Consumer unit location

[securespark]

Can new heights be imposed retrospectively on existing installations?

i.e. If I wire a socket, am I therefore obliged to raise the height of all the sockets in the house and change the heights of the switches as well?

That's one thing (not that I believe there would be an obligation there either), but the OP had no involvement in the positioning of the consumer unit, he simply inherited it upon purchase of the property.

 

[davelx]

Can new heights be imposed retrospectively on existing installations?

i.e. If I wire a socket, am I therefore obliged to raise the height of all the sockets in the house and change the heights of the switches as well?

The height requirements for sockets, etc. are not part of the wiring regs, they are in Part M of the Building Regs which deals with accessibility and apply only to new builds/major refurbishments (not rewires!). For existing buildings, the requirement is to leave things no worse than they were before you started.

So no.

 

[SimonH2]

As per your other thread from a while ago, check your leasehold and see what it says.

If you are certain you have complied with any requirements, and they refuse some bit of paperwork, then write and tell them that they are in breach of the leasehold agreement and give them 14 days to comply. As above, CC the council solicitor.
Add out that should they fail to comply, you will report the officers concerned, and those responsible for managing them, for malfeasance in public office.

Might be worth waiting to see what they come back with regarding your request for them to state what regulations or leasehold terms you have failed to comply with. If you don't get a prompt answer, write again stating that you have not had an answer and give them 14 days to respond.


As long as you are in the right, then you can make things very difficult for the people concerned. Once people realise that a) they don't have a leg to stand on, b) they aren't going to bully the other side, and c) it's going to cause sh*t for them, then they usually back down sharpish.

 

[skenk]

If BC have told you it needs checked by a contractor (because they have a concern about the state of electrics) they might be happy with a satisfactory condition report (EICR). Maybe an option if alternatives are going to be a lot of hassle or take time (then again an EICR could bring up unknown existing problems with the electrics, although it should be in your interest to get these fixed). If you go antagonising, they could try and cover their backsides by finding parts of the work you have done which don't comply with the letter to the building regs. Offering to provide a condition report could give them with a way to back down without looking like they've screwed up/accepting they were wrong. You would still have to pay for the certificate though, and any required remedial works.

 

[Tricky9]

Thanks again for the replies everyone. I'm awaiting a response from the council before proceeding (I've emailed them asking for a detailed explanation of exactly what regulations are being breached, & if non are being breached can we just get on with it).

Skenk - Building Control are happy with the works, they've inspected it and issued a Building Completion certificate. It's the leaseholder department of the council who are arguing it, seemingly refusing to accept what building control has said. I'm just the lemon stuck in the middle!

 

[bernardgreen]

davelx mentioned the point that Part M sets height requirments for electrics in new builds.

I would say the Lease Hold officers are including Part M into the equation when from what the OP has said Part M is not applicable.

 

[JohnW2]

davelx mentioned the point that Part M sets height requirments for electrics in new builds. I would say the Lease Hold officers are including Part M into the equation when from what the OP has said Part M is not applicable.

I think it's new builds and (major) renovations. However, even if part M applied (which I'm sure it doesn't), AFAIAA it only talks about the heights of 'switches and socket outlets', and I would have thought that it was streching things a bit to argue that this includes CU's, because a CU contains 'switch(es)'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

There is a Part M "consideration" / requirement that consumer units also be accessible to people with limited mobility in the same way as switches and sockets should be in a new build.

 

[JohnW2]

There is a Part M "consideration" / requirement that consumer units also be accessible to people with limited mobility in the same way as switches and sockets should be in a new build.

I'm not arguing with you, but I personally haven't seen that in Part M.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Part M uses the word "controls" in section 4 and MCBs RCDs and main switches seem to be considered as "controls"

 

[riveralt]

Part M uses the word "controls" in section 4 and MCBs RCDs and main switches seem to be considered as "controls"

That Section is for Buildings other than dwellings - I thought the OP had a flat?

 

[JohnW2]

Part M uses the word "controls" in section 4 and MCBs RCDs and main switches seem to be considered as "controls"

As riveralt has said, 'Section 4' is not relevant to dwellings. The only relevant section is 'Section 8', and, as I said that only mentions switches and socket outlets.

Also, before BAS comes along to tell us, it is worth pointing out that we are all talking about Sections of 'Approved Document M', not 'the law' (Part M of the Building Regs). Just as with Part P, Part M of the Building Regs ('the law') itself says very little, and absolutely nothing specific about electrical installations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Also, before BAS comes along to tell us, it is worth pointing out that we are all talking about Sections of 'Approved Document M', not 'the law' (Part M of the Building Regs). Just as with Part P, Part M of the Building Regs ('the law') itself says very little, and absolutely nothing specific about electrical installations.

..talking of which, has anyone succeeded in downloading the 2013 version of App Doc M? Every time I've tried, I've failed - so I am relying on the 2004 version (with 2010 amendmends) plus the 2013 'changes' document. Is it just a problem at my end?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

My error

Reading section 8.2 is not clear "sockets for lighting and other equipment"

Is that other equipment that plugs into sockets or eqipment other than sockets and switches.

 

[riveralt]

Also, before BAS comes along to tell us, it is worth pointing out that we are all talking about Sections of 'Approved Document M', not 'the law' (Part M of the Building Regs). Just as with Part P, Part M of the Building Regs ('the law') itself says very little, and absolutely nothing specific about electrical installations.

..talking of which, has anyone succeeded in downloading the 2013 version of App Doc M? Every time I've tried, I've failed - so I am relying on the 2004 version (with 2010 amendmends) plus the 2013 'changes' document. Is it just a problem at my end?

Kind Regards, John

You have to save it to a file rather than a direct download.
Took about five goes before I changed tack - kept getting stuck at 1.56.