Light switch height

[Intoelectrics]

Let's be honest - regardless of whether it's required in these circumstances, it's good practice to fit them at these heights. So I certainly wouldn't be overly critical of the Electrician.

In the south of Ireland it's part of the Wiring Rules and therefore must be done in all circumstances, including adding an extra point to an existing installation - even where this results in a mismatch of heights. Personally I don't agree with this idea of rewiring the entire place but keeping the old heights - it seems wrong and lazy to me. But by all means ask him if he's willing to do it that way.

I disagree, with some of your post (in bold)
My opinion is, it's good practice to try and meet the clients preferred requirement so long as it complies with the regs.
Why is retaining the old heights wrong or lazy? provided they are accessible and meet the regulations for that particular install then why make extra unnecessary work?

 

[telectrix]

you need to get your sparks to liase with BC

The details of electrical fitting heights:


In new dwellings only, switches and socket-outlets for lighting and other equipment should be between 450mm and 1200mm from finished floor level.

source: Light Switch & Socket Heights: What’s Right? | Premier Guarantee - https://www.premierguarantee.com/resource-hub/are-your-electrical-fittings-the-right-height/

clear as a bell. use this post to educate the silly buggers.

 

[Andy78]

Further info

Q & A of the Day – What height should sockets be installed at when re-wiring a property?

James asks this question, which concerns socket heights in existing residential properties. It has been answered by the NICEIC (Theme – Regulation and Legislation):

www.voltimum.co.uk

 

[Risteard]

I disagree, with some of your post (in bold)
My opinion is, it's good practice to try and meet the clients preferred requirement so long as it complies with the regs.
Why is retaining the old heights wrong or lazy? provided they are accessible and meet the regulations for that particular install then why make extra unnecessary work?

The requirement of the Building Regulations exists for a reason so I don't see how you can possibly argue that it's not good practice to observe this even where not strictly required.

Clients' preferred requirements aren't always informed decisions. Some haven't liked the location or presence of smoke detectors but BS 5639 requirements take precedence over their misguided opinions every time.

 

[telectrix]

The requirement of the Building Regulations exists for a reason so I don't see how you can possibly argue that it's not good practice to observe this even where not strictly required.

Clients' preferred requirements aren't always informed decisions. Some haven't liked the location or presence of smoke detectors but BS 5639 requirements take precedence over their misguided opinions every time.

these same building regs. that think gobbing a sheets of plasterboard onto crumble blocks is an acceptable construction method: roof trusses that will just about support a roof while making loft space inaccessible with 2 ft. of itchy-poo to anything bigger than one of snow white's dwarfs: need i go on?

 

[Risteard]

these same building regs. that think gobbing a sheets of plasterboard onto crumble blocks is an acceptable construction method: roof trusses that will just about support a roof while making loft space inaccessible with 2 ft. of itchy-poo to anything bigger than one of snow white's dwarfs: need i go on?

Those are minimum requirements. Really has nothing to do with accessibility or usability though, which is what is being discussed.

As I said, by all means ask him if he's willing to keep existing heights - but I certainly wouldn't criticise him for promoting the new heights. As I say, they're there for a reason.

 

[Andy78]

Those are minimum requirements. Really has nothing to do with accessibility or usability though, which is what is being discussed.

As I said, by all means ask him if he's willing to keep existing heights - but I certainly wouldn't criticise him for promoting the new heights. As I say, they're there for a reason.

It appears in this case that the installing electrician is not recommending or promoting compliance with building regs for reasons of accessibility, but saying they are a requirement which is incorrect. I think slight criticism is warranted for this viewpoint which is probably born of ignorance.

 

[Zerax]

...
As I said, by all means ask him if he's willing to keep existing heights - but I certainly wouldn't criticise him for promoting the new heights. As I say, they're there for a reason.

From the way I read the OP... he wasn't simply 'promoting', he was insisting that the regulations required it. I think it's safe to say that we're all agreed that he's wrong on that point... so, having made the homeowner aware of what he would like to do, he should now do what the homeowner wants him to do.

...just saying

 

[Taylortwocities]

Socket heights are a component of Building regulations Part M. They apply to new dwellings and to dwellings undergoing what is termed "material alteration".
A rewire of an existing building is neither of these. Tell him to read the building regs.

If he is to apply Part M, then there would need to be ramps, a downstairs WC with wheelchair access, all sorts of things.

 

[David Prosser]

He is not risking anything. Building control don't give the electrician any form of certification.

 

[Intoelectrics]

The requirement of the Building Regulations exists for a reason so I don't see how you can possibly argue that it's not good practice to observe this even where not strictly required.

Yes and where there is a requirement to follow the building regs then it is good practice to do so. But as in the example of the OP's situation setting the switches and sockets at the stipulate height tolerances is not a requirement. Also a pointless operation if the client does not require it since the whole idea of making things more accessible is to accommodate wheel chair users, not required in this case. If the building fabric/layout was being altered to accommodate this then sure you would be required to follow the regs regarding the heights.

Clients' preferred requirements aren't always informed decisions. Some haven't liked the location or presence of smoke detectors but BS 5639 requirements take precedence over their misguided opinions every time.

This is not even a valid analogy,
Smoke detectors serve a purpose for one thing only - safety! Heights of accessories is mainly about accessibility and convenience one could argue that it also comes under welfare but its not potentially life threatening now is it?

The bottom line is, I would advise my client accordingly and offer them the choice if they had one.
[automerge]1568895357[/automerge]

Those are minimum requirements. Really has nothing to do with accessibility or usability though, which is what is being discussed.

As I said, by all means ask him if he's willing to keep existing heights - but I certainly wouldn't criticise him for promoting the new heights. As I say, they're there for a reason.

There is nothing wrong with promoting the new heights, but to state that it is a requirement when in this situation it is clearly not is wrong and misleading. The client has a choice on this occasion, regardless of what the electrician would prefer personally, they should be open and honest and only offer what they feel is the best advice. If the electrician feels he/she cannot commit what the client prefers then they can simply walk away.

 

[Suet33]

Got them to change it

Thanks for the help everyone - just about to post my next ?problem now - watch this space

 

[telectrix]

Got them to change it

Thanks for the help everyone - just about to post my next ?problem now - watch this space

can't wait. post it.