Need advice

[Fabs]

Fabs - have you considered commissioning an independent test of your installation? It would give you peace of mind, and a document to which you could refer if challenged.

Hello,

I had the DNO down this morning. They removed the tails and replaced them. They said they were dangerous as they had been "soldered" together to extend them.
They have taken the details of the firm that did the work and will prosecute. Fortunately they were quite understanding when I showed them the leaflet we had got from this company prior to ordering the works.
I am now getting a PIR done on my side of the installation.
They told me that if the results look dodgy I can contact the DNO and they'll add this to their file once they prosecure the builders.
I was told that if I get a PIR and it's fine BC may be ok with it. They advised me not to go down the retrospective appl route as it would be a lot of hassle.

I was stupid getting this firm to do the works but I did ask them if they were Part P and they said they were.

 

[Softus]

Fabs, you might have been naive, but you've obviously realised your mistake and are doing the right thing now. I hope it works out for you.

Let's hope that the people who hastily judged you are as capable of doing the right thing.

 

[Pensdown]

I had the DNO down this morning. They removed the tails and replaced them. They said they were dangerous as they had been "soldered" together to extend them.
They have taken the details of the firm that did the work and will prosecute. .

They wont prosecute.

They told me that if the results look dodgy I can contact the DNO and they'll add this to their file once they prosecure the builders.

They can't prosecute.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was stupid getting this firm to do the works but I did ask them if they were Part P and they said they were.

And you didn't think to check?

 

[Roo]

They can't prosecute.

Are you sure?

Could the builders not be charged with tampering with DNO equipment?

On the other hand I would of thought if the DNO were going to do anything they would have disconnected the supply for breaking the T and C's.

 

[JohnD]

The only "tampering" offence we have been able to find was in the Electicity Act, and related to tampering in order to prevent the meter recording what had been used. Other tampering does not seem to be an offence (but might be a civil matter)

 

[Pensdown]

The "can't prosecute" part relates to the installation. The DNO have no powers to prosecute if the installation doesn't meet 7671.

And as Johnd has pointed, even if there is an obscure law which allows them to prosecute for tampering with their equipment, unless Fabs has slept with the chairmans wife .....it's dead in the water

 

[ban-all-sheds]

On the other hand I would of thought if the DNO were going to do anything they would have disconnected the supply for breaking the T and C's.

And disconnect their revenue at the same time?

I think not....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And as Johnd has pointed, even if there is an obscure law which allows them to prosecute for tampering with their equipment, unless Fabs has slept with the chairmans wife .....it's dead in the water

Not sure that the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 can be called "obscure"....

 

[JohnD]

Not sure that the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 can be called "obscure"....

I haven't read that one. has it got an offence of tampering or adultery?

p.s. I haven't seen the SSE chairman's wife, but if she's as old as him, I wouldn't want to.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I haven't read that one. has it got an offence of tampering or adultery?

25. - (1) No person shall make or alter a connection from a distributor's network to a consumer's installation, a street electrical fixture or to another distributor's network without that distributor's consent, unless such consent has been unreasonably withheld.

 

[JohnD]

And it's an offense with a scale penalty?

edited: ah yes, so it is. 25(1)

Offences
35. Any generator, distributor, supplier, or meter operator or any agent, contractor or sub-contractor of any of the foregoing who fails to comply with any provision of these Regulations which applies to him, any person who fails to comply with regulation 18(3), 21, 22 or 25(1) and any consumer who fails to comply with regulation 8(4) or 34(2) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

 

[plugwash]

does anyone know what level 5 on the standard scale is?

 

[Adam_151]

does anyone know what level 5 on the standard scale is?

£5000 at the moment according to wiki (the highest possible for summery conviction)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It also applies to the cutting of fuse seals....