Building Regs is Building Regs. For better or for worse. Better I’d say.

If the house is being completely rewired, Part M regulations should be complied with. Additions or alterations to an existing installation can be placed to match the existing layout of the house.

Have you had a Periodic Inspection and Test(PIR) conducted on the property? Have the electricians you have spoken to told you why it needs rewiring?
It may be that they are trying to save you the cost of a full inspection and test if the outcome is obvious. As others have mentioned, it may be the cable type, the insulation resistance of the circuits or a number of other reasons.
Older lighting circuits are often installed without an earth conductor. If so, this is a very sound reason to have the lighting circuits replaced at the very least.
A PIR is the only conclusive way of getting the installation assessed.

Chasing does make a mess, but is necessary to do the job. It is quite possible to run cables behind picture rails etc, but takes more time. Cutting channels in concrete floors is also a sensible solution.
As an aside, I have done a job recently where the property owner took out the existing concrete floor because it was a massive heat sink. They now have an well insulated, damp proofed and level concrete floor with underfloor heating.

I am a NAPIT registered electrician in Sheffield. Please feel free to contact me if you want any further advice or electrician speak decoding.

Jerry
Eco Electrics

It could be around for hundreds of years though, you won’t be.

and that there is communist talk!

Housing stock is not a national asset no matter what that fruit’n’nut monbiot thinks!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy

csb – Fully appreciate what your saying, but many house just are not suitable for disabled people there is not getting around that fact.

I am 100% positive that if we build disabled access in to our house and made it disable friendly the resale value would be less than if it was just a nice normal home.

Housing stock is not a national asset

No?

No. HTH.

Molgrips – what I am saying is why should I have to make my house suitable for some one who may wish to purchase it?

My parents have already said they wouldnt because they are older than me and wouldnt like the up keep of the garden and 4 set of stairs.

You make your own choice where to live, or are you suggesting that everyone should convert that houses to bungalows to avoid stairs and that gardens should be concreted to avoid bending down for maintenance.

As I say public buildings are a different matter as everyone should be entitled to access. Private is private.

It doesn’t H.

Explain some more.

Molgrips – what I am saying is why should I have to make my house suitable for some one who may wish to purchase it?

I am saying that we should be generally considerate of other people’s needs when we build or alter our houses.

Having the sockets higher doesn’t REALLY inconvenience anyone, be fair. No matter how much you feel you should be inconvenienced…

a “national asset” to me implies either a state or social ownership. In the UK we’re not big into this when it comes to our own property, although Im sure a Marxist* like Ernie will be along in a minute to denounce the rentier life of the property-owning classes…

* casting nastursiams

With that ownership it would give the state a hand in the minutiae of use and utility of that property. We allow the state to interfere a bit already, planning aesthetics, planning use classes etc but we dont allow the state to enforce a change on the way we use our property. When you buy property, what it is, how it can be used etc is generally left alone, it very very rarely can be revoked or changed.

Only in extreme social benefit cases are things like CPOs (Compulsory Purchase Orders) authorised for example to facilitate a new bypass etc.
They shouldnt extend to pissing about with the sockets in every house having a rewire on the off chance someone will find it handy somepoint in the future.

BTW, one area where there is “state ownership” is the fact that the queen still owns your property, even when you have a “freehold”. You hold the land in fee smiple from the queen at all times. That can never be excised. It coems into effect very very rarely, but its in those rare times that a “state” ownership can be countenanced: if you fail to make appropriate utility of the land, the “queen” can take it back off you and use it again. It’s not something that’s used in law much at all, but I think the idea is so that the state can recycle “abandoned” land or land for which no owner can be found and is just lying there doing nothing.

“Having the sockets higher doesn’t REALLY inconvenience anyone, be fair. No matter how much you feel you should be inconvenienced…”

I know where your comming from, however our house as some original veneered wood that extends about 4ft up the walls in the living room and dining room. That would have had to be destroyed to put the sockets at correct height rather than just replacing the existing ones on skirting boards.

Also when you walk in to a modern house you don’t notice the sockets at the regulation height (usually because modern house are so bland) but we blue tacked some on to the wall where they should be and they just looked stupid and out of place.

a “national asset” to me implies either a state or social ownership

Hmm. I’d say Cotswold or Surrey Hills villages were a national asset. Or certain stately homes. Or even the beautiful rolling English countryside.

All of which would be privately owned.

The countryside is protected by planning laws despite being privately owned – for everyone’s benefit.

FD, Is there some way of concealing these things a bit better? Must be a way of avoiding putting them in the middle of a wall?

I’d say Cotswold or Surrey Hills villages were a national asset

then a comparable law might be: “If you change your TV provider from digital to cable you MUST remove your aerial to improve the aesthetic of the landscape. You will never be able to have an aerial again”.

we can argue about the extent to which that is proportionate law – is the cost of being stuck on cable proportionate to the extra utility “society” gains of the unimpaired view?

I say that the same cost benefit analysis of personal and collective utility WRT Part M is NOT proportionate. We have different opinoins on it obviously.

I’m not really sure about the specifics of sockets. What really p*ssed me off was the whole ‘who cares about the disabled?’ vibe on this thread 🙁

However the question of whether privately owned things are a national asset is a very interesting one…

‘who cares about the disabled?’

being brutal, its not about “who cares” it’s about “how much care”. And before the likes of fred get in here making assumptions that doesnt mean “how much” = none.

It costs me money and makes it harder for me to get to light switches and makes it easier for my able bodied son to either kill himself or end up disabled !

While I don’t really have an opinion on the regulation, if your able bodied son has small enough fingers to fit in plug sockets, and is able to exert enough force on the earth to open the bottom bit, whilst also sticking his extremely tiny fingers into the bottom bit, that is pretty impressive. Even our 10 month old can’t get fingers in plug holes.

Best way to make sure your toddler is safe is (a)wire sockets correctly and (b)don’t fit sockets made out of conductive metal in case you failed at (a).

Joe

In all fairness, it has occurred to me that the cost of having sockets moved (or appropriate plug-in stick-on adapters installed) is surely dwarfed by many other things that might need doing to your house also.

Im not using “cost” in a financial sense. Cost/benefit is more often than not used in qualitative rather than wholly quantitative analysis.

FD and are arent arguing that when you have a rewire, part M adds financial cost, only that it enforces a specific design and layout on the inside your own home. That should not be an area of state intervention IMO as I dont think the incremental benefit for the the subset* of the population with relevant disabilites outweighs the loss of freedom of a home owner to dictate the way they layout their own home in every case.

* we’re talkign here of that subset that say, “cant bend down” but can get access to a house that otherwise a weelchair user (or anyone else for whom victorian steps would make it a silly idea as a home of choice)couldnt. That’s a very small subset being used to justify a rule to impose on a certain number of householders regardless of the sense of the matter.

only that it enforces a specific design and layout on the inside your own home.

As the wiring regs already do all over the place surely?

I do think that dictating the layout of a home is a bit much though. It just requires a bit of flexibility?

How old is this modification to the rules anyway?

Part M applied from 2004.

Location of sockets was discretionary to a great extent prior to that.

Only other restrictions might have been to keep trip boards etc above 1.2m away from childrens hands etc for example. Of course that’s contradicted by the one-rull-fits-all of the Part M and it had to be overruled with an ammendment later on about allowing consumer units to be mounted at 1.2-1.4m I think.

I do think that dictating the layout of a home is a bit much though

I have floor boxes in my home office. My layout choice. Probably not Part M compliant.

So why are the sockets in my house near the floor? Well, they are maybe a little higher than they were in older houses….

If that’s all you’re moaning about then you’re being silly*. Our 2007 house looks just fine, I never even noticed that the sockets were higher.

* potentially

either a) they are at 400mm and compliant or b) your builder started work prior to 2004? or c) he didnt work to compliance and got away with it? d) it wasnt a substantial re-wire and so exempt?

Our 2007 house looks just fine, I never even noticed that the sockets were higher.

your sense of the aesthetic is clearly different to mine. But then you’re happily living in germany ATM 😉

But then you’re happily living in germany ATM

Lol.. happy? That’s another thread of an altogether less positive nature…

The house (at home) is a new build, started in early 2007. Builder was Wimpey. The sockets are all in corners and behind things. Which, ironically, makes them quite hard to get at!

Stoner – sorry, been away but wanted to respond. We tried to make adaptations but there’s only so much you can do to a house (new handrails, bath seats, tap turners, door ramps) without major work (like that you’re undertaking anyway in an electrical refit!) and it soon became apparrent that it would be a real struggle for both Mum and the carers to enable her to live at home.

I learnt humility very quickly, as would anyone whose life (and mobility) or that of a loved one changes in an instant. I hope it doesn’t happen to you and you need to move house (or move someone else) quick sharp to an adapted bungalow, because they’ll be the only dwellings where someone has bothered putting electrical sockets at a reachable heinght.

There is absolutely no requirement to move socket heights to comply with Part M during a rewire. None at all. It applies to new builds and changes of use but not a rewire. Providing any new sockets are at the same height as existing (ie. the additional work does not make the installation less compliant) then there is absolutely no problem. Sounds like a few people need to brush up on their regs.

As previously mentioned, get a PIR carried out. And don’t think that just ‘cos it’s wired in twin+earth it will be fine because it might not be.

And yes, I’m a spark. Elecsa registered and in the West Mids if it helps 😉

Anywhere near Hereford?

Dudie (and all the others with advice) thanks for that, decided that the time is right to get the whole thing rewired.

As for the socket heights, they’ll be kept low. This is a 3 story house with about a million stairs and numerous stairs even to get in the front door.

The problem with regulating for a minority is that it winds up getting the majorities backs up.