Really great link and for that many thanks.

My BCo came out to check my first fix and his comments were 'Your (thermal) insulation looks good'.

Seriously sh****ng bricks as I've read all the books and it seems that there needs to be three signatures on the form (design/construction/test) so quite how the hell the BCO handle this, God only knows.

I know that it will pass (although let's face it, 17th edition seems to let in so many interpretations) since I will go through the necessary tests myself before getting BCO involved for the last fence.

Irrespective of the terminology, as an engineer I cannot see how any regulation such as the 17th if written properly can be open to any form of subjective view.

Ohm's Law is pretty robust and has stood the test of time  

OK - how about split load CU's. Couldn't it be argued that the actual allocation of final circuits between two RCDs is subjective?

What does the 17th say (if anything) about the height of sockets and switches during a rewire?

I know about Part M of the regs but does the 17th say anything about this?

dingbat wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008, 7:44am:


What would happen in an inspection of a new install if it was deemed that the sockets were not at a sufficient height?

I didnt think it was to do with being damaged, thought it was more to do with being in reach for all people including disabled and elderly?

i take it part m applies to commercial and industrial then?

CWatters wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008, 9:09am:


newbuilds tho'