bathrooms

[holmslaw]

Decided to start a new topic, cos the other one has turned into girlie squabbling between bas, softus and fingrinal.

The definition of "special location" in The Building Regulations is not "a room with a bath or shower in it", it is a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards
Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2.

I don't think anyone can logically argue against bas's interpretation, he is also correct that the building regs are the only applicable statutory standard.

However, I've taken the time to read the relevant sections of 16th, 17th and part p approved document. If these documents had stuck rigidly to the term "locations containing a bath etc" there would be no confusion. But they all variously mention "bathrooms" and it is at that point the situation becomes a nonsense.

I'll give one example - part p approved document says "In large bathrooms, the location containing a bath or shower is defined by the walls of the bathroom". This statement seems to be a direct contradiction of the building regs. In that it defines the "location" as the "bathroom", rather than "location within the zones".

If I were doing a bathroom tomorrow I would comply with the dimensioned zones, bonding and provision of rcd's to ALL circuits and I would not install ANY 13Amp sockets. The installation would then comply with the 16th, 17th, partp approved document and the building regs. And if the client has a problem with that, he can get someone else to do the job.

Try explaining to your stroppy adolescent daughter why she should not use her hair dryer in the bath, or sit her mains powered radio on the side of the bath, when 3mts away there is a 13A socket. OK, so its rcd protected, does it work, will it still be working in 10 years time - your guess is as good as mine.

I've always thought the 16th and 17th bathroom regs where a load of old b******s and I've never read, seen or heard anything to convince me otherwise.

What do you others think.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think anyone can logically argue against bas's interpretation

Would that everyone else agreed with you

However, I've taken the time to read the relevant sections of 16th, 17th and part p approved document. If these documents had stuck rigidly to the term "locations containing a bath etc" there would be no confusion. But they all variously mention "bathrooms" and it is at that point the situation becomes a nonsense.

I don't see how it's a nonsense.

When the Building Regulations use the term "special location" they do not mean it in the same way as the Wiring Regulations. Which is fair enough - those two words are probably used in all sorts of other contexts to mean all sorts of other things.

The Building Regulations are full of definitions - over two pages of them, including what they mean when they use words like "building", "day", "flat", "shop"...

And thus they define what they mean by "special location", and I think that nearly everyone here understands the definition even if they don't agree that it's what was meant, or don't agree that it's what the definition should be.

I'll give one example - part p approved document says "In large bathrooms, the location containing a bath or shower is defined by the walls of the bathroom". This statement seems to be a direct contradiction of the building regs. In that it defines the "location" as the "bathroom", rather than "location within the zones".

So on the one hand you have a definition in a Statutory Instrument, i.e. in regulations made by the Government under the auspices of an Act of Parliament, which have been laid before Parliament and amended more than once, and on the other you have advice in a much less formal document...

If I were doing a bathroom tomorrow I would comply with the dimensioned zones, bonding and provision of rcd's to ALL circuits and I would not install ANY 13Amp sockets. The installation would then comply with the 16th, 17th, partp approved document and the building regs. And if the client has a problem with that, he can get someone else to do the job.

As you feel so strongly about it I hope your personal circumstances and the wider economy remain prosperous enough for you to be able to refuse to carry out legitimate client requests.

I also hope you make it quite clear that it's your own personal prejudice, and don't give your customers the impression that they aren't allowed sockets.

 

[FingRinal]

If I were doing a bathroom tomorrow I would comply with the dimensioned zones, bonding and provision of rcd's to ALL circuits and I would not install ANY 13Amp sockets. The installation would then comply with the 16th, 17th, partp approved document and the building regs. And if the client has a problem with that, he can get someone else to do the job.

As you feel so strongly about it I hope your personal circumstances and the wider economy remain prosperous enough for you to be able to refuse to carry out legitimate client requests.

Why are you asserting that a declaration to comply with BS7671, Approved Document P and the Building Regs is somehow akin to refusing to carry out legitimate work?

I also hope you make it quite clear that it's your own personal prejudice, and don't give your customers the impression that they aren't allowed sockets.

Why are you asserting that a declaration to comply with BS7671, Approved Document P and the Building Regs is somehow akin to personal prejudice?

If an electrician carries out a risk assessment and determines that a socket, even if allowable in theory, consitutes too much risk in practise, the final decision rests with the electrician and not the likes up Jonny Jump Ups like you who would be the first to wave his EIC and make a claim on his insurance.

 

[Richard C]

Decided to start a new topic, cos the other one has turned into girlie squabbling between bas, softus and fingrinal.

Did you honestly think it would be as easy as that!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why are you asserting that a declaration to comply with BS7671, Approved Document P and the Building Regs is somehow akin to refusing to carry out legitimate work?

Why are you picking out those aspects of what holmslaw said, and not his refusal to fit socket outlets?

Sockets are now allowed in bathrooms, so it is legitimate for a customer to ask for them, and it is legitimate for an electrician to install them.

Why are you asserting that a declaration to comply with BS7671, Approved Document P and the Building Regs is somehow akin to personal prejudice?

Why are you picking those aspects out of what holmslaw said, and not his refusal to fit socket outlets because of his own personal beliefs?

Jonny Jump Ups like you

That's uncalled for.

Can we all look forward to disruption and pettiness from you in this topic?

 

[holmslaw]

Decided to start a new topic, cos the other one has turned into girlie squabbling between bas, softus and fingrinal.

Did you honestly think it would be as easy as that!

Ha, Ha, Ha, best laugh I've had all day, thanks richardc

 

[FingRinal]

Why are you picking out those aspects of what holmslaw said, and not his refusal to fit socket outlets?

Read my whole reply! I expect you did so I can only conclude that it's just you being you and that you are bugged because he mentioned everthing excpet BAS7671

Sockets are now allowed in bathrooms, so it is legitimate for a customer to ask for them, and it is legitimate for an electrician to install them.

Yep, you missed the point. I'm starting to think you are just thick now.

Jonny Jump Ups like you

That's uncalled for.

How else would you refer to someone who can't read, can't understand and think they have the right to tell someone how to do their job regardless of their proessional judgement? How else would you refer to someone who goes out of their way to deliberately belittle professionals?

Can we all look forward to disruption and pettiness from you in this topic?

Only if you continue to issue insulting diatribes of utter contempt and gibberish.

 

[Pensdown]

I don't think anyone can logically argue against bas's interpretation, he is also correct that the building regs are the only applicable statutory standard.

Since when did an argument with FR need to be logical?

However, I've taken the time to read the relevant sections of 16th, 17th and part p approved document. If these documents had stuck rigidly to the term "locations containing a bath etc" there would be no confusion. But they all variously mention "bathrooms" and it is at that point the situation becomes a nonsense.

IMO 7671 & Part P are two individual regulations and it depends on who you are whether one or both apply.

For example, anyone who chooses the BC notification option only has to meet P1. However, if they employ a contractor he/she must meet P1 and carry out the works in accordance with the current edition of 7671 or risk loosing their self certification status.

Although PP does refer to 7671, for a DIYer most of the references are irrelevant. BC must decide if P1 has been met based on the SI

I'll give one example - part p approved document says "In large bathrooms, the location containing a bath or shower is defined by the walls of the bathroom". This statement seems to be a direct contradiction of the building regs. In that it defines the "location" as the "bathroom", rather than "location within the zones".

The building regs are correct and the buffoons who wrote the approved document should have read the SI

If I were doing a bathroom tomorrow I would comply with the dimensioned zones, bonding and provision of rcd's to ALL circuits and I would not install ANY 13Amp sockets. The installation would then comply with the 16th, 17th, partp approved document and the building regs. And if the client has a problem with that, he can get someone else to do the job.

But what if you were a DIYer? You don’t need to do any of that. As long as the work meets P1 and you've notified BC you’ve complied. I’m not saying DIYer’s can do as they like, they just don’t have to comply with the same set of regulations as someone who’s been approved to self certify

 

[securespark]

I interpreted what holms wrote as being a personal decision not to fit socket outlets in a bathroom.

I also interpreted what he wrote as accepting that 7671 now allows the same, but choosing not to install them all the same.

FR, without being unneccesarily rude (which you've done several times already), can you tell me what point of yours we are obviously missing?

 

[FingRinal]

I interpreted what holms wrote as being a personal decision not to fit socket outlets in a bathroom.

I also interpreted what he wrote as accepting that 7671 now allows the same, but choosing not to install them all the same.

FR, without being unneccesarily rude (which you've done several times already), can you tell me what point of yours we are obviously missing?

I agree with you. It appears however, that BAS does not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I interpreted what holms wrote as being a personal decision not to fit socket outlets in a bathroom.

So did I, which is why I used the term "personal prejudice" in my reply to him.

I also interpreted what he wrote as accepting that 7671 now allows the same, but choosing not to install them all the same.

So did I, which is why I wrote the phrase "refuse to carry out legitimate client requests"

FR, without being unneccesarily rude (which you've done several times already), can you tell me what point of yours we are obviously missing?

I doubt that he has one which he's prepared to tell us about.

I agree with you. It appears however, that BAS does not.

It would seem that all 3 of us agree.