Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner
1 - 20 of 179 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hi,

I've recently had a dedicated socket on a separate circuit installed and just wanted to share few photos in case someone else is interested.

Even though the 7kw dedicated chargers are faster, I believe it's better for the battery to be charged slowly. We do not use our Leaf in the evenings very often so we can easily leave it plugged in for 12h at a time.

Here are the photos:


Rectangle Wood Line Electricity Wall


Font Gas Machine Concrete Room


Grey Asphalt Road surface Gas Composite material


Fixture Road surface Line Wall Rectangle


Land vehicle Wheel Vehicle Plant Tire
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
Welcome.

Interesting extension to the granny charger cable. Your choice of wiring is close to the edge legally, so unless the person who did the work is appropriately qualified I'd suggest that you get someone who is to advise you before using it. You may want to get the rest of the house electrics checked out at the same time and bringing up to the current standards.

I hear what you say about charging speeds. The "granny" charger earthing arrangements are less safe than a dedicated mode 3 charge point, as is the well rehearsed discussion over the issue of heat build up in the live pin of the three pin plug. I'd suggest getting a mode 3 charge point with adjustable current to safely meet your desire to charge slowly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
I hate to say this, but when you say "had a dedicated socket on a separate circuit installed" does that mean that a competent person installed this circuit and notified it as being compliant with the regs and Part P?

I really hate being critical, but there are several aspects of that work that would cause me to question the competence of the installer.

Firstly, stuffing a bit of flex, used as part of a permanent installation, through an unprotected hole in the side of the CU is questionable at best, both because flex isn't ideal for part of a fixed installation, and because all cables need to be protected from possible abrasion, using a grommet, grommet strip, gland or similar.

Next, as this outlet was installed to charge an EV is must comply with Section 722 of the wiring regs, BS7671:2018 Amndt 1. I'm afraid to say that it doesn't come close to complying with the regs. There's no DC earth leakage protection, and as the charge lead is being used outside and the outlet is positioned to allow that, there's no open PEN fault protection either. What's even worse is that the RCD that's been fitted is a Type AC, which provides next to bugger all protection in this application.

Presumably there is a fuse in that old board, not exceeding 16 A, protecting that run of 1.5mm² flex?

It's very hard to see how that was ever signed off, TBH.
 

·
Registered
GOLF GTE PHEV
Joined
·
3,824 Posts
I hate to say this, but when you say "had a dedicated socket on a separate circuit installed" does that mean that a competent person installed this circuit and notified it as being compliant with the regs and Part P?

I really hate being critical, but there are several aspects of that work that would cause me to question the competence of the installer.

Firstly, stuffing a bit of flex, used as part of a permanent installation, through an unprotected hole in the side of the CU is questionable at best, both because flex isn't ideal for part of a fixed installation, and because all cables need to be protected from possible abrasion, using a grommet, grommet strip, gland or similar.

Next, as this outlet was installed to charge an EV is must comply with Section 722 of the wiring regs, BS7671:2018 Amndt 1. I'm afraid to say that it doesn't come close to complying with the regs. There's no DC earth leakage protection, and as the charge lead is being used outside and the outlet is positioned to allow that, there's no open PEN fault protection either. What's even worse is that the RCD that's been fitted is a Type AC, which provides next to bugger all protection in this application.

Presumably there is a fuse in that old board, not exceeding 16 A, protecting that run of 1.5mm² flex?

It's very hard to see how that was ever signed off, TBH.
Technically you may be correct. But given that a granny charger can be plugged into any socket with no extra protection being required, being pragmatic, the OPs method must be better than using an existing socket.

Of course, you are not allowed to do your own electrical installation work unless it is signed off, but how many do?
Some so called electricians have been known to do far more unsafe work that what we see here.

Personally I would have used 2.5mm T&E to and a 10ma 16a RCBO + DP isolator and run the cable in some conduit. Screwfix sell flexible conduit for a few quid, which avoids the need to buy packs of elbows.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
Technically you may be correct. But given that a granny charger can be plugged into any socket with no extra protection being required, being pragmatic, the OPs method must be better than using an existing socket.
@Jeremy Harris is correct, and it's not an issue of being pragmatic. The law is there for a reason.
was installed based on the nissan user manual stating that Type AC RCD should be used
The world has moved on and that is no longer considered sufficiently safe. I'm amazed that Nissan haven't had to recall the handbook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I hate to say this, but when you say "had a dedicated socket on a separate circuit installed" does that mean that a competent person installed this circuit and notified it as being compliant with the regs and Part P?

I really hate being critical, but there are several aspects of that work that would cause me to question the competence of the installer.

Firstly, stuffing a bit of flex, used as part of a permanent installation, through an unprotected hole in the side of the CU is questionable at best, both because flex isn't ideal for part of a fixed installation, and because all cables need to be protected from possible abrasion, using a grommet, grommet strip, gland or similar.

Next, as this outlet was installed to charge an EV is must comply with Section 722 of the wiring regs, BS7671:2018 Amndt 1. I'm afraid to say that it doesn't come close to complying with the regs. There's no DC earth leakage protection, and as the charge lead is being used outside and the outlet is positioned to allow that, there's no open PEN fault protection either. What's even worse is that the RCD that's been fitted is a Type AC, which provides next to bugger all protection in this application.

Presumably there is a fuse in that old board, not exceeding 16 A, protecting that run of 1.5mm² flex?

It's very hard to see how that was ever signed off, TBH.

It's 2.5mm flex and the 13A socket runs from the dedicated 16A MCB with additional protection from RCD module.

Nissan's granny charger was designed to work with normal 13A socket however I didn't want to risk it so I had asked an electrician to install a standard dedicated 13A socket. It's not meant to do fast charging like the dedicated chargers you get via gov grant.

Does it make sense?

I didn't install it as a DIY project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
It was installed based on the nissan user manual stating that Type AC RCD should be used

Everything was connected to the earth in the distribution box
Why is an electrician following the wrong source of regulatory information, for work that is notifiable under Part P of the building regs? What did he/she put on the EIC that has been lodged for the work to comply with the law?

The regs that cover this work are in BS7671:2018 and state this regarding RCD protection, and make it clear that neither a Type AC nor a Type A RCD is acceptable without additional protection within the fixed part of the installation (and any protection that may or may not be included in an appliance cannot be considered part of the installation):

Rectangle Font Screenshot Circle Number

Rectangle Font Screenshot Number Document


In addition, protection from an open PEN fault, unless fitting an earth electrode and wiring the outlet circuit as TT, requires a device that can disconnect the CPC (circuit protective conductor) from the PEN )protective earth and neutral) in the event of a PEN fault.


Technically you may be correct. But given that a granny charger can be plugged into any socket with no extra protection being required, being pragmatic, the OPs method must be better than using an existing socket.

Of course, you are not allowed to do your own electrical installation work unless it is signed off, but how many do?
Some so called electricians have been known to do far more unsafe work that what we see here.

Personally I would have used 2.5mm T&E to the isolater and a 10ma RCBO.
The point is that this is a breach of the wiring regs, and a breach of a law that can carry a sentence of up to 2 years. The assumption in the regs is that an outlet installed for charging an EV will be used regularly, hence the need for the safety protection that's mandated.

A granny lead is not intended to be used as a regular means of charging an EV, because it offers little in the way of protection, it's really a "get out of jail" means of charging when no dedicated and safely installed and protected charge point is available. It's all about probability, really. It's OK to take a risk occasssionally, by using somethign that's less safe, but doing it regularly increases the chance of something like an open PEN fault causing the car body to become live. This is actually more likely if a granny lead is used regularly, as the slow rate of charge means it's likely to remain plugged in for a lot longer.

It's 2.5mm flex and the 13A socket runs from the dedicated 16A MCB with additional protection from RCD module.

Nissan's granny charger was designed to work with normal 13A socket however I didn't want to risk it so I had asked an electrician to install a standard dedicated 13A socket. It's not meant to do fast charging like the dedicated chargers you get via gov grant.

Does it make sense?

I didn't install it as a DIY project.
What's protecting the flex from the fuse board to the additional box? That cable needs to be protected at source against over-current.

I frankly do not believe that this work was done by a fully qualified electrician, it looks like something a domestic installer might do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,682 Posts
For the OP, it's worth keeping in mind that some of the comments have not been made just for the sake of being correct or by a jobsworth but because there are some underlying issues behind the regs.

Say for RCDs, if the whole house RCD (s) are blinded by DC and fail to operate, someone could get a nasty shock or worse WITHIN the house.
 

·
Registered
GOLF GTE PHEV
Joined
·
3,824 Posts
There's usually a sticker on or near the incomer.
If it is, please take notice of the advice from JH otherwise there are two issues:
not done properly and done by a non qualified person (unless signed off by one and none would do so as it stands)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
OP, is your supply PME?
The regs assume that TN-S = TN-C-S/PME, so unless this installation is TT, and I very much doubt that it is, then it requires open PEN fault protection, in addition to the correct type of earth leakage fault protection, in order to be considered safe.

There's usually a sticker on or near the incomer.
If it is, please take notice of the advice from JH otherwise there are two issues:
not done properly and done by a non qualified person (unless signed off by one and none would do so as it stands)
A photo of the incomer would be enough. TN supplies are obvious from the way the CPC is connected, plus if it's TT there will be a 100 mA RCD next to the main fuse.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
Say for RCDs, if the whole house RCD (s) are blinded by DC and fail to operate, someone could get a nasty shock or worse WITHIN the house.
Good point save that the rest of the wiring in this property appears to be unprotected anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
Just to be clear, even though it's unlawful (in that it's near impossible to get it signed off under Part P of the building regs), I don't have a problem with DIY electrical installation work that has been done in compliance with the regs and has been properly tested and shown to be safe. There's effectively a 2 year "statute of limitations" on Part P compliance anyway, so get away with it for 2 years, with no evidence of date of the unlawful work, and whoever does it is home and dry.

I do have a problem when people are calling themselves electricians and signing off work that is obviously non-compliant and so potentially poses a risk of harm to their customers. People who do this should not be in the trade, in my view, they are a danger to others and need to be kicked out on their ear, or given mandatory training to get their work up to a safe and acceptable standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
Is this what you are talking about?
Thanks, yes, that's a TN-C-S/PME supply. That means that some means of protecting the outlet used for EV charging from an open PEN fault is required, as well as the correct type of RCD protection.

Nice to see that someone's stuck a fuse rating label on there. It does make life easier when DNOs/suppliers do this.
 
1 - 20 of 179 Posts
Top