Spade through the Mains incident...help

[dj damo]

Hi guys.

a few weeks back I was diging in the garden (digging to find hte start of the footings to our house) and unfotunately put my spade through the mains cable to our block of houses.

Now, when we first called eastern electricity they said that because it was outside the house we wouldnt be charged for it.

But, EDF energy (who I assume were subcontracted to do the repair) have sent us a bill for nearly 500 quid. to say im ****ed off is an understatement.

I would like to know how I stand on this. The cable had no protective sheilding at all, and there wasnt even any warning tape, or anything. It was some 6 inches out from the house wall (not even clipped to the wall), and was about 35, 40cm deep the ground.

Based on the lack of proection, I had previously told them in a letter that although I drove the spade through the cable, I didnt consider myself responsible. However, they claim that its not their responsibility either because "cables can be moved" etc. wtf? So why does that place the responsibility onto me then?
I think they are just trying the corporate blag. clearly I dont want to say" well take me to court then" if ultimately I dont have a leg to stand on.

thanks for any advice

 

[Har_vey]

Supply cables don't get clipped to the wall below ground. They are not always marked by tape. What physical protection they have is always going to be at it's minimum when the cable gets close to the entry point of the building. Even if it was in a tube then it could still be damaged if you hit it hard enough with a shovel.

Not sure about the legalities, but have always been under the impression that you are liable if you hit a supply cable. Due care would come into the argument. You were digging presumably where the mains services could reasonably be expected to be?

£500.00 is quite cheap for an emergency call out to repair a mains cable.

As I say though, not sure on the legal argument, but as you have already admitted in writing that you did it!

 

[big-all]

will your houshold insurance cover this "accidental" damage !!!!
worth a try

 

[TeesdaleSpark]

You could argue that the cable is not installed to current good practice, regulations and legislation however they could argue that it was installed to current regs etc. at the time of install.

I would tell them youre not going to pay and if they push the matter then make them a "without prejudice save as to costs" offer of maybe half the cost.

Section 5.7 in Guidance Note 1 covers the topic of burried cables.

Burried cables must be marked by cables covers or a suitable marker tape. 611-04-03

 

[dj damo]

will your houshold insurance cover this "accidental" damage !!!!
worth a try

yes I had already thought about that

 

[dj damo]

Thanks guys.

It seems a bit of a grey area really. just because the installation met regs at the time doesnt mean they would meet current resg today, and clearly todays regs are in place for good reason (probably because too many people where chopping through them with spades ).

I dunno, Ill speak to the guy handling the investigation and see what he says.

 

[Steve]

just curious . . . what happened when the spade went through? Did the substation fuses blow, rendering the entire neighbourhood without power for a while??? Oh how i bet you wanted the ground to swallow you up . . .

 

[Har_vey]

Have a look at this link dj. Might give you some general info.

http://www.central-networks.co.uk/Pdfs/csmanual.pdf#search='cable damage'

Then there's this one....................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/cambridgeshire/3701467.stm

 

[Spark123]

Section 5.7 in Guidance Note 1 covers the topic of burried cables.

Burried cables must be marked by cables covers or a suitable marker tape. 611-04-03

Haven't had chance to look at GN1 yet, although iirc a distridutors network is exempt from BS7671 and falls under the scope of The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022665.htm. There is a bit on underground cables which is in part iv.

 

[TeesdaleSpark]

It is true "suppliers works" are specifically excluded from the IEE regs.

I agree the ESQR are the correct reference.

The relevant bit seems to be :
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022665.htm#14

Which strengthens the original posters case.

 

[dj damo]

Thanks for the posts guys.

Ive now seen all the evidence they are using against me. There are three small peices of yellow plastic present in the metre wide hole that they excavated in order to repair the damaged cable. given this the company are saying that protectice tape was present. thus my fault

 

[big-all]

where you present when they dug the hole !!!!!

not doubting what they say but its not difficult to "plant "some tape to save paperwork

 

[dj damo]

where you present when they dug the hole !!!!!

not doubting what they say but its not difficult to "plant "some tape to save paperwork

funny you say that, it had crossed my mind. No i wasnt, and the tape present looks rather clean and bright.

I spoke to them again today. Whilst reading out section 14 of the 2002 regs (thanks TeesdaleSpark), I then stated that I dont see how 3 small peices of tape dug out over almost a metre (as present in their photographic evidence) constitutes adeqaute warning / protection as detailed by the regs. Whether it had previously been installed or not, effectively there was no warning.

At this point the guy said his hands are tied and will have to pass my case onto their mitigations department

The good news it seems to be covered under my buildings policy (I spoke to them eariler and they confirmed this). So worst case Ill have to pay the excess. Thats not the point though.

 

[big-all]

well thats good news if your excess is less than £5000

the only way you could reduce the probability [rather than disprove]the excistance of the protective tape in the origional trench
is to dig up another couple of metres whilst they are present and with at least 2 neutral witnesses are present
if this shows nothing its in your favor if it shows simmilar "aged "tape its in there favour
if the tape looks older then the suspicions would suggest a "plant"