Shaver point in bathroom

[Keith Dunbar]

I want to fit a shaver point in my bathroom. I would have preferred to put it to the right of the wide mirror above the washbasin, but I think that puts it in zone 1 where I imagine it is not allowed - the non-tap end of the bath is adjacent to the washbasin and the mirror above it and a vertical line from the edge of the bath would take in where I would prefer to put the shaver point.

In which case I guess I'll have to put the shaver point on the left. Can anyone please tell me if I am correct in my understanding of the regs. on this point?

TIA

Keith

[Brian]

As it is in a bathroom, does it not come under Part P of the building regs? In which case you cannot do a new installation yourself. Clearly, since you are asking this, you are not qualified under the regs.

[diy-newby]

You CAN diy but you will need it checked / certified.

[ARWadsworth]

Hi Keith

You most certainly have understood the regs and the shaver point would be in zone 1. Unfortunately you cannot position a shaver point in zone 1. If you want the NICIEC guide on zones and what is allowed and not allowed (a

1.14Mb pdf file) let me know and I will email it to you.

Adam

[Al]

The regs are a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Most competent DIYers could install a shaver socket without a problem. The OP has clearly understood the zoning requirements and is, IMHO, merely seeking clarification.

The regs were changed to stop Joe soap re-wiring a house and setting fire to it/electrocuting someone.

My preference for small beer like shaver sockets, new sockets, lights, small runs of cable etc. is to use my trusty reels of red and black and feign ignorance if a surveyor ever asks me.

Anything more complicated, I'll have to call in a tea swilling mopey old git who'll roll up at 9.30am, work until 12 take an hour for lunch, do another hours work and then disappear for "parts" until 4.30 when he'll roll back up to pack up his tools with the classic expression "sorry guv it's gonna take longer than I thought, fraid I'll have to charge another days labour"

OK so I'm sure there are some really good professionals out there, but my personal experience of sparks and plumbers is not good! Never employed the same one twice.

Al

[Brian]

I don't disagree with that. They could have achieved the same result by promoting the considerable range of wire detectors now on the market.

Well actually they were really changed as a knee jerk reaction so someone drilling into a wall and electrocuting themselves because thay had not bothered to check where the cables run. The new regs will not prevent this from happening again in an older property. Promoting cable detectors would.

[Halloway]

Talking of which, can you recommend a reasonably-priced detector? One that detects pipes as well as cables would be useful.

Thanks, pete

[Al]

Now as I've previously admitted I'm no sparks, I'm a "competent" DIYer with years of experience.

However, I am gob smacked if that's the real reason the regs changed. How does the new Part P stop someone putting a bolt in for say a plasma screen fixing hitting a cable??

I thought there was genuine reasoning behind it. Which is why I'll ignore it for simple stuff but the more complex (read dangerous/life threatening) jobs I'll get a professional in.

Al

[Palindrome]

Part P was designed to prevent fully trained and experienced commercial and domestic electricians doing work "off the books". This was intended to close off a big chunk of black economy, under the usual "health and safety" excuse.

Had the legislation been aimed at ensuring that only trained and qualified electricians did the work, then it would have been a registration scheme for electricians - not companies.

[Andrew Gabriel]

It's not. That incident didn't happen until well into the Part P consulation period. What it may have done is stop other MP's from pointing out the stupidity of Part P as forcefully as they thought at the time.

There are a number of theories about the reasoning behind it, but it was nothing whatsoever to do with safety. It was easy to show that it would reduce safety (as we did at the time), and the number of electrocutions doubled when it came in, verses the steady decline in the rate over the preceding 3 decades. Conversely, New Zealand changed its rules in exactly the opposite direction getting rid of the restrictions it had in place, and its electrocution rate dropped significantly. The reason for this is that deaths are caused by not sorting out installations which are in need repair and replacement, and not by unqualified people doing wiring. Part P encourages the former and discourages the latter.