Fulfilling Requirements of Part M of building regs.

[wozz]

sounds more like a self build, never seen anyone spec socket heights on a newbuild, other than possibly part m heights, which may only appear in the notes.

Honestly we are talking about a few mill here if this is how customers can behave and get away with it then god help you all dealing with these people. or if this is commonplace and acceptable i dont think i will ever have to pay for a trademans service again.

What exactly is their problem anyway? building control are happy, its not like you can see the difference. chancers

 

[snowhead]

What exactly is their problem anyway?

It's a Self Build, they've run out / are running out of money.

 

[wozz]

quite possibly nail on head

 

[Fuzzy165]

Sockets are lower than they should be and switches/stats are higher, making them less accessible. Regardless LABC have said they would pass it as difference is minimal (50mm) and they would still be considered as easily accessible.

The issue remains though, the customer is now saying that they are not happy and want them moved. And that they will be employing another electrician to complete the work as they now feel that I have failed to complete the installation correctly and am in breach of contract. WTF!

 

[wozz]

They are different by a height that changes nothing if all had been 2mm out due to thicker carpet what then?

What contract? does it specify tolerances?

you can offer to rectify and get full payment and they make good, which may mean you get your money quicker, or you could start going legal on them.

are they doing this to any other trades?

 

[davesparks]

This reminds me of an interesting new build my dad told me about (retired LABC building inspector)

A disabled gentleman in a wheelchair was having a new build house built.
The nhbc inspectors were insisting that all sockets had to meet part M heights for disabled access. The client wanted the sockets at the old 1' centres.
bearing in mind he was the disabled person who part M heights were designed for the nhbc inspectors wouldn't budge on the 450mm and he had to go through a lengthy process to get the sockets where he wanted them!

Now for the OP, have you confirmed if NHBC are also happy with the heights? You have to keep them happy along with the LABC guys.

 

[Andy78]

Sockets are lower than they should be and switches/stats are higher, making them less accessible. Regardless LABC have said they would pass it as difference is minimal (50mm) and they would still be considered as easily accessible.

The issue remains though, the customer is now saying that they are not happy and want them moved. And that they will be employing another electrician to complete the work as they now feel that I have failed to complete the installation correctly and am in breach of contract. WTF!

Then it's up to them to prove you are in breach of contract, which you aren't, as you installed to the client's requests. They are piling the pressure on, pile it on them back and make it clear you will not be liable for another electrician's bill as your work is compliant with both BS7671 and the building regs as deemed by the local building control office. Any alterations to compliant work is customer preference so they will have to foot the bill.
As said in my earlier post, get your bill in now to avoid delaying any future legal proceedings, which is the way this is headed by the sounds of this chancer.

 

[Silly Sausage]

This reminds me of an interesting new build my dad told me about (retired LABC building inspector)

Ah, that explains a lot! :smilielol5:

 

[davesparks]

Eh? I don't follow that!

Anyone who knows me will tell you I don't take after him at all, I takes after my grandad on my mums side.

 

[Octopus]

Well that's another issue...
i am not currently registered with a self-cert scheme. Had been with niceic years ago but had let it lapse as I was only doing large commercial work as a subbie. I'm in the process of joining elecsa (have paid fee and am just waiting for assessment to be booked). I had originally planned to be using this job for the assessment but I now can't because it won't be complete.
I've spoken to LABC and they're happy for job to either be signed off by them or me once elecsa registration is complete and job is finished.

Elecsa will allow work in progress jobs.

I used our refurbishment for my assessment last year and I got the new board in and the upstairs sockets tested and live. Bonding was the previous one with a mechanical joint (which I explained) and all the downstairs was not even first fixed. The assessor said he actually preferred large work in progress jobs and he looked at the cable runs, support, separation of mains/data cabling, etc.

That said I can't imagine you want to ask the client if you can use his job now. lol

 

[Fuzzy165]

Then it's up to them to prove you are in breach of contract, which you aren't, as you installed to the client's requests. They are piling the pressure on, pile it on them back and make it clear you will not be liable for another electrician's bill as your work is compliant with both BS7671 and the building regs as deemed by the local building control office. Any alterations to compliant work is customer preference so they will have to foot the bill.
As said in my earlier post, get your bill in now to avoid delaying any future legal proceedings, which is the way this is headed by the sounds of this chancer.

Thanks. I'm contacting building control to get it in writing that they would accept this and sign off on the job. I'll then be sending the customer a letter confirming all details of installation and compliance with BS7671 and that I'm not liable for the costs of them employing another electrician and will also be including my invoice. 30 days then legal!