assessment when dealing with this scenario.

They are two entirely different things in the scheme of Health and Safety, a Hazard analysis is always done first and then a risk assessment if necessary, it not always the case that the hazard has to be managed, the difference between the two are often miss-understood.

 

[mainline]

They are two entirely different things in the scheme of Health and Safety, a Hazard analysis is always done first and then a risk assessment if necessary, it not always the case that the hazard has to be managed, the difference between the two are often miss-understood.

An electrical hazard analysis identifies dangers that are present in an electrical system.

Mike Johnson said:
If, as should be done, a Hazard Analysis is carried out first and concludes that the Hazard does not exist or is of a very low consequence, then a Risk Assessment does not have to be carried out.


Are you saying that if there are no electrical hazards, then a risk assessment for fitting an SPD is not required ?

 

[Mike Johnson]

The first order of business in any H&S protocol is to eliminate the Hazard, If there is no hazards then a risk assessment is not required.

 

[DPG]

The first order of business in any H&S protocol is to eliminate the Hazard, If there is no hazards then a risk assessment is not required.

But you can't eliminate the chance of voltage surges, so a risk assessment is the thing to do.

 

[loz2754]

But you can't eliminate the chance of voltage surges, so a risk assessment is the thing to do.

There is no allowance for a risk assessment for the installation of SPDs anymore.

 

[DPG]

There is no allowance for a risk assessment for the installation of SPDs anymore.

True, but I think most of this discussion has been around the previous guidelines/regs.

 

[mainline]

There is no allowance for a risk assessment for the installation of SPDs anymore.

The AQ criteria (conditions of external influence for lightning) for determining if protection against transient overvoltages is needed are no longer included in BS 7671. Instead, protection against transient overvoltages has to be provided where the consequence caused by overvoltage (see Regulation 443.4)

(a) results in serious injury to, or loss of, human life, or
(b) results in interruption of public services/or damage to and cultural heritage, or
(c) results in interruption of commercial or industrial activity, or
(d) affects a large number of co-located individuals.

For all other cases, a risk assessment has to be performed in order to determine if protection against transient overvoltage is required.

 

[loz2754]

The AQ criteria (conditions of external influence for lightning) for determining if protection against transient overvoltages is needed are no longer included in BS 7671. Instead, protection against transient overvoltages has to be provided where the consequence caused by overvoltage (see Regulation 443.4)

(a) results in serious injury to, or loss of, human life, or
(b) results in interruption of public services/or damage to and cultural heritage, or
(c) results in interruption of commercial or industrial activity, or
(d) affects a large number of co-located individuals.

For all other cases, a risk assessment has to be performed in order to determine if protection against transient overvoltage is required.

You appear to be quoting the previous version of BS7671 here.

This is an extract from Amendment 2:

443.4 Overvoltage control

443.4.1 Transient overvoitages due to the effects of indirect lightning strokes

Protection against transient overvoltages shall be provided where the consequence
caused by the overvoltage could result in:

(i) serious injury to, or loss of, human life
(ii) failure of a safety service, as defined in Part 2
(iii) significant financial or data loss.

For all other cases, protection against transient overvoltages shall be provided unless the owner of the installation declares it is not required due to any loss or damage being tolerable and they accept the risk of damage to equipment and any consequential loss.

 

[mainline]

You appear to be quoting the previous version of BS7671 here.

This is an extract from Amendment 2:

443.4 Overvoltage control

443.4.1 Transient overvoitages due to the effects of indirect lightning strokes

Protection against transient overvoltages shall be provided where the consequence
caused by the overvoltage could result in:

(i) serious injury to, or loss of, human life
(ii) failure of a safety service, as defined in Part 2
(iii) significant financial or data loss.

For all other cases, protection against transient overvoltages shall be provided unless the owner of the installation declares it is not required due to any loss or damage being tolerable and they accept the risk of damage to equipment and any consequential loss.

Try chapter 44 Protection against voltage disturbances and electromagnetic disturbances.

 

[loz2754]

True, but I think most of this discussion has been around the previous guidelines/regs.

I just skimmed the whole thread again, and you're correct, it dates back to before Amendment 2.
However, in the context of whether an SPD should have been fitted to an EV charge point, the previous version states that if a risk assessment is not carried out (and documented), then an SPD shall be fitted.

So the installer had no real reason not to fit one, unless they produced a documented risk assessment.