Compromised/void warranty on panels if original connectors replaced/cut off

[valet]

Hi all:17:
Had a correspondence recently with Panasonic stated that if installers replaced original connectors MC3 with any other connectors (MC4 or MC4 compatible) Sanyo now Panasonic CANNOT make an exception and keep the guarantee coverage for the modules which have been modified or have not been installed according to the modules installation manual. They cannot be sure that the modification does not affect panels; they cannot measure the risk if something goes wrong.
Exchanging of connectors can lead under some circumstances to current leakages and subsequently to fire, Safety and security of the people in the house on which the array is mounted is compromised.
Is fire started because the solar system and cause cannot be found the liability could well being on Panasonic side as module manufacturer and obviously they cannot take that risk.
I think if the customer wants to have modules on his roof with full guarantee coverage and some of them had their connectors exchanged, these modules should be replaced.
Also they issued important notice to all Panasonic premium installers reminding them not to cut original connectors since that’s would void the modules guarantee.

 

[SolarCity]

I think if the customer wants to have modules on his roof with full guarantee coverage and some of them had their connectors exchanged, these modules should be replaced.

I personally think that that would be unreasonable.

And I still maintain that Panasonic's stance is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Gavin A]

I've been disputing this with Panasonic for weeks, but they're not budging.

their position is nuts, and has been justified by some scenario where the panels set alight and it's not possible to tell what connector was responsible.

Fact is though that in this situation it would always be impossible to tell if it was the manufacturers connections or the connections that the installer had made on the cable that the array connects in to, unless Panasonic were planning to assert in this scenario that it could never be their connections at fault, and pass the liability to the installer. If this were the case, then there would be no advantage to the customer in this situation either way.

We've also extensively tested the connections, and come to the conclusion that it's basically impossible to form a connection that's of high enough resistance to cause a fire in a domestic situation, as you can't use the MC4 crimp tools to crimp less than about 0.75-1mm2 of wires, and the manufacturer rates that diameter of cable as being sufficient for the ampage of a single string of panels anyway. This opinion is backed up by the fact that there have been in the region of 1 million connectors crimped to the cables by solar PV installers in the UK to date, and not a single fire caused by them (1 possibly caused by some fault in the isolator, but not at the connectors).


Basically there can be no justification for this position that I can see.

 

[MorganPVI]

it's basically impossible to form a connection that's of high enough resistance to cause a fire in a domestic situation,

I've recently had an inverter with a badly crimped MC4 connector, you should see the melted mess afterwards - only on string of 5 panels too. The female MC4 has basically instantly melted then exploded, very much potential for a fire. I'll post the pics once the warranty return has been fully processed.

Panasonic are well within their rights to refuse a warranty and for the sake of a few quid use a connector kit - either that or accept the risk. We've cut MC3s and replaced - sadly we have to take the hit if any returns are required.

 

[Gavin A]

I've recently had an inverter with a badly crimped MC4 connector, you should see the melted mess afterwards - only on string of 5 panels too. The female MC4 has basically instantly melted then exploded, very much potential for a fire. I'll post the pics once the warranty return has been fully processed.

I suppose I was asking for that, but seriously how?

Panasonic are well within their rights to refuse a warranty and for the sake of a few quid use a connector kit - either that or accept the risk. We've cut MC3s and replaced - sadly we have to take the hit if any returns are required.

I don't think anyone's expected them to cover the replaced connector, just to cover the rest of the panel against any unrelated fault.

I'm not really sure why we should be expected to carry around connector kits to cover us just in case our £300 MC3 gun decides to fail on the job after 6 months, or our supplier runs out of MC3s entirely at a point where we have 2 pallets of panels needing installing before a FIT deadline.

 

[moggy1968]

as was said before on a thread about the same issue, would you really expect your warranty on your panasonic TV to be voided just because a qualified electrician changed the plug?
It's ridiculous.
IMHO MC3 is an obsolete connector anyway, the industry standard is fast becoming MC4, so why are the manufacturers of a supposedly premium panel using them anyway.

 

[MorganPVI]

I suppose I was asking for that, but seriously how?

7.5 amps at 250v is alot of heat when some factory muppet doesn't properly crimp a connector.

Panasonic are Panasonic, the accountants running the firm take no notice of engineers, they listen to the bean counters and lawyers. Any denied warranty saves money.

 

[valet]

I've recently had an inverter with a badly crimped MC4 connector, you should see the melted mess afterwards - only on string of 5 panels too. The female MC4 has basically instantly melted then exploded, very much potential for a fire. I'll post the pics once the warranty return has been fully processed.

Panasonic are well within their rights to refuse a warranty and for the sake of a few quid use a connector kit - either that or accept the risk. We've cut MC3s and replaced - sadly we have to take the hit if any returns are required.

Thank you MorganPVI it will be grate to see pictures of melted MC4 connector

 

[Patrick MacLeay]

I doubt very much that this would be upheld if you took them to court, as it would count as an unfair contract.
Often companies try to hide behind company policy or clauses in guarantees, but these are not binding and easily overturned. I generally find quoting the law and the threat of small claims court generally works, as they usually don't want these clauses and policies tested and overturned in a court.

 

[Gavin A]

I tried that. I probably will go that route if any customers demand we replace the panels at our expense, though they'd have to actually go on the roof and check themselves to even know, as we never saw the need to keep a record of which installations we've done this on, and it's probably only 5-10% of installation max.

 

[valet]

What if a fire started because of this connectors, I know is highly unlike but it is a chance and you don't want as a customer to take that chance. It will be too late to replace panels. As it will be a bigger issue. House insurance could be invalidated and if it is rental property public liability insurance under question.
Insurance company will find the way not to pay. Especially after investigation they find out the cause of incident. The bottom line Sanyo do not want to be responsible for installation not been followed installation instruction.

 

[moggy1968]

thats why you have third party liability insurance!
As a professional electrician you should be able to competently and safely fit a crimp to a cable using the correct tooling for the job. It's no different to a great deal of the other work we do, and a great deal less risky than a lot we do. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

 

[Gavin A]

What if a fire started because of this connectors, I know is highly unlike but it is a chance and you don't want as a customer to take that chance.

There's no more chance of this than there is of a fire starting as a result of any of the other connectors your installer has to install on site causing the fire.

If you trust your installer to connect all the other connectors correctly, then there should be no reason why you shouldn't also trust them to install this connector correctly.

Frankly, if you don't trust your installer to attach a connector correctly then you should really be considering finding a different installer - which was also an argument I put to Panasonic.

 

[Gavin A]

What if a fire started because of this connectors, I know is highly unlike but it is a chance and you don't want as a customer to take that chance. It will be too late to replace panels. As it will be a bigger issue. House insurance could be invalidated and if it is rental property public liability insurance under question.
Insurance company will find the way not to pay. Especially after investigation they find out the cause of incident. The bottom line Sanyo do not want to be responsible for installation not been followed installation instruction.

as Moggy says, it would be covered under your installers liability insurance if it was proved to be the cause of any fire.

From the sounds of it, Panasonic would intend to deny all liability in the event of a fire anyway, and blame the installer as they claim it'd be impossible to tell if it was the connector at fault (which must apply to all connectors under the panels inc the ones we always have to install), and that they test their connectors in the factory, so it couldn't possibly be their product at fault.

 

[SolarCity]

Valet, I'm not sure if you're aware but each end of the string of panels is plugged straight into a connector made off by the contractor himself. If this failed, which is equally unlikely, then you're still in the same position.

Panasonic's position, in my opinion, is utterly unreasonable.