Neighbour wants to reroute our mains supply...who pays?

[ban-all-sheds]

Fortunately, I get on well with my neighbour!

If ever I fall out with mine I think I could disconnect his earth.

 

[yeast]

Well, since original post, the electricity people have been out to have a look at locations of poles etc..

I know this only because my other neighbour saw a chap trying to peer into our gardens. Anyway, she chatted to him and found that he was looking into moving the actual poles and cables along the back of our row of houses!!

Whilst I was aware that our supply might be affected, it looks like the whole row of houses would need poles moved, cables rerouted over land that currently doesn't have cables over them to accommodate the changes our neighbour wants made.

We have not received any letters or communication from the electricity company as yet.

So now all neighbours will be affected!

So this raises another question - does the DNO require explicit permission from land owners to reposition a pole, or move an overhead cable over a previously unaffected property? Presumably the neighbour wanting to change things after decades of no problems/issues would have to pay for all this legal stuff as well as for the actual work.

No one here is going to agree to all this, I would wager, unless cables moved underground.

 

[westie101]

There are scenarios where the neighbour could avoid any costs of this to himself, but the DNO pays.

Yes they do need permission regarding pole positions which folk are well within their rights to refuse. I doubt they will be in contact until a full design is available and costings agreed internally.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

yeast - is this neighbour the sort of person who thinks he has some sort of entitlement, that if he wants the supply re-routed for his personal benefit, that everybody else will just have to put up with poles on their property?

 

[yeast]

Just want to say thanks for the feedback on this from all you helpful people!

I really can't work out the motivation for this and have to say am saddened by the thoughtlessness...its not like the poles are positioned badly at the moment - I am no expert, but they seem currently placed in the best position for everyone - the old electricity guys did a good job in catering for everyone's needs in the area - good planning in my opinion and really did minimise the aerial spaghetti.

I reckon he'll drop it when confronted with costs, objections and complexity.

 

[JohnW2]

I believe you have access to a free family legal advice service? ... I wonder if, if the cables were already there at the time of purchase, a new owner has to give permission, or if the DNO have to ask, or if the new owner is deemed to have given permission if he doesn't challenge the presence of the cables before purchase?

There were so many caveats and "it depends" statements in what I was told as to render the opinion pretty useless! She essentially agreed with you that if permission were neither given nor sought at the time of a change of ownership, that a court would probably give considerable weight to the fact that no challenge had been made by the new owner at the time of purchase, particularly given that the issue in question would probably be "visually obvious".

She also said that, in the absence of any new agreement/permission at the time of purchase, even if DNOs feel that previously given permission is 'deemed to continue through successive owners', she is rather doubtful that a court would necessarily support that view unless this had been documented (as a Covenant or whatever) in the Land Registration documents (or 'deeds').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

She also said that, in the absence of any new agreement/permission at the time of purchase, even if DNOs feel that previously given permission is 'deemed to continue through successive owners', she is rather doubtful that a court would necessarily support that view unless this had been documented (as a Covenant or whatever) in the Land Registration documents (or 'deeds').

That's the sort of thing for which there could very well be precedent.

 

[JohnW2]

She also said that, in the absence of any new agreement/permission at the time of purchase, even if DNOs feel that previously given permission is 'deemed to continue through successive owners', she is rather doubtful that a court would necessarily support that view unless this had been documented (as a Covenant or whatever) in the Land Registration documents (or 'deeds').

That's the sort of thing for which there could very well be precedent.

There could well be - don't forget, this is all far from areas of law with which she is more familiar. Her personal feeling was that a court would probably regard it as unreasonable for a buyer to be bound by something, even the existence of which they might well be unaware. However, as per the first thing she said, this could well be relatively unimportant since, whether a previous owner had given permission or not, a buyer's position would probably be considerably weakened if they failed to challenge the situation (presence of wire/poles/whatever) at the time of buying, but then subsequently tried to raise an issue about it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mfarrow]

We had a supply at work that goes through previously-sold land which the new owner had built a car park on. The cable had a fault and needed rectification.

Nothing was specified on the deeds at the time of sale about the cable (although continued access to a billboard on a wall still owned by us was, funnily enough ).

A site visit with the DNO and the owner of the newly-surfaced car part reluctantly agreed to have it dug up. This was after the DNO man said they could use specific powers to dig it up anyway if he refused!

Considering the latest development of all public drains being adopted by the private water companies, and no mechanism for refusal or 'agreement' as I know of (we were just "told"), then I doubt the owner can do much about refusing the continued existance of the OP's supply cable either. Put it this way, if I go to Severn Trent and actively refuse the permission for their 6" pipe on my property going to the my 5 neighbours now, I'm pretty sure I know who'll be paying for diversions!

 

[JohnW2]

Put it this way, if I go to Severn Trent and actively refuse the permission for their 6" pipe on my property going to the my 5 neighbours now, I'm pretty sure I know who'll be paying for diversions!

If it is deemed, or can somehow be argued, that some sort of explicit permission exists, then you're probably right.

When I bought my present house, I had to enter into written agreements with the several relevant neighbours, not only to allow the water supply and drainage pipes to their houses to continue passing trough my property but also to 'not unreasonably withhold' access to them for maintenance and repair. However, as I've observed, there was no equivalent formality in relation to electricity supplies.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

However, as I've observed, there was no equivalent formality in relation to electricity supplies.

If my memory serves me right a legal difference between services run underground on a property and services strung in the air across a property above a certain minimum height. This from bring the services to our house over 30 years ago.

We were asked to give permission for a gas pipe supplying a neighbour to pass under our driveway when our gas supply was being installed. Yet we had no "control" over the electricity and phone cables strung across the driveway other than we could insist on them being above that certain minimum height.

It seems that OpenReach can string cables across most public highways without obtaining explicit permission per cable and I think that applies also to crossing land owned by third parties. The permission is needed if a post has to be erected on land owned by a third party

It might be that a gas supply service could be strung in the air above third party land without permission.

( I have seen gas supplies carried on poles in America )

 

[JohnW2]

However, as I've observed, there was no equivalent formality in relation to electricity supplies.

If my memory serves me right a legal difference between services run underground on a property and services strung in the air across a property above a certain minimum height.

That wouldn't surprise me. However, as I've said in the past, the potential issues of my house/neighbours relate not to the overhead cables but to the long lengths of cable attached to the walls of the properties - which is perhaps a halfway house between overhead and buried.

It seems that OpenReach can string cables across most public highways without obtaining explicit permission per cable and I think that applies also to crossing land owned by third parties.

That wouldn't surprise me, either, but if it were done without permission, I presume they would find it hard to complain if the owner of that land drove an extremely tall vehicle over his/her land and destroyed the cable!

Kind Regards, John