New build - wanting sockets to be below 450mm

JustinR1979

Ruski wrote: »

Which is why Stairlifts were invented....

What were bungalows invented for?

wallbash

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It's no-where near half-way up the wall!!

We can all at any time become disabled in some way and having sockets at this height makes life easier for many people such as those with back problems for instance.:(

That problem was answered in post#4

Please read all posts before putting your foot in it!

TidyMax

lstar337 wrote: »

I think Dave_J (#15) has the best solution.

cough post #10 cough :rotfl:

cyclonebri1

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It's no-where near half-way up the wall!!

We can all at any time become disabled in some way and having sockets at this height makes life easier for many people such as those with back problems for instance.:(

I was speaking with some embroidery, I thought most would realise that;)
The point is the vast majority would sooner have sockets at low level, so I think this is a case of positive discrimination being taken a little too far just because a disabled person may at some time own the house?

And before you think I'm in any way prejudiced, I was forced into early retirement 7 years ago after a serious accident in which my neck and back were fractured. No, I'm not in a wheel chair but am classed as disabled due to my limitations.
I would still prefer sockets at a lower level with the odd 1 at strategic points, for say the vacuum cleaner, being at waist height.

Another point that springs to mind is OK, it may make them easier to reach for a disabled adult, but it also puts them in range of babies in those walker trainer thingies, just at an age that they don't understand and want to fiddle with any thing within range.

Andy_L

Could you cut a hole in the back of the cupboard so you can move it further back? Its what I did for access to a power point behind my wardrobe

Hintza

We got away with ours at 380mm in 2010/11 not sure if that was legal then. I moaned a lot at the time....lol.

Torry_Quine

wallbash wrote: »

That problem was answered in post#4

Please read all posts before putting your foot in it!

I did read all posts and no I didn't put my foot in it. My points still stand.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I was speaking with some embroidery, I thought most would realise that;)
The point is the vast majority would sooner have sockets at low level, so I think this is a case of positive discrimination being taken a little too far just because a disabled person may at some time own the house?

And before you think I'm in any way prejudiced, I was forced into early retirement 7 years ago after a serious accident in which my neck and back were fractured. No, I'm not in a wheel chair but am classed as disabled due to my limitations.
I would still prefer sockets at a lower level with the odd 1 at strategic points, for say the vacuum cleaner, being at waist height.

Another point that springs to mind is OK, it may make them easier to reach for a disabled adult, but it also puts them in range of babies in those walker trainer thingies, just at an age that they don't understand and want to fiddle with any thing within range.

It's a bit more than embroidery though.

You really don't notice them and I have a relative with them (they aren't disabled). The point about children is valid but crawling babies are more likely to fiddle with sockets at skirting board level.

Nilrem

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Will it have ramps, stairlift and wide doorways too, just in case?

Wide doorways have been a legal standard for many years...you don't think it's a coincidence that all new build houses for several decades have just happened to have a front and back door (and internal doors) that are wide enough for a standard wheelchair (and for that matter buggies and prams)

The regulation may seem heavy handed, but when you consider the average house will be around for quite a few decades, and that the average age of the population is going up, suddenly the idea of making sure that houses being built today aren't going to require major modifications for the likely tenants in a few years isn't so daft (the elderly are a much larger group than the disabled and as likely to to have issues bending down to floor level).

This completely ignores that the new heights tend to be more comfortable to reach for able bodied people as well.

We had to raise the sockets in my mothers house a few years back because she became unable to bend down to access them, and it was a very messy (and reasonably expensive process - fortunately done whilst the house was already being decorated), so I can see exactly why the government thinks it wise to do it during initial construction.

dave030445

Andy_L wrote: »

Could you cut a hole in the back of the cupboard so you can move it further back? Its what I did for access to a power point behind my wardrobe

Thats not the point, the sockets are to high above the cupboard.

cyclonebri1

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I did read all posts and no I didn't put my foot in it. My points still stand.



It's a bit more than embroidery though. No it's not, I exagerated a little you didn't get it, others did

You really don't notice them and I have a relative with them (they aren't disabled). The point about children is valid but crawling babies are more likely to fiddle with sockets at skirting board level.

Read what i said, I didn't say crawling babies, I was talking the next stage on when they are at 2 foot level, everything at eye level is a gimme