wall socket replacements

[ban-all-sheds]

And on this particular issue, there are those who seem to read what isn't there.

"Must be no worse than existing," is a phrase quoted a lot, but nowhere in the regulations does it say any such thing.

They may not contain that exact phrase.

But what they do say is this:

An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

and this

Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed -

(a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or

(b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or

(c)any controlled service or fitting,

complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out.

So I think that "Must be no worse than existing" is quite reasonable.

 

[PBC_1966]

I would agree that for most parts of the regulations a "no worse than existing" requirement would apply, but look under Part M in Schedule 1 and it states quite explicitly that:

The requirements of this Part do not apply to - (a) an extension of or material alteration of a dwelling

If the requirements of Part M do not apply to a material alteration of a dwelling, then they can't be "applicable requirements of Schedule 1" in this situation, surely?

 

[stillp]

And therefore "where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out" applies.

 

[PBC_1966]

And therefore "where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out" applies.

But no such requirement exists in this sitiuation. Part M says so itself.

 

[stillp]

The requirements of Schedule 1 of Part M do not apply. However, they exist, and therefore the sentence makes perfect sense in requiring that the work is no more unsatisfactory in relation to the requirements [although they don't apply] than before the work was carried out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would agree that for most parts of the regulations a "no worse than existing" requirement would apply, but look under Part M in Schedule 1 and it states quite explicitly that:

The requirements of this Part do not apply to - (a) an extension of or material alteration of a dwelling

If the requirements of Part M do not apply to a material alteration of a dwelling, then they can't be "applicable requirements of Schedule 1" in this situation, surely?

Yes, but you weren't objecting that Part M didn't apply anyway, you were objecting to the generic use of the phrase "Must be no worse than existing".

 

[PBC_1966]

Yes, but you weren't objecting that Part M didn't apply anyway, you were objecting to the generic use of the phrase "Must be no worse than existing".

I did say "on this particular issue," meaning socket and switch heights. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

 

[notaplumber1]

This thread is turning into something else. I am onto skirting boards now. Can Anyone recommend a good carpenter?