Spot the fault

[SimonH2]

AIUI, and as others have suggested, there may be a legal problem in that, unlike the situation with gas installations (and with DNOs), I don't think that there is any legal basis for an electrician 'locking off' an installation if (s)he considers it to be unsafe without the agreement and consent of the customer.

Actually, I don't think there is much difference (in law) at all. With gas, the accepted industry operating procedures are that if an RGI finds a dangerous situation they must recommend disconnection and do so with the property owner/responsible person's permission.
If permission isn't given, then they ask to turn off the main gas supply valve. If permission for that isn't given then they can call the gas supplier - who will disconnect the supply (either by capping the meter, or if access is refused, by digging up the street) if they agree the situation is dangerous.

Only that last step is done without requiring consent from the property owner/responsible person.

 

[JohnW2]

Actually, I don't think there is much difference (in law) at all. With gas, the accepted industry operating procedures are that if an RGI finds a dangerous situation they must recommend disconnection and do so with the property owner/responsible person's permission. ... If permission isn't given, then they ask to turn off the main gas supply valve. If permission for that isn't given then they can call the gas supplier - who will disconnect the supply (either by capping the meter, or if access is refused, by digging up the street) if they agree the situation is dangerous. ... Only that last step is done without requiring consent from the property owner/responsible person.

Oh, fair enough, I thought that the 'power to disconnect' (in law), without consent, was stronger than that for gas. If you're right, then I suppose that almost everything I said about electricity applies to gas as well.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

This installation was in a commercial premises.

From what we can gather the landlord provided a very basic lights and sockets installation, but the tennant was a second hand cooker dealer, and was using the place as a showroom and workshop, so had a load of sockets and cooker points (without isolators) lashed in. This was the result.

 

[Adam_151]

This installation was in a commercial premises.
, but the tennant was a second hand cooker dealer.

Did they offer to carry out the installation of electric cookers for clients as well?!

... if the precident set by UPVC glazing firms is anything to go by....!

 

[endecotp]

John, every joint and accessory throughout this part of the building is in a similar state to the CU

So you mean they have blue to L and brown to N in the sockets?

 

[SimonH2]

This installation was in a commercial premises.

Ah, that makes a difference. I presume you reported this to HSE as a breach of H&SAW act ?

From what we can gather the landlord provided a very basic lights and sockets installation, but the tennant was a second hand cooker dealer, and was using the place as a showroom and workshop, so had a load of sockets and cooker points (without isolators) lashed in. This was the result.

That makes more sense - at least they did have a reason.

But it's a tricky one that, as commercial leases are significantly different to domestic tenancy agreements. AIUI, most commercial leases rent you "a space" for you to do with as you wish - but you have to hand it back in the same state. Trouble is, some tenants just clear off and don't bother with the latter bit - a friend of mine was on the receiving end of something similar with an industrial unit that was "nice" when the lad took over from his father, but then he half ripped out the office and things like that.

And at work, I've had "disagreements" with certain managers who don't seem to understand the concept of doing as little as possible to undo later. While I've been looking at options for a project - with me looking at "how can I do it without hacking the building", while a certain manager wants to hack big holes in the structure !

 

[JohnW2]

But it's a tricky one that, as commercial leases are significantly different to domestic tenancy agreements. AIUI, most commercial leases rent you "a space" for you to do with as you wish - but you have to hand it back in the same state.

Indeed - but that also produces some 'interesting'' situations. Many years ago I inherited a property which had been let to the same tenants through a series of commercial leases over a period of several decades. During that period they had done a lot of work on the property, quite a bit of which (including a full rewire) was definitely beneficial to the property, although quite a lot wasn't (they had essentially 'commercialised' a residential property).

When the tenant eventually decided that they wanted to terminate the tenancy, the lawyers started talking to one another about 'handing back in the original state'. The tenants said that they were happy to fulfil their obligation to 'undo' the work they had done, but not 'selectively' - i.e. they would literally hand it back in its original state, 'undoing' the beneficial works they had undertaken as well as the 'detrimental' works - unless we were prepared to make a contribution towards the cost of the 'improvements' that they were being asked to leave in place.

Trouble is, some tenants just clear off and don't bother with the latter bit - a friend of mine was on the receiving end of something similar with an industrial unit that was "nice" when the lad took over from his father, but then he half ripped out the office and things like that.

There is, of course, a legal (contractual) obligation to restore the property, so that, provided the tenant does not 'disappear' (which, of course, does happen with some commercial tenants), one can attempt to enforce the situation. The usual procedure is for the landlord to commission a surveyor to produce a (costed) "Schedule of Dilapidations" (which is then usually 'negotiated' if there is a co-operative tenant involved), leading to a figure for the cost of required remedial work, which one can then attempt to recover through the usual legal channels if payment is not otherwise forthcoming.

Kind Regards, John