Do these internally exposed meter tails require mechanical protection?

[drewzh]

Hi,

I was hoping someone with a little more insight might be able to shed some light on a potential issue I have, as I can't seem to find another example online where this specific question that has been answered.

What you can see in the attached photograph is meter tails (single insulated + sheathed), coming in to supply an EV distribution board. It seems from research that most installations are buried with additional conduits for protection, so I'm not sure what the specific rules are around clipped-direct meter tails.

The regs are a little hazy, but should these tails, being situated in a garage workshop, in close proximity to daily tool usage and storage, have further mechanical protection, in the form of metal conduit, or is this perfectly reasonable for a new install?

Many thanks in advance,
Drew

 

[mainline]

There’s a pdf download for it Tesla gen 3
I didn’t get time to read it.
It's not compliant unless you fit a pen fault detection device.

 

[timhoward]

There’s a pdf download for it Tesla gen 3
I didn’t get time to read it.
It's not compliant unless you fit a pen fault detection device.

Agreed. In this case there is a DUA55 on the left.
It is the worst way to detect PEN faults (has a voltage limit range) but it complies.

 

[Aaron b]

One of the issues is if there's a manual test button and details like contact separation. The certificate of conformity for the charger should state it complies with BS EN 61008 or IEC 60755 etc. It would be much easier just to use a 61009 in the consumer unit. And even better to use a charger with PEN fault detection built-in.

 

[westward10]

In a lot of other countries 'All' soft skin cables must be installed in either a rigid plastic conduit, flexible plastic conduit or other suitable no conductive containment unless they are a special hi-tuff hard walled cable.
I know we have a love hate relationship with Copex style conduit in this country, but on a job like this where it is a work shop and you have single cables like that poking from a wall at worktop height I would have used Copex ( just my preference of course other conduits are available)

This is the UK and it is Kopex not Copex.

 

[nicebutdim]

This is the UK and it is Kopex not Copex.

Also the fact that 99% of what gets referred to as Kopex is not Kopex. The cheap carp sold by wholesalers offers little more protection than a slice of wet bread.

 

[MJPD29]

It's terrible, I would be ashamed to put my name to that.

That’s a bit dramatic

 

[Dustydazzler]

That’s a bit dramatic

Agree , I have seen far far worse installs in recent years , in fact I spend most of my working week putting right bodged installs or fixing faulty new works etc

 

[James]

Absolutely, not every job I do, would I want to be taking pictures of and showing off to people.

modern times with people showing off their instagram lives etc, we all know people only post there best look. Rare to see real world stuff.

sometimes, “make it work” is the only thing the customer wants/needs.
I am not saying that anything will do,
if I can’t upgrade “make it work” to make it work and make it safe then it’s not going to happen.
but sometimes looking nice is just not possible with the restrictions in place for that job.

 

[mainline]

That’s a bit dramatic

Do you really think that's a decent job, one that you would put your name to ?

It's pretty obvious to me that the original Cu was installed fairly competently, although an isolator instead of the henley blocks would have been a bonus and its only being assumed to be compliant.

There was no need for those tails at all, as they could have taken a supply from the Consumer unit, there is a spare way to take a 63amp mcb and side entry would have been simple.

The cost and time would have been significantly reduced, not withstanding the aesthetics side of it.

 

[DPG]

Do you really think that's a decent job, one that you would put your name to ?

It's pretty obvious to me that the original Cu was installed fairly competently, although an isolator instead of the henley blocks would have been a bonus and its only being assumed to be compliant.

There was no need for those tails at all, as they could have taken a supply from the Consumer unit, there is a spare way to take a 63amp mcb and side entry would have been simple.

Was there enough capacity in the original CU?

 

[mainline]

Was there enough capacity in the original CU?

It's fed by 25 mm tails and I assume its 100amp main switch.

 

[DPG]

It's fed by 25 mm tails and I assume its 100amp main switch.

Was there enough spare capacity to feed a 63A MCB though? Presumably that's why an extra unit was installed.

 

[mainline]

Was there enough spare capacity to feed a 63A MCB though? Presumably that's why an extra unit was installed.

It's never going to draw 100 amps for any length of time.

 

[DPG]

It's never going to draw 100 amps for any length of time.

No worries then. Wasn't sure what circuits they had in the original consumer unit. Might have had 2 showers or something.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Absolutely, not every job I do, would I want to be taking pictures of and showing off to people.

modern times with people showing off their instagram lives etc, we all know people only post there best look. Rare to see real world stuff.

sometimes, “make it work” is the only thing the customer wants/needs.
I am not saying that anything will do,
if I can’t upgrade “make it work” to make it work and make it safe then it’s not going to happen.
but sometimes looking nice is just not possible with the restrictions in place for that job.

Im in the same boat , if a customer wants £1000 worth of repairs for £500 I will do my best to see what i can do maybe cheaper materials for example , but at some point their just isn't enough money to actually do the job properly so I turn it down. However I guarantee someone will take on the job on the cheap for cash in hand and do a right old lash up of it...and probably a photo of lash up will one day end up on here