What height for light switch

[JohnW2]

The problem is that "the law" is so damn vague that it seems to me it's practically impossible to determine if any particular solution is or is not in compliance with it..

Indeed so, but that's true of all parts of the The Building Regulations ('the law'), with Part P being no better than Part M (albeit 28 words, rather than 18 ) ....

“Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.”

I suspect that no electricians one asked to turn that into as comprehensive as possible a set of prescriptive 'strict rules' would come up with anything like the same as one another

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

So the question then becomes what do those tasked with enforcing the law (in the first instance LABC) do?

The impression I get is in the absense of any information in the law itself as to "how much is enough" they treat the "approved documents" as a yardstick for "how much is enough" or worse treating them as strict rules.

 

[JohnW2]

So the question then becomes what do those tasked with enforcing the law (in the first instance LABC) do? .... The impression I get is in the absense of any information in the law itself as to "how much is enough" they treat the "approved documents" as a yardstick for "how much is enough" or worse treating them as strict rules.

Indeed - and in relation to bits like Part M and Part F that's very probably what they do - we hear, for example, of BCO's 'insisting' that the law requires extractor fans in various situations (whereas that is actually only 'guidance' in the Approved Doc). However, if one believes that there one can successfully argue that some other approach satisfies the (very vague) law, one can wave at them the bit that appears in the introduction of all the Approved Docs, namely ...

... Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

However, when it comes to electrical work, Approved Document P is no more useful, and no less vague, than is 'the law' (Part P). Unlike some earlier editions of Approved Doc P, it is almost entirely about 'bureaucratic' matters, and says virtually nothing specific about anything electrical. In this case, what the BCO (or, usually, an electrician to whom he/she has turned) will rely upon is BS7671 - but, again, there is no legal requirement to comply with BS7671, if one can argue that one has otherwise made "reasonable provision" to comply with the ultra-vague law.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

The current edition of approved document P basically seems to say "follow BS7671", though interestingly it reffers to "BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011." not to the current version of the standard...................

 

[securespark]

Ooops!

 

[JohnW2]

The current edition of approved document P basically seems to say "follow BS7671"....

It does, which is why I said that's what a BCO would look to - but everything (including that) in the Approved Doc is presumably covered by the initial statement that "there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.".

, though interestingly it reffers to "BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011." not to the current version of the standard...................

Yes, legislation and related things (like these Approve Docs) always seems to do that when it refers to some other Standard/ Regulations/ whatever - e.g. the recent 'PRS' legislation refers specifically to BS7671:2018 - which means that they have to amend the legislation/document if they want to update the reference to relate to a new version of the Standard/whatever.

In this case, they've obviously chosen not to do that, since the most recent version of Approved Doc P is that issued in 2013, so it necessarily cannot refer to anything more recent than the 2011 Amendment of BS7671:2008. That could result in some interesting situations if the BCO decided that compliance with that obsolete edition of BS7671 was what is currently required to satisfy the law

In relation to legislation, I once asked a lawyer why they do it like that. She said that she thought the reason was that legislators did not want to refer to things that had not yet been published - just in case it transpired that, when they were published, the legislators did not agree with them - i.e. if they wrote "the current edition of BS7671", they would effectively be writing a 'blank cheque' in relation to what future authors of BS7671 decided to write in the future ... but goodness knows whether there is any truth in that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Ooops!

Why Ooops? Have you only just realised that Approved Doc P 'requires' (well, 'recommends') compliance with an obsolete version of BS7671?

If so, you will probably be even more shocked to hear that the previous (much more extensive) 2006 version of Approved Doc P (which is still, today, the 'current version' for Wales) requires compliance with BS7671:2001

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Nope, I was fully aware.

Just find it amusing that no-one has made to rectify the situation.

 

[JohnW2]

Nope, I was fully aware. Just find it amusing that no-one has made to rectify the situation.

Fair enough. As I said, it's even 'worse' (more amusing?) in Wales!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stem]

Does NOT relate to an existing property. Part M only applies to new buildings. if you started using those socket and switch heights in existing houses you would also need wheelchair ramps and extra wide doors in downstairs cloak rooms.

Get yourself a copy of Part M and read the first paragraph.

I do indeed have a copy of Part M and have read the contents, which I was I chose to refer to it. I don't see what in my post shouts out "this guy doesn't have a copy of Part M" The OP asked for suggestions regarding the height, so I offered him one. I made no mention of it being compulsory.

And as you mention reading, if you had read my post properly instead of jumping on your high horse. You would have seen I even chose to start it with "generally" [adverb: commonly or widely in a general way or sense] I'm sure a lot of public money, time and research went into it, so, it is probably a better and more widely considered proposal than most.

 

[JohnW2]

I do indeed have a copy of Part M and have read the contents, which I was I chose to refer to it. I don't see what in my post shouts out "this guy doesn't have a copy of Part M" The OP asked for suggestions regarding the height, so I offered him one. I made no mention of it being compulsory.

That's all fair enough.

However, I didn't bother mentioning it at the time but, since you are now talking about your having 'offered suggestions' to the OP .... I don't know where the diagram you posted came from but I would say that it can easily be read in a way that could be misleading - since it can easily be taken to imply that there is a minimum (but no maximum) height for sockets and a maximum (but no minimum) height for switches etc..

Kind Regards, John