Blocked smart meter install: Bunched tails in floating Henley blocks – how to get it sorted?

[flameport]

Does it not look as if sorting out the mess would not only involve pulling the DNO fuse but also unsealing the meter?

The DNO fuses are in the green metal casement as seen towards the bottom of the second photo.
The other fuses are partially visible in the first photo, the black ones behind the hanging cables and the grey connector block.

 

[JohnW2]

The DNO fuses are in the green metal casement as seen towards the bottom of the second photo. ... The other fuses are partially visible in the first photo, the black ones behind the hanging cables and the grey connector block.

Yes, I was assuming most of that.

However, my point was that it looks as if sorting the mess out will involve replacing the tails upstream of the meters (since current ones are involved with the dangling blocks and 'green tape') which would involve unsealing the meter (as well as pulling the DNO fuse).

 

[Follow4689]

Yes, I was assuming most of that.

However, my point was that it looks as if sorting the mess out will involve replacing the tails upstream of the meters (since current ones are involved with the dangling blocks and 'green tape') which would involve unsealing the meter (as well as pulling the DNO fuse).

Thanks.

Yep as said there's a big old green thing that has the DNO fuse in and then there's a few black fuses which I assume are for the flats.

As it is the tails for the meters that are the problem then yes all of the meters will effectively need to be rewired.

 

[Diver Fred]

How about writing to Greg Jackson at Octopus.
Explain your problem including the steps you have taken up to this point and see what he can do.

 

[AndyPRK]

To me at quick glance the green tape is a joint between a flat mica supply cable and a grey tail. There for a reason

 

[JohnW2]

To me at quick glance the green tape is a joint between a flat mica supply cable and a grey tail. There for a reason

The tape is undoubtedly there 'for a reason', but I was suggesting that before deciding to 'just live with it', it would probably be a good idea to ascertain what type of joint (and how well made) was underneath the tape! ... or don't you think that would be necessary?

 

[AndyPRK]

flameport was saying it was unnecessary

 

[JohnW2]

flameport was saying it was unnecessary

He did. Maybe I was wrong, but I took him to be suggesting that the jointed cables should be replaced by single ones with no joints.

 

[flameport]

but I took him to be suggesting that the jointed cables should be replaced by single ones with no joints.

Correct.

The connector blocks all need to go.
Those MIMS cables at the end will need some form of connection, but taped up mess certainly isn't it.

 

[fixitflav]

Doesn't the property owner/freeholder have any responsibility here? Just curious.

 

[JohnW2]

Doesn't the property owner/freeholder have any responsibility here? Just curious.

I would imagine that depends upon who (freeholder and/or leaseholders) has contracted with a supplier for a supply of electricity?

 

[fixitflav]

I would imagine that depends upon who (freeholder and/or leaseholders) has contracted with a supplier for a supply of electricity?

I'd guess in most cases the leaseholder inherits the "contract" when he moves in. But does the contract cover supply of electric (the easy bit) or maintenance of the kit as well? It doesn't seem right that the leaseholder is responsible for upgrading to correct a potentially dangerous situation

 

[JohnW2]

I'd guess in most cases the leaseholder inherits the "contract" when he moves in.

Traditionally that was probably usually the case but, thee days, new owners (leasholders in this case) can, and often do, 'switch suppliers' the moment that take possession of a property.

But does the contract cover supply of electric (the easy bit) or maintenance of the kit as well?

The two surely go hand-in-hand. Electricity cannot be supplied if the equipment supplying it is not satisfactorily 'maintained'

It doesn't seem right that the leaseholder is responsible for upgrading to correct a potentially dangerous situation

I imagine that depends upon what it is that is 'potentially dangerous'. If it relates only to equipment supplying the particular leaseholder with electricity, then it's not necessarily obvious who else might be (partially or completely) 'responsibility, is it? In the case of multiple leasehold flats within a building, there will often be a "landlord's supply", for electricity used in 'common areas', and that [presumably complicates matters a bit?

 

[fixitflav]

Traditionally that was probably usually the case but, thee days, new owners (leasholders in this can) can, and often do, 'switch suppliers' the moment that take possession of a property.

The two surely go hand-in-hand. Electricity cannot be supplied if the equipment supplying it is not satisfactorily 'maintained'

I imagine that depends upon what it is that is 'potentially dangerous'. If it relates only to equipment supplying the particular leaseholder with electricity, then it's not necessarily obvious who else might be (partially or completely) 'responsibility, is it? In the case of multiple leasehold flats within a building, there will often be a "landlord's supply", for electricity used in 'common areas', and that [presumably complicates matters a bit?

Yes, that summarises why the OP has his problem! flameport covered it pretty well in #11.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, that summarises why the OP has his problem! flameport covered it pretty well in #11.

Yes, flameport "covered it", in the sense of explaining the nature of "the problem", but I don't think he really helped the OP much to find a practical real-world solution to the problem.