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

 

[littlespark]

Insulated and sheathed cables are permissible for surface clipped, but if there is possibility of damage then should be further mechanically protected.

Being a new install, did they know what the room was going to be used for or did they assume “domestic” environment?


I don’t see an image, but might not yet have downloaded for me yet on 4G

 

[Dustydazzler]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

 

[drewzh]

Insulated and sheathed cables are permissible for surface clipped, but if there is possibility of damage then should be further mechanically protected.

Being a new install, did they know what the room was going to be used for or did they assume “domestic” environment?


I don’t see an image, but might not yet have downloaded for me yet on 4G

Thanks. The garage is used for DIY work - working on cars, general wood-work and laser cutting etc. I use the tool chest surface for power tools (i.e, chop saw, grinders etc).

I don't want to appear to be awkward, but it just seemed a little 'in my face' to have, barring a 100A fuse, unprotected tails in front of me all the time, just to the back of the actual surface where I do most of my small jobs.

I did raise it with the guy at the time and unfortunately, he just dismissed my concern and said "this is how we always do it - I don't even carry conduit", so it was a bit of an awkward situation and as the job was almost done, I didn't feel like I had much choice but to proceed.

Think the image not loading is on your end as I tried another (not logged in) device and it's loading fine.

I've included another image below for what it looks like usually (usually a lot more messy!).

I guess the next question would be... the best way to protect them?

Cheers

 

[drewzh]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

That was my secondary suggestion to him, but again he shrugged it off as unnecessary and the conversation died there. My thought at the time was, 'unnecessary' maybe, but 'prudent', definitely.

 

[James]

Do they have a BS number printed on them?
are you sure they are not single insulated?

 

[Dustydazzler]

That was my secondary suggestion to him, but again he shrugged it off as unnecessary and the conversation died there. My thought at the time was, 'unnecessary' maybe, but 'prudent', definitely.

Trouble is not everyone has standards , to me a fivers worth of black copex would have finished the job off nice, rather than just having the singles cleated like that...

 

[drewzh]

Do they have a BS number printed on them?
are you sure they are not single insulated?

No obvious markings (either inside or in the meter cabinet) on any of the tails, other than what's in the following images (00462 ?)...

Does the outer diameter give any clues as to whether these are single or double (single/sheathes that is)? I do think either way, I'd have expected it to have been brought into the box either from behind or in some sort of conduit. Not just for looks, but for safety given that it's a well-used part of the house.

 

[drewzh]

Trouble is not everyone has standards , to me a fivers worth of black copex would have finished the job off nice, rather than just having the singles cleated like that...

That's what struck me initially, as I personally have pride in my own work and tend to like things to look neat - it looks a bit of a mess. I did actually use the phrase "dogs dinner", which I don't think he appreciated

 

[littlespark]

My end with the image… it appeared later on.

Not very often to see core colours on the outer sheath…. Usually grey with the colour on the inner insulation.

Where are these tails going? Might have been more suitable to use armoured cable, as there’s smaller armoured cables coming out.

The “00462” I think is the metre marking from where the cable was taken off a much bigger drum. You might find “00463” a metre away.


As for protection now, a simple wooden box to cover it and the other cables would be enough…. But there’s a double socket in the way.

 

[mainline]

It looks as though they are double insulated flexi tails, hence the colour.

Meter tails or other insulated and sheathed cables, the basic insulation over the conductor and the non-metallic sheath are deemed to comply with the requirements for both basic and fault protection in Regulation 412.2 and hence don’t need to be installed in containment (unless required for mechanical protection). What this also means is that removal of the outer sheath to enable the colour of the core to be identified outside of a wiring accessory (e.g. a meter or service block) should not be done, as the cable will have been reduced to having basic insulation only.

I would be looking at if the tails run through the fabric of the building as to whether it needs some protection.

 

[mainline]

No obvious markings (either inside or in the meter cabinet) on any of the tails, other than what's in the following images (00462 ?)...

Does the outer diameter give any clues as to whether these are single or double (single/sheathes that is)? I do think either way, I'd have expected it to have been brought into the box either from behind or in some sort of conduit. Not just for looks, but for safety given that it's a well-used part of the house.

View attachment 109160
View attachment 109159

25 mm² flexitails are 11 mm diameter, 16 mm² standard tails are 9.1 mm in diameter. Although there is going to be some variation in those numbers due to manufactures.

 

[ipf]

.......But there’s a double socket in the way.

Looks like it might have been fed from it..........

Oh for a little effort. It looks rubbish.

 

[rewireIT]

In my opinion there's nowt wrong with the job. It doesn't look rough at all despite what others may think. Sure copex woulda looked better but there's nothing wrong with the install. Regs say they have to be clipped unless they're in containment and they are.

If this was installed under the stairs nobody would bat an eye. So....imo your bench is in the wrong place!

I would simply box round them if you're scared of nicking them with something. Bit of ply or something.

 

[mainline]

In my opinion there's nowt wrong with the job. It doesn't look rough at all despite what others may think. Sure copex woulda looked better but there's nothing wrong with the install. Regs say they have to be clipped unless they're in containment and they are.

If this was installed under the stairs nobody would bat an eye. So....imo your bench is in the wrong place!

I would simply box round them if you're scared of nicking them with something. Bit of ply or something.

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

 

[rewireIT]

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

If we ignore the fact that they're coming through the wall, the only thing wrong with it is the cleats don't line up with each other. What else is wrong with it?

Boards are level, cables are cleated, glands are all done properly. It's not exactly been lashed in.

 

[westward10]

I agree I can't see a problem with it.

 

[mainline]

If we ignore the fact that they're coming through the wall, the only thing wrong with it is the cleats don't line up with each other. What else is wrong with it?

Boards are level, cables are cleated, glands are all done properly.

I didn't say it wasn't compliant, as that's an unknown, not knowing the run of those tails or how they are connected.

That install looks as though there was no planning or pride in their work.

 

[Aaron b]

It looks much better than a lot I see and I agree that boxing it in is a good idea. I suppose it comes down to what was asked for on whether they have provided the correct thing.

The other cable is also not armoured judging by the stuffing gland.

 

[Avo Mk8]

If it was me, I'd give up any hope that the installing electrician could or would make it any better, and tidy it up myself - boxing in all the cables and moving the twin socket to the right and (if you plan to continue using the toolbox as a bench!) up a bit, and put the socket into the front of the boxing in!
At least it will then be accessible with the toolbox in place!

 

[timhoward]

and (if you plan to continue using the toolbox as a bench!) up a bit,

That was actually the thing bothering me more than anything else, nothing worse than a socket you can't easily use!
If it's just a spur from the board then a surface mount metal clad with coupler would be an easy addition to the bottom of the board, and be a bit heavier duty for workshop use.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

Are you Nick Bundy?

 

[nicebutdim]

It should be remembered that the OP's question pertains to new works, the extent of which I believe to be the additional board, tails and outgoing (what appears to be) tuff-sheath cable. Unless I've missed something, the main board, armoured cable and 2g socket were pre-existing.

Cleating on new cables could be neater, but that's not an issue raised by the OP. While tuff-sheath is certainly tougher than sheathed and insulated tails, it offers little in the way of cut resistance. Yes it will be RCD protected, but I don't think it should be overlooked if damage by power tools is the main concern.

The socket could be better placed, but OP hasn't expressed any concerns about its position and it doesn't appear to be part of the recent works.

What I do find strange is where the tails come trough - perhaps this was the extent of a permali box on the other side, perhaps it was a case of point and drill or perhaps there are other reasons unknown to us. Regardless, it's not an issue in terms of OP's concernsand nor is it from a regulatory perspective.

OP mentions that they raised the issue of potential damage when the job was near completion. The installer could certainly have taken the time to protect the tails in some way, but was it feasible to do so at the time? Was there a nearby wholesaler open and could the job have still been completed on the same day? Was the additional taime required to strip the board, protect tails and re-dress chargeable? I'm not casting aspertions at either the OP or the installer, but simply highlighting a few (of many) considerations that are easy to overlook when levelling criticism from afar.

 

[westward10]

Are you Nick Bundy?

I think even Bundy could spell Kopex.

 

[westward10]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

 

[drewzh]

It should be remembered that the OP's question pertains to new works, the extent of which I believe to be the additional board, tails and outgoing (what appears to be) tuff-sheath cable. Unless I've missed something, the main board, armoured cable and 2g socket were pre-existing.

Cleating on new cables could be neater, but that's not an issue raised by the OP. While tuff-sheath is certainly tougher than sheathed and insulated tails, it offers little in the way of cut resistance. Yes it will be RCD protected, but I don't think it should be overlooked if damage by power tools is the main concern.

The socket could be better placed, but OP hasn't expressed any concerns about its position and it doesn't appear to be part of the recent works.

What I do find strange is where the tails come trough - perhaps this was the extent of a permali box on the other side, perhaps it was a case of point and drill or perhaps there are other reasons unknown to us. Regardless, it's not an issue in terms of OP's concernsand nor is it from a regulatory perspective.

OP mentions that they raised the issue of potential damage when the job was near completion. The installer could certainly have taken the time to protect the tails in some way, but was it feasible to do so at the time? Was there a nearby wholesaler open and could the job have still been completed on the same day? Was the additional taime required to strip the board, protect tails and re-dress chargeable? I'm not casting aspertions at either the OP or the installer, but simply highlighting a few (of many) considerations that are easy to overlook when levelling criticism from afar.

I can clarify that the new works are the Garo DB for a new EV charger (Tesla Wall Connector Gen3) and the SWA that you see going into a compression gland on the Garo board... I asked for the existing SWA going to shed from the main CU to also be added to the new DB, so that it's also PEN protected, as we're looking to install a hot tub from the shed CU and it would provide some protection for that circuit also...

A side note: It just occurred to me after someone noted further up - it doesn't look like the armour has been earthed if they've used a plastic compression fitting... probably something that also needs addressing I imagine, as I'd prefer if any SWA armour on the property is earthed for obvious reasons.

Correct, sockets are less of an issue honestly, but given that there's now the topic of adding additional protection in the way of conduit or a plywood box - I may actually shift them across and up to make covering the area easier, as currently, it's difficult to do that without blocking the sockets.

The tails come through directly from the very top right corner of the meter box directly on the other side of the wall. It was a bit of a drill and pray situation and the drill luckily came through just to the left of the existing SWA for the shed.

It's a bit of a long story but the guy wasn't very happy that I suggested to him that adding RCD protection to the existing shed SWA at the source (main CU) wasn't actually required (armour is bonded at source already and sub-CU has all RCBOs). He was adamant that all buried SWA had to be RCD protected... anyway, I digress... by the time we got the issue of the exposed tails - it was obvious that he was annoyed at me for second-guessing him, so I just stayed clear of him until he was done. He didn't actually add an RCD in the end, stating that "it's your property, so it's up to you".

Anyway, the plot thickens as I've realised he's reduced my shed feed from 63A to 40A (which gives me zero wiggle room for running my power tools in the shed when the hot tub is running) and I cannot source suitable Garo modules to support the higher rating... so looks like I'm going to get my regular electrician to put the shed SWA back into the main CU and run a new 6mm run to the hottub from the Garo DB. Hands are tied now it seems. I'll sort out moving the socket and adding from boxing to tidy things up.

Thanks very much to everyone that has provided help so far, it's greatly appreciated.

Bonus question... 2x continuous 40amp loads running through a single 40A contactor? Is that right? Sorry, I'm obviously just an amateur but I feel like I'm having to second-guess everything at the moment.

 

[nicebutdim]

I can clarify that the new works are the Garo DB for a new EV charger (Tesla Wall Connector Gen3) and the SWA that you see going into a compression gland on the Garo board...

A side note: It just occurred to me after someone noted further up - it doesn't look like the armour has been earthed if they've used a plastic compression fitting... probably something that also needs addressing I imagine, as I'd prefer if any SWA armour on the property is earthed for obvious reasons.

Do we know for certain that this is SWA and, if so, how is it terminated at the other end? I would have guessed tuff sheath cable due to the compression gland and the likelihood of this cable run on the surface externally.

The tails come through directly from the very top right corner of the meter box directly on the other side of the wall. It was a bit of a drill and pray situation and the drill luckily came through just to the left of the existing SWA for the shed.

This may well be why the tails don't enter from the rear.

It's a bit of a long story but the guy wasn't very happy that I suggested to him that adding RCD protection to the existing shed SWA at the source (main CU) wasn't actually required (armour is bonded at source already and sub-CU has all RCBOs). He was adamant that all buried SWA had to be RCD protected... anyway, I digress... by the time we got the issue of the exposed tails - it was obvious that he was annoyed at me for second-guessing him, so I just stayed clear of him until he was done. He didn't actually add an RCD in the end, stating that "it's your property, so it's up to you".

It's possible that RCD protection is required, although I suspect not. It's most certainly not the case that all buried SWA requires such protection.

Anyway, the plot thickens as I've realised he's reduced my shed feed from 63A to 40A (which gives me zero wiggle room for running my power tools in the shed when the hot tub is running) and I cannot source suitable Garo modules to support the higher rating... so looks like I'm going to get my regular electrician to put the shed SWA back into the main CU and run a new 6mm run to the hottub from the Garo DB. Hands are tied now it seems. I'll sort out moving the socket and adding from boxing to tidy things up.

Although we'd be splitting hairs, outgoing 63A + 40A circuits would exceed main switch rating. I've no idea whether or not he may have had good reason for reducing the shed supply. Depending on cable size, length of run, installation method, voltage drop... there may be valid reason for doing this, but equally there may not.

Bonus question... 2x continuous 40amp loads running through a single 40A contactor? Is that right? Sorry, I'm obviously just an amateur but I feel like I'm having to second-guess everything at the moment.

The rating will be 40A per pole and this is another possible reason why shed supply has beed reduced to 40A.

It's often difficult to ascertain remotely where problems between customer and installer lie, but I can certainly see why you have reservations about the work. Clear answers from the contractor may have put your mind at ease, but equally clear answers can start alarm bells ringing.

 

[ipf]

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

Love the penny washers, though...for a bit of class.

...don't really, Can't stand 'em on cleats........even if they do carry a purpose.
What's wrong with 1/4 washers or similar?

 

[Dustydazzler]

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

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)

 

[Aaron b]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

 

[nicebutdim]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

OP states that sub board circuits are all protected by rcbo. Assuming ads is met on distribution circuit, it would be reasonable enough to ask that it not be rcd protected.

I agree that the cable cleated below appears to be tuff sheath, but took it to be EV charge point supply. Perhaps the OP could clarify which it is.

I seem to have missed the latest image, despite responding to the post in which it was added. Lack of rcd protection on both circuits raises more questions.

 

[drewzh]

OP states that sub board circuits are all protected by rcbo. Assuming ads is met on distribution circuit, it would be reasonable enough to ask that it not be rcd protected.

I agree that the cable cleated below appears to be tuff sheath, but took it to be EV charge point supply. Perhaps the OP could clarify which it is.

I seem to have missed the latest image, despite responding to the post in which it was added. Lack of rcd protection on both circuits raises more questions.

From all of the advice, I had up to the point of installation, not having an RCD on the correctly installed SWA with a correctly bonded armouring was a more accepted approach. Hence why he insisted on adding it, it conflicted with everything I'd been told/read up to that point.

The singles are meter tails taking supply from henley blocks in the meter box. The reason it wasn't added in the meter box itself was due to a lack of space for an 8-way DB in there.

There's no RCD on either circuit - the EV charger is a Tesla Wall Connector and contains built-in Type A RCD with DC current leakage and the shed isn't on RCD for the above reasons. The SWA itself is protected by the armour being bonded and the endpoint is protected with RCBOs.

 

[mainline]

I’d like to see a pic of the other side of the wall along with pics of the inside of the cabinet and DB’s.

It may have been possible to have come in the back of the db, it also may have been possible to have followed the tail run that feeds the main Cu.

What comes to mind here is “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

 

[drewzh]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

Yes, I asked for the existing shed circuit to also be PEN fault/SPD protected... that's all. I wish I had been more specific about the fact they shouldn't drop my shed feed from 63A to 40A, as I can't find any higher current Garo modules to upgrade it now and need to find another solution.

We have RCBOs on the shed CU. They're not required at the source as the SWA is protected by earthing of the armour. The cable has been installed at the correct depths and with the correct tape also... I know because installed it.

The EV charger has an inbuilt Type-A RCD with DC current leakage, so no RCD is required there.

 

[drewzh]

Do we know for certain that this is SWA and, if so, how is it terminated at the other end? I would have guessed tuff sheath cable due to the compression gland and the likelihood of this cable run on the surface externally.



This may well be why the tails don't enter from the rear.



It's possible that RCD protection is required, although I suspect not. It's most certainly not the case that all buried SWA requires such protection.



Although we'd be splitting hairs, outgoing 63A + 40A circuits would exceed main switch rating. I've no idea whether or not he may have had good reason for reducing the shed supply. Depending on cable size, length of run, installation method, voltage drop... there may be valid reason for doing this, but equally there may not.


The rating will be 40A per pole and this is another possible reason why shed supply has beed reduced to 40A.

It's often difficult to ascertain remotely where problems between customer and installer lie, but I can certainly see why you have reservations about the work. Clear answers from the contractor may have put your mind at ease, but equally clear answers can start alarm bells ringing.

Yes definitely why - I guess in my naivety and lack of understanding of what's correct - I just expected that he'd use the cavity or install it in the skin of the building with conduit or something (I don't mind plastering).

RCD is definitely not required and I knew from research that it's more common than not to earth the armour and leave RCD protection off from the source.

Yes, you are right. I've since decided to bypass the PEN/SPD DB with the shed and feed the hot tub directly on the existing 40A instead of with a new 35m run of 6mm SWA. I always regretted not installing 16mm for the shed (rather than 10mm we were recommended to install) and this negates that issue also. I don't think there was any reason for dropping to 40A other than that's the DB he had with the 40A contactor for PEN fault - I really don't think he gave it that much thought.

Yes, exactly - playing devil's advocate on myself - I could have done more research and worked the circuit out myself, but the EV charger company that did the install were somewhat vague with the technicals until they were here doing the work and it's not always easy to understand the implications of things before-hand if you don't know what it is that could go wrong. In my defence though - I didn't expect them to alter the capabilities of my existing circuit without informing me. I only found out after they had left.

 

[nicebutdim]

Yes, I asked for the existing shed circuit to also be PEN fault/SPD protected... that's all. I wish I had been more specific about the fact they shouldn't drop my shed feed from 63A to 40A, as I can't find any higher current Garo modules to upgrade it now and need to find another solution.

We have RCBOs on the shed CU. They're not required at the source as the SWA is protected by earthing of the armour. The cable has been installed at the correct depths and with the correct tape also... I know because installed it.

The EV charger has an inbuilt Type-A RCD with DC current leakage, so no RCD is required there.

I'm unclear on a few points and uncertain about others.

Is the shed fed by the outgoing cable bellow existing board and has it been extended through to new board?

Is charge point fed by outgoing cable from new board and are you certain that it is swa?

I'm not familiar with tesla charge points, so perhaps someone could clarify if rcd protection can be omitted at source.

Edit: second point since clarified.

 

[drewzh]

I’d like to see a pic of the other side of the wall along with pics of the inside of the cabinet and DB’s.

It may have been possible to have come in the back of the db, it also may have been possible to have followed the tail run that feeds the main Cu.

What comes to mind here is “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

I do think with some extra finesse, he definitely could have hidden the cables.

 

[drewzh]

I'm unclear on a few points and uncertain about others.

Is the shed fed by the outgoing cable bellow existing board and has it been extended through to new board?

Correct

Is charge point fed by outgoing cable from new board and are you certain that it is swa?

Yes and yes, definitely SWA - I saw him hacksawing the armour. There's a concern I have about no metallic gland, so I'm assuming the armouring hasn't been earthed.

I'm not familiar with tesla charge points, so perhaps someone could clarify if rcd protection can be omitted at source.

To my knowledge, it can be omitted as the requirements for a EV charger to be Type B protected are covered by the Type A + DC current leakage protection.

Edit: second point since clarified.

 

[Aaron b]

Correct

Yes and yes, definitely SWA - I saw him hacksawing the armour. There's a concern I have about no metallic gland, so I'm assuming the armouring hasn't been earthed.

To my knowledge, it can be omitted as the requirements for a EV charger to be Type B protected are covered by the Type A + DC current leakage protection.

In most cases the rcd within the charger doesn't meet regs so a external one is also provided. Generally because of the rcd-dd only a type A double pole device can be used instead of the type B, that doesn't mean not required though. It sounds as if you took over the design responsibility on this.

 

[drewzh]

In most cases the rcd within the charger doesn't meet regs so a external one is also provided. Generally because of the rcd-dd only a type A double pole device can be used instead of the type B, that doesn't mean not required though. It sounds as if you took over the design responsibility on this.

This was specified not by myself, but by the EV charger installer (it just happened to conform to what I already knew). From research, it does seem that other installers are also following this approach with the Gen3 Tesla charger. I'm certainly not worried about it.

 

[mainline]

I do think with some extra finesse, he definitely could have hidden the cables.

View attachment 109179
View attachment 109178

The original tails are most defiantly buried and unless they are protected they won’t be compliant.

Did the meter tails originally goto an isolator ?.


The tails from the meter are very short.

I would have liked to have seen either an isolator or Sp+n fused unit there although not really allowed to use the cabinet for consumers gear.

 

[drewzh]

The original tails are most defiantly buried and unless they are protected they won’t be compliant.

Definitely buried and as every other cable in the house is run in a conduit of some kind, I can only assume they're compliant.

Did the meter tails originally goto an isolator ?.

Nope

The tails from the meter are very short.

I would have liked to have seen either an isolator or Sp+n fused unit there although not really allowed to use the cabinet for consumers gear.

I've never really liked the idea of having an isolator outside the house. We have UPS power supplies for our security system, but I still don't like the idea of someone having easy access to switch the power off

 

[mainline]

Definitely buried and as every other cable in the house is run in a conduit of some kind, I can only assume they're compliant.

Nope

I've never really liked the idea of having an isolator outside the house. We have UPS power supplies for our security system, but I still don't like the idea of someone having easy access to switch the power off

Thats no real excuse especially when you have exposed tails buried and clipped up walls.
You assume the tails are in conduit and I also assume that your assuming that the conduit is earthed.

Turning the power off in your case is made simpler by the fact you have no main fuse seals making it easy to pull the fuse.
I can’t believe the meter installer left the tails in blocks without even the thought of using an isolator, which would have been easier to fit and probably cheaper and left the seals intact.

 

[nicebutdim]

Getting back to the issue at hand, I'd rather protect surface clipped tails drilled straight through a wall, than have them buried. Bear in mind these are protected only buy a fuse rated between 60-100A, although I suspect original tails run a short distance up the cavity and aren't buried.

@Aaron b raises a point I'd tried to look into earlier, which is compliance of protective devices installed within tesla gen 3 wall connector. I didn't get to the bottom of whether or not it's compliant with BS7671 and it may well be - I simply can't find info on it.

 

[mainline]

Getting back to the issue at hand, I'd rather protect surface clipped tails drilled straight through a wall, than have them buried. Bear in mind these are protected only buy a fuse rated between 60-100A, although I suspect original tails run a short distance up the cavity and aren't buried.

Trunking or chased with metal plate.

 

[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.