1992 Workplace Regs question

[Seainasive]

Asking as my office is in a building with a different tenant on each floor, with toilets off the stairwell not in our office. Toilets are the usual cubicles with shared wash basins, and are unisex. Nobody likes this but the building manager won’t change them.

they say it’s fine as each cubicle can be locked.

where does it actually say that a unisex toilet must be self contained? The words of the relevant clause in the regs are not that specific.

I should maybe put this in Legal but thought I might have more luck here!

@AnSolas

I think your argument is this:

1 - people have accidents at work and may exceptionally need to wash other than their hands and face
2 - since a shower or other facility isn't provided they're going to use the washing facilities in the toilet
3 - the employer is therefore providing those washing facilities in the toilet for washing other than hands and face
4 - therefore those washing facilities need to be single sex

If that's your chain of reasoning then I think it fails at 3. If a washing facility needs to be provided for other than hands and face, a washbasin isn't adequate because it's not designed or provided for washing other than hands and face. Its location in a single-sex, mixed-sex or single-user area is irrelevant. The proper argument against an employer who doesn't provide adequate washing facilities is to provide adequate facilities, not that the inadequate facilities should be single sex.

@MyAmpleSheep
What is the basis of your claim that all basins designs are not adequate to wash my upper arm or uppe chest or neck?

Does this help?

Sanitary Conveniences | H&S

You, to your employer: I wash my upper neck in these basins every time I have a toner accident. I require them to be in single sex spaces

Your employer: we don't provide these basins for washing anything other than your hands and face, which is why we put them in a mixed-sex area.

You: but that's how I use them - to wash my neck

Your employer: Too bad. We don't have any obligation to provide you with facilities to wash other than your hand and face, and the facilities that we provide are entirely adequate for the purpose for which we provide them.

What are you going to say next?

To expand the question

"What is the basis of your claim that all basins designs are not adequate to wash my upper arm or uppe chest or neck?"

Can you quote the legislation which supports idea the design is not adequate eg what legislation which must be followed when producing / selling /supplying / tendering to supply units to a State agent etc?

Not being rude but because "I said so" or "someone said" that is not of much benefit on this thread.
The OP is trying to work out her employers legal position of the toilet and the washing facilities.

If the LL can reference an Act to claim the mixed sex toilets are lawful it would be helpful if the OP is aware of the Act and Section to see if it applies to her building and also the specific business before she opens a breach of contract claim meeting

@AnSolas
The OP wrote "Toilets are the usual cubicles with shared wash basins, and are unisex."

If the cubicles have floor-to-ceiling doors, are intended for use by one person at a time, and are lockable from the inside, then I'd say they comply with the 1992 regulations. If they don't have full height doors then they don't. The washbasins are a red herring.

There may be some other regulations that they don't comply with and should, but I don't know what they would be.

So personal opinion then?

Thanks

Obviously it's my interpretation of the regulations based on a detailed and careful study. If you can say which bit of the regulations make the OP's situation different what I suggested, I'd be interested to read, I'll be more than happy to agree I've got it wrong. Ultimately the person whose interpretation counts is the judge, of course.

You had said the building regs had changed so it it was to reflect a change in the law I would have looked at the source and how that tracked back through the legislation.

The building regs apply to people applying for planning permission for and building new buildings, and conducting major renovations. The workplace regulations apply to employers. They're aimed at very different audiences.

What the 2024 building regulation update does is, for the first time ever, enshrine in any law anywhere (that I know of) that universal toilets have to be built to include a wash basin. Buildings that were approved prior don't have to retrofit them, and employers don't have to provide them, because building regulations don't apply to employers.

Another thing the OP might want to bear in mind is that only the HSE can enforce the workplace regulations. You can't sue your employer for not meeting them.

MyAmpleSheep

NHS Fife is being sued via the EA10 for failure to comply with their obligation to supply a work place with a single sex changing room.

Work place regulations are aimed at people who apply for planning permission to build work places and build regs apply to employers buying or building a work place.

The "commercial" building regs are based off the need to supply lawful business spaces such that like any product produced for a market they are build to be fit for purpose.

The "argument" is firstly between her employer and the LL. If she can oblige the LL in making her serviced area a WSSS/MSSS she will have no issue with her employer as the employer is unlikely to be willing to spend money on a ET.

Plus if it is a shared service area the employer becomes liable for the bad acts (harrassment/assault/etc) of employees from another business.

As for the change to the Document do you know what was the new Act or Statutory Instruments which prompted the change?

From my understanding there needs to be a new Act or Statutory Instruments for any change to become legally binding "must do".

Buliding regs are also updated after consultation with stakeholders.

Having a clear standardised baseline design (increasingly a "off the shelf" product an off-site factory build plug and play element) which has become "fashionable" benefits the large construction companies and the LL investor/ REIT.

It also benefits the HSE if and as they begin to encounter various designs during on-site visits.

So are you aware of what prompted the change? Stakeholder engagement with the "old" legislation or a newly passed Act/Statutory Instruments which had to be incorporated into the documents?

If you look at the example in my previous post it is obvious the difference between cubicles and rooms. Even if the cubicles are floor to ceiling, they are still not a room. It makes that clear in the standards at the time which is the vernacular the professionals were using at the time. I have gone back to the sources. As I said it that post, it wasn’t forseen that this would happen to toilet design.

Facilities such as the sink need to be in the same enclosed space as the toilet if it is mixed sex. If you come across facilities that don’t correspond to the legislation, that means the facilities are wrong, not the legislation. There’s so much history to toilets and it has become a free for all recently. We rely on shop/venue loos for instance because there’s practically no council provision anymore. Which is why Doc T was needed.

Men always had more facilities than women, not that they always used them. As an interesting point, when women finally got public toilets, (early example shown) they had more sinks per toilet though far few toilets. I think men have never been one to use a sink - it is shown on this picture that many would have to walk back on oneself and the ‘lav’ is through other doors. See also the need for attendants. Very few places have attendants anymore - if something goes wrong you need to rely on people around you. There’s lots of historical problems that have followed through. See also building protectors because men urinated so much on the corner of buildings that it damaged them - they couldn’t be bothered to find a toilet so shows how little they are bothered about a sink. Often urinals were even free (to encourage men to use them I presume) but toilets weren’t. Women had to spend a penny to wee.

Ever wondered why older town buildings have those strange slopes on the walls or the corners? It’s to prevent men weeing on the building:
https://www.exploringgb.co.uk/blog/9th-century-urine-deflectors-in-london

As for the change to the Document do you know what was the new Act or Statutory Instruments which prompted the change?

As part of its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry the last Conservative government passed the Building Safety Act 2022 which created three new regulatory regimes one of which is the Building Safety Regulator, a duty given in the Act to the HSE. The update to Document T is the outcome of the Building Safety Regulator statutory duty to “keep under review” “the standard of buildings”.

Further research tells me that the first version of Approved Document T was produced in 2010. The background to the 2024 update follows a 2020 government document Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence and consultation exercise. Kemi Badenoch announced the intention to change the building rules for toilets in 2022 when she was Equalities Minister, and the 2024 update to Document T is the result.

So to to answer your question, it was a direct political direction to the HSE to change the rules about toilet design, and the method used to legislate for it was to have the HSE include new rules for buildings in a an update to the building regulations that it is mandated to review under the Building Safety Act.

From a quick read the Regulator BSR/ HSE has no devolved power to pass new regulations but rather have to ask the designated party (the Secretary of State) to follow its recomendations and have the Secretary of State pass new regulations.

So unless there was a prior legal obligation to provide a sink/basin/hand towels/soap within the room the BSR has no power to mandate that legal change. So if what your claim (no washing facilities are needed) was lawful any change to toilet design within Document T which include washing facilities would be optional.

No department is allowed to write new laws statutory instruments are secondary legialstion allowed provisions in sections of Acts passed by both houses and signed it to force by HRM

@Keeptoiletssafe

While I remember.🤪

have you looked at the EU wide database used by the construction industry (its name I cant remember 🤣) which gives the detailed technical specification for all the fittings /doors (everything)?

It translated the British Standard codes and matched them across all the EU to allow for cross border trade.

Doc T is just a version of the very detailed BS 6465 (1-4) which is regularly up for review every decade or so. It is a simple document to show how people can meet building regulations. Handily ‘T’ is for toilets but these show the other ones:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents

The consultation docs you mention were flawed and skewed by Stonewall supporters as there was an effective coordinated campaign to write in. Most of the thousands of answers mentioned Stonewalls report. It was so skewed that it appeared that only 2% showed support for disabled toilets. This can all be seen on the published analysis. It can also be seen that there were ‘no’ reports about the safety implications of removing door gaps, despite me and a large national charity reporting these. My reports were of deaths in toilets, the adjustments that should be made for disabled people more likely to collapse, and the number of sexual assaults and how that relates to design.

I admire the work that went into the Stonewall campaign. I want everyone to be safe in toilets and everyone’s views should be looked at, so I did. When you look at the Stonewall report so quoted, the worst of the 3 incidents mentioned boiled down to one person being pushed out of the women’s toilets by two women after being shouted out (and presumingly not leaving).

The designs I want are best for the health and safety of everyone using them. You can also see how quickly the whole toilet situation took hold. In 2008 there was a comprehensive wide-ranging government report on toilet provision and no one mentioned transgender people. By 2023 it was completely dominating toilet discussions. Massive changes, taking place so quickly, going unchecked, needed to be looked at.

I am sorry if you have designed toilets that don’t fit in with regulations, but single sex toilets are better for health and safety, much better still if they have door gaps.

@AnSolas No. BS6465 is bad enough. And all the Department of Education design briefs: generic, 2A and specific. Especially such gems as the latter asking schools whether all the toilets are going to be unisex!

I have a great admiration for all those in the building trade, designers and architects who can keep on top of it all.

The statutory provisions described in Approved Document T (approved by the relevant minister) are formally listed in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, as amended by section 2 of the Building (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/645):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/645/contents/made

The text inserted in 2024 into the 2010 regulations gives a clear definition of "single-sex toilet" and "universal toilet" including the requirements for "washbasins and hand-drying facilities" and where those must be provided.

The regulations so amending the 2010 regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 May 2024 and came into force on 1 October 2024.

@Keeptoiletssafe

I haven't designed anything; I'm a toilet user just like everyone else here, and I'm on your side. I was responding to the idea that unisex cubicles without washbasins, and washbasins in an adjacent shared space, were contrary to the 1992 workplace regulations. As far as I can see, they aren't. They are contrary to the latterly discussed building regulations but those will only apply to recently built or renovated installations.

Over time, most toilets will change to meet the new regulations as they are refurbshied or rebuilt, but for now, older style unisex individual toilets with shared washbasins remain ok.

This is in the context of the OP's post, who was wondering if what she was provided with is legal.

Apologies, I made a typo in my prior post, and it's too late to edit.

For this:
I was responding to the idea that unisex cubicles without washbasins, and washbasins in an adjacent shared space,

Please read this:
I was responding to the idea that unisex single-room toilets without washbasins, and washbasins in an adjacent shared space.

😡building manager still won’t accept that a cubicle is not a room. Can anyone help me find an authority on this point?

From Grok, I haven’t checked it:

Page 14, Paragraph 0.12 – Definitions

in this doc:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67167c02d100972c0f4c9b38/ADT_2024.pdf

apologies if not what you’re looking for.

Thanks @Leafstamp unfortunately our toilets are from before 2024 and can’t be applied retrospectively.

Oh that’s annoying.

Grok now telling me Approved Doc G:

. Page 10, Paragraph 0.10 – Definitions
• “WC cubicle”: “A compartment containing a WC pan, enclosed on at least three sides.”
• “Sanitary accommodation”: “A room containing sanitary fittings such as WCs, washbasins and baths.”
• Key Distinction: Cubicles are defined as compartments within sanitary accommodation rooms, not as rooms themselves. No separate door or full enclosure is required for cubicles.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sanitation-hot-water-safety-and-water-efficiency-approved-document-g

any good?

In the relevant sections of the approved code of practice for the 1992 Regs ( https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf pp.37-39) the words cubicle and room both appear and it seems fairly evident that each is being used with a different meaning -- and therefore that, for the purposes of the Regulations, a cubicle is not a room.

Apart from anything else, the code (which is a legalistic document with some legal force) would be extremely poorly drafted if it randomly switched between two words to mean the same thing. Additionally , the first occurrence of the word cubicle seems specifically to call attention to the difference between a cubicle and a room, as follows:

each toilet should be in a separate room or cubicle, with a door that can be secured from the inside

In the context, I take that to refer to the two alternative arrangements with which we are all familiar, i.e. a set of cubicles within a single space, or a small room containing just one toilet.Subsequent uses of the word cubicle fit with this reading (chiefly in the tables illustrating how many toilets must be provided).

According to the code,

If you are prosecuted for breach of health and safety law, and it is proved that you did not follow the relevant provisions of the Code, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way or a Court will find you at fault.

Anyone taking the position that the OP's toilet provider has taken would not be able to show they had followed the code unless they had some way of accounting for the fact that the terms cubicle and room are both used, apparently with separate meanings.

Thanks @ProfoundlyPeculiarAndWeird that is useful. I can’t believe they are even arguing about this!

Hello
I have attached an image of the building regs in the 1980s when the 1992 legislation was being drawn up. I copied this out earlier but I think it looks clearer as a photograph.
It clearly shows the difference between a room and a cubicle. It shows a cubicle can be full height, but then demonstrates the health and safety reasons why it shouldn’t be. I think it’s important to know what legislators meant at the time of legislation.