Fulfilling Requirements of Part M of building regs.

[Fuzzy165]

I am looking for some clarification on the requirements for Part M of building regs.

First off off a bit of background...
I have completed 80% of the install in a large new build house. The client is now refusing to pay me our outstanding money for the work completed so far.

Their complaint is that sockets, switches, stats and the ccu are at the wrong heights. I know the details re 450mm to bottom of socket, 1200mm to top of switch etc. but I was under the impression that that only applied where the end user of the dwelling was unknown. This is a self build project where the end user is known and all equipment has been installed as requested. The sockets are at 450mm to centre, switches at 1200mm to centre, stats at 1500mm to bottom and ccu is a double stacked unit 1250mm at bottom and about 1650 at the top.

They are saying that this is against regs and they are withholding payment and are threatening to charge me for getting another electrician in to complete repairs.

I have spoken to the LBC and they have said that they would be happy to sign it off. Client is saying that they don't care what LBC says they are not happy and will not pay.

What are the regs, is it a legal requirement or just a recommendation, does the fact that the end user is known have any bearing?

I have a feeling that they are just trying to find any excuse not to pay and to get someone else in to finish it for cheaper than our price.

All advice/guidance gratefully received!

 

[wozz]

Do you have a contract that states heights? If not and LABC are happy the customer is definitely being a arsehole and just finding any reason not to pay you. the customer knows LABC are happy about the heights?

 

[topquark]

The heights in Part M are a recommendation on how to meet the disability requirement for access. Irrespective of what your LABC says, the customer is the ultimate arbiter and they are quite within their rights to insist you change it unfortunately. ..... You could always try arguing that you have exceed the requirement by mounting them lower!


The words in Part M1 section 8 are:

OBJECTIVE
[SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]8.1[/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]The aim is to assist those people 
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]whose reach is limited to use the dwelling 
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]more easily by locating wall-mounted switches
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]and socket outlets at suitable heights.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]Design considerations[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]8.2[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]Switches and socket outlets for [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]lighting and other equipment should be [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]located so that they are easily r[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]eachable.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]Provisions[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]8.3[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]A way of satisfying Requirement M1 [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]would be to pr[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]ovide switches and socket [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]outlets for lighting and other equipment in [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]habitable rooms at appropriate heights [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]between 450mm and 1200mm from finished[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][FONT=courier new]floor level (see Diagram 29)[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[telectrix]

but if heights have been previously agreed, the it's back to customer being an arsehole.

 

[Fuzzy165]

The heights are not stated in the contract but contract does state that installation will comply with bs7671.
The positions of all sockets and switches were agreed with client on site.

 

[Andy78]

The heights are not stated in the contract but contract does state that installation will comply with bs7671.
The positions of all sockets and switches were agreed with client on site.

Don't worry, it does.
This guy sounds like he is trying it on big time!

• BS7671 does not contain any specific heights for accessories.
• Part M of the building regs recommends a set height to help comply with the requirements for ease of use.
• You have installed the accessories at an agreed height with the client.
• There is no-one that requires restricted access height accessories living at the premises
• LABC are happy to sign it off.

Put all this in a letter to the client referencing relevant sections from the regs, tell him he has 30 days to pay. Offer to change the heights of all accessories at the client's cost, as previous heights were agreed with him on site and extra work is chargeable.

 

[wozz]

The heights in Part M are a recommendation on how to meet the disability requirement for access. Irrespective of what your LABC says, the customer is the ultimate arbiter and they are quite within their rights to insist you change it unfortunately. ..... You could always try arguing that you have exceed the requirement by mounting them lower!


The words in Part M1 section 8 are:

We are talking about a small distance here, are you happy with your customers not paying you for accessories that are a few mill out because you have not met part m? Where do you draw the line agree tolerances with customer? They are trying it on.

 

[topquark]

We are talking about a small distance here, are you happy with your customers not paying you for accessories that are a few mill out because you have not met part m? Where do you draw the line agree tolerances with customer? They are trying it on.

The OP asked for clarification of Part M. That's what I gave.

I think they are trying it on, but what I think about that doesn't help. As I said the OP should try arguing the requirement has been exceeded!

 

[sparkee]

Why not get your scheme provider involved and let them earn some of their money.....

 

[Andy78]

The OP asked for clarification of Part M. That's what I gave.

I think they are trying it on, but what I think about that doesn't help. As I said the OP should try arguing the requirement has been exceeded!

He can't argue the requirement has been exceeded as the accessories are slightly outside the recommended heights.

 

[Fuzzy165]

Why not get your scheme provider involved and let them earn some of their money.....

Well that's another issue...
i am not currently registered with a self-cert scheme. Had been with niceic years ago but had let it lapse as I was only doing large commercial work as a subbie. I'm in the process of joining elecsa (have paid fee and am just waiting for assessment to be booked). I had originally planned to be using this job for the assessment but I now can't because it won't be complete.
I've spoken to LABC and they're happy for job to either be signed off by them or me once elecsa registration is complete and job is finished.

 

[topquark]

He can't argue the requirement has been exceeded as the accessories are slightly outside the recommended heights.

The objective was to enable someone of limited reach to access them, lower is better IMO.

 

[Andy78]

The objective was to enable someone of limited reach to access them, lower is better IMO.

Lower is better for light switches yes, but he has put them fractionally higher. And higher is better for sockets, for someone in a wheelchair, but he has put them fractionally lower.

 

[snowhead]

They can't charge you for the cost of getting someone else in.
The first course of action is to give you the opportunity to rectify the situation IF it can be proved the installation doesn't meet client spec.

However the positions were agreed, in writing or witnessed I hope, and it does appear to meet BS7671.

Then look at it another way if you were the "Other" Electrician being asked to alter it would you question why and would you or anyone else actually do the job, which hasn't been signed off yet?

 

[7029 dave]

New build?, well you must have worked to spec drawings for the Electrical installation, supplied by the customer/ Architect surely.?

 

[wozz]

sounds more like a self build, never seen anyone spec socket heights on a newbuild, other than possibly part m heights, which may only appear in the notes.

Honestly we are talking about a few mill here if this is how customers can behave and get away with it then god help you all dealing with these people. or if this is commonplace and acceptable i dont think i will ever have to pay for a trademans service again.

What exactly is their problem anyway? building control are happy, its not like you can see the difference. chancers

 

[snowhead]

What exactly is their problem anyway?

It's a Self Build, they've run out / are running out of money.

 

[wozz]

quite possibly nail on head

 

[Fuzzy165]

Sockets are lower than they should be and switches/stats are higher, making them less accessible. Regardless LABC have said they would pass it as difference is minimal (50mm) and they would still be considered as easily accessible.

The issue remains though, the customer is now saying that they are not happy and want them moved. And that they will be employing another electrician to complete the work as they now feel that I have failed to complete the installation correctly and am in breach of contract. WTF!

 

[wozz]

They are different by a height that changes nothing if all had been 2mm out due to thicker carpet what then?

What contract? does it specify tolerances?

you can offer to rectify and get full payment and they make good, which may mean you get your money quicker, or you could start going legal on them.

are they doing this to any other trades?