Gas Meter Placement "dispute".....Opinions on my decision...

Good points....

I may have a quiet word with the "gaffa" when they are around tomorrow as thinking about it, if what @^woody^ and @Leofric say is correct, then they should not have offered that as an option at all.

Instead it was left to me to refuse an option that should not have been on the table to begin with.....which has made me the "bad guy".

I'm not going to have a go at them as I think they just want to get the job done on time....but if they confirm what they proposed is not allowed, that may placate the neighbours if they reiterate that to them.

I suspect my neighbours just point blank refused to allow them to dig and at that point they just looked for possible viable alternatives out loud without thinking.

Whereas they should have just said digging is the only option...tough....

First rule of property ownership-never allow any neighbours any access / easement that is not required by the deeds. Ever.

Just a small update....

For extra clarification, I rang the gas operators today. They confirmed with me that the crew on site should not have suggested the proposed solution as a viable option at all. Access should to the meter should always be on the owners property without being accessible/serviceable only via someone else's land, nor ideally in an area that could lead to a boundary dispute. Nor should any pipework be laid on another properties land.

I did not give any specific details as I did not really want to get the crew in trouble.

So whether the neighbours suggested it and pushed for the crew to ask me or the crew were looking at options out loud and my neighbours jumped on one or whether the crew actually proposed that solution off the bat....I know not...

All I know is they should have refused it as an option and not made me have to decline it.

Regardless.....they started cutting up the neighbours drive this morning....so problem solved...

It just would have been nice if they had refused the option and saved me from becoming the fall guy.

For some reason, your post dragged up this old song from my memory - especially from around the 2 minute mark. Enjoy!

You did the right thing.

If the neighbor mentions it again I'd simply identify it could have devalued your house and theirs as would have been picked up on searches when coming to sell, or worse put a buyer off.

It might not be an issue now but what happens when you or someone else in the future wants to build an extension and it then becomes a problem. When someone digs through it unknowingly, not expecting the neighbours gas to run through your property). Will they foot the bill? More likely they'll claim you cost them money as they had to go to hotel because you cut off their gas while its snowing outside.

Will they pay if it ever needs re routing again to accommodate your needs?

If it leaks and needs to be dug up, again who's going to pay for it and the remedial work... It will be a huge headache and really expensive to drain our that (future) ornamental koi pond, temporarily relocate the fish, dig through the pond liner, repair the pipe and pond, and resettle the fish - for what?... to save a bit of tarmac.

The only way it would have been close to acceptable to you is with your solicitor drafting some obligations on your neighbour on future costs. The obligations would be so onerous your neighbour then wouldn't accept them, and you would also expect them to pay your solicitor's costs, which would probably be more than the cost of redoing the entire drive in new tarmac. So hardly purposeful.

Maybe the lesson here is tarmac is cheap and rubbish, and only looks "good" until it needs its first repair.

Should have gone with block paving.

'Access to the meter should always be on the owners property without being accessible/serviceable only via someone else's land, nor ideally in an area that could lead to a boundary dispute. Nor should any pipework be laid on another properties land.' No ifs or buts or any need for dishman to make excuses to the neighbour, it was never his problem and he should never have been put in this position. The query was answered back in post 14, anyway it is now resolved.