is this legal

[glasgowgas]

have been doing central heating installs for best part of 3 years on and off in an area of glasgow where the majority of council homes did not have a gas supply, they were all electric.

transco (now called whatever ) installed best part of 1500-2000 meters.

every one external. i knew the answer but asked transco boy`s anyway.

" why external and not internal meters" says me.
" so we don`t need police/joiner/warrant to cut `em off for non payment or whatever reason" says trancso.

also had a tenant pull out a 12" machete when told that "with his pemission i would have to disconnect and cap immediately dangerous
applince"

so left property,stood on the queens highway, phoned 0800 111 999
and watched transco cut off his supply from street!!!!!!

laughed my bollo x off

 

[CMairiD]

I'm another one in social housing (England) and I agree with woody; we can't interrupt supply without permission.

And neither can the RGIs. If you are refused, then you have to notify the ESP who have the legal right to entry and to make safe.

So what makes you think landlords (England) have the right to cap gas without permission for failure grant access to the annual service, if you as a qualified engineer aren't allowed to without permission even when you find an ID situation or escape of gas?

I doubt there's a 'useless civic' out there that wouldn't cap the meter if we had the choice. Problem is the law doesn't let us.

 

[bengasman]

Yes, the landlord will always win such a claim, as the tenancy agreement may impose additional conditions above those contained in the L&T Act. Costs will be claimable from the tenant

Honestly

So what you want is:

Waste the landlord's time and money.
Waste court's time.
Waste inspector's time.

All for no other reason than to confirm for the umpteen thousandth time that the tenant was negligent, and the landlord did what he had to do.

And what is gained? Absolutely nothing, apart from jobsecurity for those who have nothing better to do than worry about the following of pointless procedures and could not hold a job with similar pay in a private company where you are supposed to prove that you earn your keep.

I fully understand why filling out pointless forms is very important to you.

 

[bengasman]

I'm another one in social housing (England) and I agree with woody; we can't interrupt supply without permission.

Familiarise yourself with the gsiur and relevant legislation, and you will know exactly how and why you can disconnect gas supplies, with, or without the tenants presence or approval.

It is simply a matter of drawing up a tenancy agreement that is worded correctly, and applying the relevant legislation.
Easy peasy.

I will grant you one thing about your argument, if you can get the tofo boys to do it, your case is even better.

The downside of going the way of getting a warrant (which you will ALWAYS get), forcing entry or digging up the road in order to make safe, is that the tenant will face a rather hefty bill.
He will also be much, much longer without gas.

But hey, all that does not matter; the political correctness has been served.

Yet another example of how useless the left wing, bleeding heart, busy-bodies are.

You wast everybody's time, stick a big bill on somebody who has little to begin with, all for the sake of obtaining a piece of paper that says exactly what everybody involved already knew, and another bunch of civics can keep their pointless jobs.

 

[CMairiD]

Familiarise yourself with the gsiur and relevant legislation, and you will know exactly how and why you can disconnect gas supplies, with, or without the tenants presence or approval.

I am very well acquainted with GSIUR 1998; the well-worn copy of it on my desk can attest to that fact. However, on the off chance that I have missed a trick, I would be very grateful if you could point me to exactly where it says a supply can be disconnected without permission by someone other then the ESP.

 

[bengasman]

I am very well acquainted with GSIUR 1998; the well-worn copy of it on my desk can attest to that fact. However, on the off chance that I have missed a trick, I would be very grateful if you could point me to exactly where it says a supply can be disconnected without permission by someone other then the ESP.

That would be sections 5, 8, and 36 in relation to each other and combined with common inclusions in tenancies, along the lines of: a AND b together lead to c.

A lot of other bits can offer help to enforcement when applied to specific situations, but I would say the above on its own is enough to nail antisocial tenants in 9 out of 10 cases.

Like any litigation, simply having a copy of the book does little good; it is the litigator who makes or breaks the case 9 out of 10 times.
That is why almost every case about disconnection is won by the landlord.

If I would go to court making the case for a landlord against a tenant appearing by himself, or with a pro bono lawyer, you'd be looking at a 99% success rate.
The cause is just, and the procedure standard; only a minute chance that a very clever lawyer would find a technical detail to bring the case down.

 

[^woody^]

A tenant or leaseholder acquires best interest in the property being leased/rented. This effectively means that the tenant has more control over the property than the landlord.

The landlord needs permission to enter, and whilst there is implied in the tenancy agreement permission for the landlord to enter upon reasonable notice, enforcement of this can only be done through the courts.

I don't make the rules Benjamin, its the law.

The demised premises (ie what is rented) is from the incoming gas pipe - effectively this is just after the shut off valve. It does not matter where this is, it is part of the demised and the landlord should not touch it even if access is available from an outside wall

So whatever is contained within the GSR regs, it does not override the tenants rights, and the landlords obligations to observe those rights. Any breaches must be dealt with lawfully through the courts. If not then the tenant would be entitled to compensation if they pursued it. There is no way a landlord could use the excuse that an annual check need to be done, as reason to disconnect. Yes the landlord could do, but it would fail in court.

I think I can safely say Benjamin, that I am in court more times than you on issues relating to landlord and tenant - be it public or private sector.

 

[CMairiD]

I take your point, but both of us must also operate under other statutory instruments.

Case in point:

You find an unsafe appliance (ID). You notify tenant/householder that you must isolate appliance from supply. Tenant/householder tells you to bugger off and get out.

GSIUR requires you to make safe. Laws of trespass require you to quit the property. Conflicts, eh? However, that's where the ESP, with their power of entry, saves the day.

With regards to housing, the same conflicts exist. GSIUR requires us to perform maintenance and an annual safety check on all gas appliances. The Housing Act 1988 gives tenants the right to peaceful and harassment-free occupation (harassment-free occupation includes cutting utility supplies).

As long as we have taken all reasonable steps to gain access, we have discharged our duties under GSIUR (39) 1998.

Capping the gas supply without permission is not a reasonable step.

 

[johnfox]

thanks all espically CMairiD.
so if an operative is told if no access and an external meter you must discon the gas now.
can the operative refuse and on which reason.

thanks again.

 

[bengasman]

...The landlord needs permission to enter...

We were talking about disconnecting outside

 

[^woody^]

...The landlord needs permission to enter...

We were talking about disconnecting outside

The demised premises (ie what is rented) is from the incoming gas pipe - effectively this is just after the shut off valve. It does not matter where this is, it is part of the demised and the landlord should not touch it even if access is available from an outside wall

Do keep up

 

[GodKnows]

Hu all,

A very interesting and controversial situation faced by both parties. Although I am an RGI, I agree with woody, the tenant cannot be just cut-off because a CP12 hasn't been done. As stated by another RGI one tenant got compensation for the coucil/landlords actions, not fair, but, the court will apply the letter of the law and not the circumstances....

Interesting views by all, casting personal dispersions is not nice or warranted

 

[Agile]

The demised premises (ie what is rented) is from the incoming gas pipe - effectively this is just after the shut off valve. It does not matter where this is, it is part of the demised and the landlord should not touch it even if access is available from an outside wall

I would be arguing that in the case of a flat then the demised premises is the part which the tenant is to occupy and that is the part within the walls plus any dedicated balconies.

The external gas meter box is not part of the demise and is merely part of the infrastructure of the gas supply as provided by the gas supply company for the purposes of metering the gas being consumed within the demised premises.

Shutting off the gas supply at the meter would therefore not constitute any trespass as that requires physical presence.

It would however be infringing the "quiet enjoyment" of the demise and would therefore need to be fully justified on safety grounds and not merely at the whim of the landlord ( because the tenant has not paid his rent ).

Tony

 

[Corgigrouch]

Personally speaking, I too like those little programmers that go in to limited service mode... Makes life so much easier..

As for the shiney arsed oxygen thieves, sadly the judicious use of pistols are still illegal... We live in hope

 

[kirkgas]

Hu all,

A very interesting and controversial situation faced by both parties. Although I am an RGI, I agree with woody, the tenant cannot be just cut-off because a CP12 hasn't been done. As stated by another RGI one tenant got compensation for the coucil/landlords actions, not fair, but, the court will apply the letter of the law and not the circumstances....

Interesting views by all, casting personal dispersions is not nice or warranted

this was my post, but you have misunderstood it, the tenant in question got compen BECAUSE the landlord did not comply with law to safety check his flat therefore putting him at risk, the court completely ignoring the fact he wouldnt let them in, at no point was his gas cut off so the court said they didnt do all they could to protect the tenant from danger