Plug socket etiquette

liamog

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why are you asking me? Surely you should be asking the guy who owns the plug socket?

(You should consider the possibility that different owners of different plug sockets might give different answers to the question.)

As you thought it was ok to plug in the phone, i'm trying to pin you down on what the magic number is where permission should be obtained.

As to your full charge numbers, it was pointed out to you that you are using an inflated unit cost, the SEAI have a site with some data (https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/prices/) business rates would appear to be around 14c/kWh ex. vat, with VAT it's around 16c/kWh.

In order to charge at a random plug socket you use the granny charger that has a limit of approx. 10A, giving a rough cost of 36.8c/hour.

Peregrinus

liamog wrote: »

As you thought it was ok to plug in the phone, i'm trying to pin you down on what the magic number is where permission should be obtained.

I didn't say it was OK to plug in the phone. As I'm tired of pointing out, if you want to know if it's OK to plug in the phone, you have to ask the owner of the socket. This isn't that hard to grasp. Please don't make me repeat it again.

What I said was that an assumption that it's OK to plug in the phone might be defensible as reasonable, but it wouldn't follow that an assumption that its OK to plug in the car would be equally defensible as reasonable, given the cost disparity.

liamog wrote: »

As to your full charge numbers, it was pointed out to you that you are using an inflated unit cost, the SEAI have a site with some data (https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/prices/) business rates would appear to be around 14c/kWh ex. vat, with VAT it's around 16c/kWh.

In order to charge at a random plug socket you use the granny charger that has a limit of approx. 10A, giving a rough cost of 36.8c/hour.

If you're comparing free phone charging and free car charging as perks, the conventional method of valuing perks is not what it costs the provider to offer the perk; it's what it would cost you to purchase it. (For what it's worth, on a theft charge the same would apply; what you have stolen is valued on the basis of what you would have had to pay to buy it.) So for an individual charging his personal vehicle/personal phone I think the domestic electricty rate is the appropriate basis for comparison, because that's what he would pay if he charged it at home.

But I don't think it greatly matters . Plugging a lower (or higher) unit price into the calculation won't change the ratio between the cost of charging a phone and the cost of charging a car. They will still differ signficantly, and the disparity will become even greater when the value of each perk is expressed in relation to the value of the purchase that the customer is making. Therefore any argument that if one is a reasonable perk to assume the other must be equally reasonable to assume still wouldn't stand up very well.

Casati

Aside from the issue of theft, would unexpected trailing cables going from your car to a socket in an area not specifically marked out for car charging, not create a potential trip hazard? If a member of the public was to trip and injure themselves (or indeed the owner of the car park or their employee) on your cables surely you are leaving yourself open to liability for any claim?

I can see that type of claim more likely to succeed if it’s shown that the cables were being used as a tool to commit a crime - which would potentially make your car insurance void too.

Maybe just pay for your fuel?

whippet

I cant believe that this is even a conversation between adults ... if you want to use something belonging to someone else you ask permission regardless of the need / cost.

The sense of entitlement coming from some posters is ridiculous.

If you drove your ICE car in to a garden centre and there was a 5 gallon Jerry can of petrol sitting there for fuelling the lawnmowers would you feel entitled to top up your tank with it?

Peregrinus

Casati wrote: »

Aside from the issue of theft, would unexpected trailing cables going from your car to a socket in an area not specifically marked out for car charging, not create a potential trip hazard? If a member of the public was to trip and injure themselves (or indeed the owner of the car park or their employee) on your cables surely you are leaving yourself open to liability for any claim?

I can see that type of claim more likely to succeed if it’s shown that the cables were being used as a tool to commit a crime - which would potentially make your car insurance void too.

Maybe just pay for your fuel?

Whether there's a danger is going to depend on the design and layout of the carpark. If a cable from your car to the socket runs across a route that pedestrians would reasonably expected to use e.g. to walk away from the car they have just parked, or back to the car they have previously parked, if the area is maybe not brilliantly lit or the cable is just around a corner, etc., etc. - these are all factors which suggest that, yeah, it is negligent to run the cable there. On the other hand if there's a plug socket right there on the wall/pillar that marks the edge of the car bay, and your cable doesn't run outside your bay, different story.

On the other hand, who's going to get sued? If I'm the poor schlub who tripped over the cable in the dark, fell on the concrete floor and now needs expensive cosmetic dentistry, I'm going to sue the operator of the car park and] the owner/driver of the vehicle. Or, I'm going to sue the car park operator, and he will join the owner/driver of the vehicle as a defendant.

I don't care which of them is responsible, or whether they share responsiblity; it doesn't affect me as long as I get my shiny new teeth. So this is something they can agree between them, or the court can allocate fault between them.

Yeah, it hugely matters whether the driver had permission to charge. If the car park operator provides EV charging as part of the deal, then it's up to him to provide a safe system of EV charging. If he set matters up so that cable are run across a dimly-lit footway, he clearly hasn't done that. Whereas if free charging is not part of the deal, and the driver is acting dishonestly in hooking up to a plug socket some distance from his bay which is actually intended for use with cleaning and maintenance equipment, the fault or most of it is likely to be apportioned to the driver.

Will the driver's insurer disclaim cover? I'm open to correction, but I would think not. By law, motor insurance must cover "injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle", and "use" is expressly defined to include parking. So if you are negligent in the way you park the car and someone is injured as a result, the insurance should cover that. I think parking the car with a cable trailing ot of it that creates a tripping hazard for other users of the car park should be covered.

liamog

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't say it was OK to plug in the phone. As I'm tired of pointing out, if you want to know if it's OK to plug in the phone, you have to ask the owner of the socket. This isn't that hard to grasp. Please don't make me repeat it again.

In fairness you claimed it was reasonable to assume permission in the case of the restaurant with a plug next to a table, and not reasonable to assume in the case of a car park with a plug next to a space. You justified the different treatment based on a cost/service ratio. Thank you for clarifying that it's no longer reasonable to assume permission to use a plug ever.

Peregrinus wrote: »

the conventional method of valuing perks is not what it costs the provider to offer the perk; it's what it would cost you to purchase it. (For what it's worth, on a theft charge the same would apply; what you have stolen is valued on the basis of what you would have had to pay to buy it.) So for an individual charging his personal vehicle/personal phone I think the domestic electricity rate is the appropriate basis for comparison, because that's what he would pay if he charged it at home.

If we are to treat the value of the "theft" as the price the person should of paid, then we need to look at examples where charging is provided in car parks.
Most locations who provide charging to consumers in public car parks do so at a cost of 0c/kWh (Dundrum, DLR Lexicon, Point Village Car Park) because it's not worth the costs of billing infrastructure. In this case I would make the argument that the price of as the consumer of the service you have "stolen" is approx €0.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whether there's a danger is going to depend on the design and layout of the carpark. If a cable from your car to the socket runs across a route that pedestrians would reasonably expected to use e.g. to walk away from the car they have just parked, or back to the car they have previously parked, if the area is maybe not brilliantly lit or the cable is just around a corner, etc., etc. - these are all factors which suggest that, yeah, it is negligent to run the cable there. On the other hand if there's a plug socket right there on the wall/pillar that marks the edge of the car bay, and your cable doesn't run outside your bay, different story.

On the other hand, who's going to get sued? If I'm the poor schlub who tripped over the cable in the dark, fell on the concrete floor and now needs expensive cosmetic dentistry, I'm going to sue the operator of the car park and] the owner/driver of the vehicle. Or, I'm going to sue the car park operator, and he will join the owner/driver of the vehicle as a defendant.

I don't care which of them is responsible, or whether they share responsiblity; it doesn't affect me as long as I get my shiny new teeth. So this is something they can agree between them, or the court can allocate fault between them.

Yeah, it hugely matters whether the driver had permission to charge. If the car park operator provides EV charging as part of the deal, then it's up to him to provide a safe system of EV charging. If he set matters up so that cable are run across a dimly-lit footway, he clearly hasn't done that. Whereas if free charging is not part of the deal, and the driver is acting dishonestly in hooking up to a plug socket some distance from his bay which is actually intended for use with cleaning and maintenance equipment, the fault or most of it is likely to be apportioned to the driver.

Will the driver's insurer disclaim cover? I'm open to correction, but I would think not. By law, motor insurance must cover "injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle", and "use" is expressly defined to include parking. So if you are negligent in the way you park the car and someone is injured as a result, the insurance should cover that. I think parking the car with a cable trailing ot of it that creates a tripping hazard for other users of the car park should be covered.

Signs or markings don't remove the trip hazard from a trailing cable and considering a person on your property can sue for injury if you have a hole in the ground a trailing cable can be defended in any circumstances. There is no law against looking around a parked vehicle, there is a responsibility to make sure that you parked safely.

Calahonda52

ELM327 wrote: »

I charge my S90D overnight and costs about €5-6 for a full 0-100 charge

Irrelevant and boastful

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. What makes it right or wrong to use a plug socket is whether the person whose plug socket it is allows you to use it. If he does, using it is fine; if he doesn't, it's not.

What we are discussing here is, when is it reasonable to assume that he's fine with your using it? And it's much more reasonable to assume that when the use costs him a fraction of a cent, and represents maybe 0.001% of what you are paying him (phone in restaurant case) than when it costs him a thousand times more than that, and represents maybe than 10% of what you're paying him (charging car in carpark case).

Can I draw a precise line, in monetary terms, between when the assumption is reasonable and when it isn't? No, I don't have to. As all human being who live in the real world know, the fact that a line may be blurry doesn't mean that there is no line, or that there are no cases which are very clearly on one side or the other of that line. If you want know know, as opposed to merely assume, whether you can use the socket, ask the guy who owns it. If you want to know exactly what maximim value of free use he is willing to give you, ask him that too.

The difference is that in a restaurant the staff can see that you are changing your phone so can ask you to stop if they don't allow it. The vast majority of car parks aren't staffed so no one will see you charging so can't ask you to stop.

What would your reaction be if you came back to your car which you had plugged in without permission and its unplugged? If a car park doesn't advertise EV charging why do you assume its allowed?

ELM327

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Irrelevant and boastful

Neither in the slightest.
Merely to disprove the claim of 20 quid for a full charge of a smaller battery ev

whippet

liamog wrote: »

In this case I would make the argument that the price of as the consumer of the service you have "stolen" is approx €0.

Cost of the electricity is a total red herring and irrelevant to the question poised by the OP.

You have no assumed right to use anyone's electrical infrastructure. To suggest that as a EV owner you have some special rights is just farcical.

The people advocating their rights to use someone else's socket without permission are probably the same who would be most vocal about me plugging my PHEV in to a public charge point when a BEV is waiting in line behind me

ELM327

whippet wrote: »

Cost of the electricity is a total red herring and irrelevant to the question poised by the OP.

You have no assumed right to use anyone's electrical infrastructure. To suggest that as a EV owner you have some special rights is just farcical.

The people advocating their rights to use someone else's socket without permission are probably the same who would be most vocal about me plugging my PHEV in to a public charge point when a BEV is waiting in line behind me

:rolleyes:
The question posed was comparing it to someone using it to plug in a laptop.
Remind me again of the supposed special rights?


(PS: Bloody Phevs TM)

liamog

whippet wrote: »

Cost of the electricity is a total red herring and irrelevant to the question poised by the OP.

You have no assumed right to use anyone's electrical infrastructure. To suggest that as a EV owner you have some special rights is just farcical.

The people advocating their rights to use someone else's socket without permission are probably the same who would be most vocal about me plugging my PHEV in to a public charge point when a BEV is waiting in line behind me

I'm not making a claim that you have a special right as an EV owner to use a plug socket. The poster I replied to made the claim an offence has been committed by doing so and cited the "Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 s. 15(2)" as the offence which deals with "Theft of electricity and gas and related offences.". The poster put a monetary value of the theft as the non discounted average domestic rate.

whippet

ELM327 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
The question posed was comparing it to someone using it to plug in a laptop.
Remind me again of the supposed special rights?


(PS: Bloody Phevs TM)

the question posed by the OP had nothing to do with laptops .. and your initial response was

If there's an available socket in a public area I plug in.

whippet

liamog wrote: »

I'm not making a claim that you have a special right as an EV owner to use a plug socket. The poster I replied to made the claim an offence has been committed by doing so and cited the "Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 s. 15(2)" as the offence which deals with "Theft of electricity and gas and related offences.". The poster put a monetary value of the theft as the non discounted average domestic rate.

to be fair I wasn't calling you out on it - I just referenced that the OP isn't related to the costs .. but the ethics of using random sockets

Pkiernan

I remember the good old days when evey morning there was free bottles of milk outside peoples houses. Just sitting there....

ELM327

whippet wrote: »

the question posed by the OP had nothing to do with laptops .. and your initial response was

Yes but the thread evolved in the interim pages.
It's not really in the spirit to read the OP and respond pages later when your post is not relevant to the current discussion.

whippet

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes but the thread evolved in the interim pages.
It's not really in the spirit to read the OP and respond pages later when your post is not relevant to the current discussion.

Derailing threads isn’t good etiquette either .. however that’s neither here nor there

ELM327

whippet wrote: »

Derailing threads isn’t good etiquette either .. however that’s neither here nor there

I'm sure if I'm derailing a thread there will be moderator action.


Logical progression and testing =/= derailing though.


Well done on getting a jibe in without addressing the issue nonetheless.

redcup342

What a can of worms, almost sorry I asked now.

Well for myself I don't plug in without asking someone, i'd be afraid I'd cause a trip :pac:

If I was *really* stuck and there was noone around to ask I'd plug in and leave my number with a note explaining the situation on the window with my phone number.

In my view it's a bit of a grey area, it's a shame to be parked next to a power source and not use it.

kanuseeme

If there is "free electricity" it will be hogged.

Then you will have others complaining, "locals" but not if it is themselves getting it free,

Then its bring in charging for charging,

So I can imagine, all these sockets will be locked as before this new electric car age these sockets were used by people doing work around a premises and very few needed or could use a unguarded socket for anything major.

liamog

As I stated in my first post on the thread, for me I think it's case of asking permission to cover morals.

I'd apply a similar thought process to plugging in a laptop at a coffee shop, you can kind of infer by the design whether the coffee shop intend to offer plug sockets as a service.
If a car park has a solitary socket in the corner, it's probably for maintenance reasons and not intended for use by the person using the space.
If a bank of parking spaces are equipped with plug sockets, I would infer that they were provided for the parking spaces and therefore would be ok to use.

I would only ask permission in the case where the sockets appear to be designed for maintenance and not as a service.
If the car park looked like this, I would assume I can plug in.

Peregrinus

liamog wrote: »

In fairness you claimed it was reasonable to assume permission in the case of the restaurant with a plug next to a table, and not reasonable to assume in the case of a car park with a plug next to a space. You justified the different treatment based on a cost/service ratio. Thank you for clarifying that it's no longer reasonable to assume permission to use a plug ever.

You’re still not quite getting it.

I didn’t say that it was reasonable to assume charging a phone in a restaurant is fine, and I’m not now saying that it is never reasonable to assume charging anything is fine. You keep trying to reduce what I’m saying to oversimplified, black-and-white statements. Real life is not quite this two-dimensional.

The question I came into the thread to address was not the OP’s question (“Is it ethical?”) but the one you raised in post #10 (“Is it a crime?”). You came back to that question in post #17, where you said:

liamog wrote: »

I, much like the Irish statute book, define the crime of theft as taking something with the intent to deprive the original owner of it.
So in the case of a chocolate bar, as the shopkeeper no longer has the chocolate bar obviously a crime has been committed.

I am not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Taking electricity without permission is more complicated ...
Have you deprived them of the electrons, not really. But they do probably have to pay a higher bill, I don't think theft has occurred.
You've not entered into a service agreement with the payer of the bill, so there is no crime of illegally obtaining the service.

Like I say, do I think it's wrong, yes, but do I believe a crime has been committed, I'm not sure what would cover it.

I came in at that stage to point to Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 s. 15(2), which creates the offence of abstracting electricity. If you’re going to be prosecuted for charging your car or phone at someone else’s expense without permission, that’s the offence you’ll be charged with.

Right. How does the cost of the electricity bear on this?

Directly, not at all. Nothing in s. 15(2) says that there is a threshold value, and that if you abstract electricity worth less than this you have committed no offence. You can be prosecuted for stealing any amount of electricity.

But, indirectly, it could be relevant in two ways.

First, the district judge will be impatient if somebody is prosecuted for theft of an item of literally trivial value. If you visit my house and, while there, charge your phone without my permission, and I prosecute you for abstracting less than 1c worth of electricity, the judge will reckon that this isn’t really about the electricity; that this is a vendetta; that you and I have a bad relationship and I am not really doing this because I care about the electricity but because I want to lash out at you - something like that. And he’ll say this is not what the courts are for, the scale of this offence is too trivial to prosecute, this is oppressive, I’m throwing this out.

But people are prosecuted for stealing things of little value - packets of chewing gum, chocolate bars. Usually this is because, while the individual offence may be minor, it’s part of a pattern in which this offence is common, and in total it’s a significant problem - shoplifting. So you’d be more likely to be prosecuted if restaurateurs feel that unwanted phone charging happens on a scale that causes them a problem, or if car park operators feel that about unwanted car charging.

The second way it could be relevant is if you want to defend the claim by saying that you were not charging your phone or car “dishonestly”; that you sincerely believed that you were allowed to do this, and that you had an objectively good reason for believing this. And in that case the value of the electricity is one of the factors that might be taken into account in deciding whether to accept that defence. Believing that you were being given a phone charge worth a few cents as a perk on an evening in a restaurant where you and you party spent more than €100 is one thing; believing that you were being given a car battery charge worth maybe €6 - €10 as a perk on a day’s parking for which you paid perhaps €35 would be something else. You can’t say that the first belief is always sincere and reasonable or that the second belief is never sincere and reasonable - in each case, there are other factors that would go into the assessment of your sincerity and reasonableness - but equally you can’t say that the two beliefs are equally reasonable, if only because one perk is startlingly generous by comparison with the other

The value of the electricity isn’t even the biggest factor that might go into this assessment. As you point out yourself, if every bay comes with its own power outlet conveniently positioned for charging, it become much more reasonable to think you are being invited to charge than if you have to run an extension cable 20m across the floor and round a corner to connect to a wall socket. Facts like either of those might enable the court to make a decision without even considering the value of the electricity

liamog wrote: »

If we are to treat the value of the "theft" as the price the person should of paid, then we need to look at examples where charging is provided in car parks.
Most locations who provide charging to consumers in public car parks do so at a cost of 0c/kWh (Dundrum, DLR Lexicon, Point Village Car Park) because it's not worth the costs of billing infrastructure. In this case I would make the argument that the price of as the consumer of the service you have "stolen" is approx €0.

No, because free charging is provided only to paying customers of those particular car parks, and you are not a paying customer of those car parks because you’re in my car park, where I don’t provide free charging. The fact that they have made a business decision to provide this perk doesn’t mean that you are sincere and reasonable in believing that I have made the same decision.

Chocolate bars or chewing gum are sometimes given away free as promotions or incentives. This doesn’t mean that you can defeat a shoplifting charge by saying that chocolate and chewing gum have a nil value.

liamog

Peregrinus wrote: »

The second way it could be relevant is if you want to defend the claim by saying that you were not charging your phone or car “dishonestly”; that you sincerely believed that you were allowed to do this, and that you had an objectively good reason for believing this. And in that case the value of the electricity is one of the factors that might be taken into account in deciding whether to accept that defence. Believing that you were being given a phone charge worth a few cents as a perk on an evening in a restaurant where you and you party spent more than €100 is one thing; believing that you were being given a car battery charge worth maybe €6 - €10 as a perk on a day’s parking for which you paid perhaps €35 would be something else. You can’t say that the first belief is always sincere and reasonable or that the second belief is never sincere and reasonable - in each case, there are other factors that would go into the assessment of your sincerity and reasonableness - but equally you can’t say that the two beliefs are equally reasonable, if only because one perk is startlingly generous by comparison with the other

Unfortunately many people will have this expectation, there are essentially two forms of chargers in public car parks currently operating in the state, eCars chargers with a membership that happen to be hosted in the car park (accessed via a membership card), and free chargers provided by the car park operator.

To equate it back to your chocolate bar analogy, this would be like if the majority of chocolate bars were given as free promo items, some were accessed via a membership card to open a locked box, and then a business placed a pile of chocolate bars on a counter with no signage to indicate a price and then complained when you took one without asking.

Peregrinus

liamog wrote: »

Unfortunately many people will have this expectation, there are essentially two forms of chargers in public car parks currently operating in the state, eCars chargers with a membership that happen to be hosted in the car park (accessed via a membership card), and free chargers provided by the car park operator.

To equate it back to your chocolate bar analogy, this would be like if the majority of chocolate bars were given as free promo items, some were accessed via a membership card to open a locked box, and then a business placed a pile of chocolate bars on a counter with no signage to indicate a price and then complained when you took one without asking.

And this goes back to the photograph you posted earlier. If there's a row of plug sockets, one per bay, obviously positioned to facilitate charging cars in parking bays, and hard to explain if they are not for that purpose, I think a defence of "I really thought I was being invited to charge my car" probably has a good chance of success. The more so where the car park is attached, say, to a shopping centre, and the operator has in interest in encouraging people to resort to the shopping centre; that would explain why he would offer perks. But if it's a free-standing city-centre car park not associated with any particular business, and there's just a regular plug socket on the wall and your parking bay happens to be near it, different story. And I think factors like those are going to be a much bigger issue than comparisons with charging phones in restaurants and coffee shops.

KCross

I cant see how anyone can argue the case for a 3 pin socket in a public car park as "free game" to charge their car.

Unless there is one positioned at each bay and labelled as such its not reasonable to assume you can plug into that for hours at a time.

And apart from the ethics/legality of it, its a fire hazard because you have no knowledge of whether that socket is on a ring circuit or a dedicated line. If you plug in and pull the max current through that socket for hours and hours and the socket is sharing its feed with other sockets it is a serious fire hazard as one of those other sockets could get used at the same time or at the very least going to cause a switch to trip for overloading.

Im sure the entitled among you will say thats their fault not mine, but are you going to be as confident in front of the judge explaining why your actions and car precipitated an electrical fire!

Cork car park fire...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-60-cars-scorched-in-accidental-cork-car-park-blaze-1.4004015

I know the circumstances are different there but the end result could be the same.

redcup342

KCross wrote: »

I cant see how anyone can argue the case for a 3 pin socket in a public car park as "free game" to charge their car.

Unless there is one positioned at each bay and labelled as such its not reasonable to assume you can plug into that for hours at a time.

And apart from the ethics/legality of it, its a fire hazard because you have no knowledge of whether that socket is on a ring circuit or a dedicated line. If you plug in and pull the max current through that socket for hours and hours and the socket is sharing its feed with other sockets it is a serious fire hazard as one of those other sockets could get used at the same time or at the very least going to cause a switch to trip for overloading.

Im sure the entitled among you will say thats their fault not mine, but are you going to be as confident in front of the judge explaining why your actions and car precipitated an electrical fire!

Cork car park fire...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-60-cars-scorched-in-accidental-cork-car-park-blaze-1.4004015

I know the circumstances are different there but the end result could be the same.

I'm pretty sure if it was found out afterwards that the Commercial Premises didn't have the circuit with at the very least a fuse or an RCD with overcurrent protection they would be in serious trouble.

The worst you can expect is the RCD will trip.

ESB Require it when installing anyway:
https://www.esbnetworks.ie/docs/default-source/publications/national-code-of-practice

KCross

redcup342 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if it was found out afterwards that the Commercial Premises didn't have the circuit with at the very least a fuse or an RCD with overcurrent protection they would be in serious trouble.

The worst you can expect is the RCD will trip.

ESB Require it when installing anyway:
https://www.esbnetworks.ie/docs/default-source/publications/national-code-of-practice

I agree, as I said, it should at the very least trip the switch. Doesnt make it right to use it though.

Its a bit of a stretch to think that a 3 pin socket that was probably put in for building maintenance reasons many years ago had EV's in mind.

liamog

KCross wrote: »

I agree, as I said, it should at the very least trip the switch. Doesnt make it right to use it though.

Its a bit of a stretch to think that a 3 pin socket that was probably put in for building maintenance reasons many years ago had EV's in mind.

Whilst I do agree with you, you can see why some people might jump to this convenient conclusion. My mate just moved into an apartment, there was a sign next to a plug socket saying the socket was only to be used by the building maintenance team. He wasn't sure why there would be a sign until he saw a Leaf using it with a granny charger.

KCross

liamog wrote: »

Whilst I do agree with you, you can see why some people might jump to this convenient conclusion.

Its just freeloader mentality. We see it all the time. Its wrong and they know its wrong.

liamog wrote: »

My mate just moved into an apartment, there was a sign next to a plug socket saying the socket was only to be used by the building maintenance team. He wasn't sure why there would be a sign until he saw a Leaf using it with a granny charger.

At least they had the sense to add the sign. Fair play to them.