Annexe consumer unit - must it be in annexe?

[Paul-in-Sussex]

I didn't really want to give away a lot of detail here because I don't want to be chucked out for trouble making if they find this - but here in a nutshell is the situation.

I have lived in annexe for just over twenty years. I'm not always there because work takes me away - more in summer than winter.

Main house was previously owned by an older lady who had the annexe built to accommodate her aged mother. Mother moved to nursing home and subsequently passed away. I took on annexe expecting to be there six months... Annexe is size of a one-car garage and lacks some amenities like washing machine, worktop etc - but is OK.

Property purchased a few years ago by a chap with a brain injury. His affairs are managed by some sort of legal instrument such as trust or whatever. Therefore every detail of his financial existence is being handled by solicitors.

Solicitors have already tried to raise rent, which I resisted successfully. Much talk of 'making sure I am safe & comfortable', which I believe translates to 'many opportunities to engage tradespeople and levy chunky invoices for 'management services''. There has been talk of remodeling the kitchen (just a cooker next to a sink - no draining board and no worktop - it's small), repainting the whole place and generally doing anything for the sake of serving invoices. The landlord was awarded a seven figure sum in compensation - which they presumably control.

I find the place ageable enough, it is quiet and private, and I have a lot of time for the landlord who has made a life for himself rather against the odds. But I now have what I consider to be thieving lawyers in my face which is hard when it involves someone I respect being ripped off and invasive work being done to a tiny annexe.

They have scheduled electrician to do work in a couple of weeks. He says it is two days minimum and ceilings down to access wiring. Which means more people to repair ceilings and then a repaint and then the kitchen and what about the shower and maybe some modern heating and bloody fairy lights for Christmas too.

I think the 'box' could go on the outside wall, there is a perfect spot. Presumably boxes can be locked? That would be ideal but they won't like being told.

Paul

 

[ericmark]

Hi all
Many thanks for all the input - on a bank holiday.
To close this out - essentially if I have unimpeded access to CU all is OK. CU doesn't have to be 'within' annexe so long as I can access it whenever I feel the need.

So the CU could be on the wall outside in a lockable cabinet? This would save ripping down the ceiling in the annexe as all wiring could be accessed from the 'other side' - back wall of main house.

Please tell me if my thinking is correct so I can tackle landlords lawyers with hard facts.

Thanks again for your time, patience and expertise.
Paul

As said big question is if it is considered in law as a separate dwelling? From what I have read it seems it is not.

first your landlord needs to get an EICR done and give you a copy …

this must be a private arrangement or else the LA would have chased all this up

One that only applies in England I would assume with Sussex in user name he is in England, and it is for rented property not for when lodgers are taken in. Clearly to ensure the insurance is valid it would need an EICR, but as to law,

“specified tenancy” means a tenancy(4) of residential premises in England which—
(a) grants one or more persons the right to occupy all or part of the premises as their only or main residence;
(b) provides for payment of rent (whether or not a market rent); and
(c) is not a tenancy of a description specified in Schedule 1 to these Regulations;
(4) See the definition of “tenancy” in section 122(6) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

122 Electrical safety standards for properties let by private landlords
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on a private landlord of residential premises in England for the purposes of ensuring that electrical safety standards are met during any period when the premises are occupied under a tenancy.
(2) “Electrical safety standards” means standards specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations in relation to—
(a) the installations in the premises for the supply of electricity, or
(b) electrical fixtures, fittings or appliances provided by the landlord.
(3) The duties imposed on the landlord may include duties to ensure that a qualified person has checked that the electrical safety standards are met.
(4) The regulations may make provision about—
(a) how and when checks are carried out;
(b) who is qualified to carry out checks.
(5) The regulations may require the landlord—
(a) to obtain a certificate from the qualified person confirming that electrical safety standards are met, and
(b) to give a copy of a certificate to the tenant, or a prospective tenant, or any other person specified in the regulations.
(6) n this section—
“premises” includes land, buildings, moveable structures, vehicles and vessels;
“private landlord” means a landlord who is not within section 80(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (the landlord condition for secure tenancies);
“residential premises” means premises all or part of which comprise a dwelling;
“tenancy” includes a licence to occupy (and “landlord” is to be read accordingly).

This seems to be going around in circles, but it seems it is not only an EICR which is required, but also the inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment (PAT testing) for any item provided by the landlord. It is interesting as it means the mobile homes are also covered even when not considered as a building.

The "their only or main residence" seems to be a major factor, so a holiday let is not covered.

I'm not always there because work takes me away - more in summer than winter.

This could be a problem, we allowed two lads to stop in our annex for a couple of weeks, and had they remained we could have been in the same position as they had no where else to go.

However this is a legal nightmare, with regulations linking to each other, and going around in circles. The two guys went to the accommodation for railway volunteers, they were told they could not stop there 365 days, and then bought a caravan, this also caused problems as located where really not permitted, the railway bought the caravan from them to kick them out since the railway realised they could get stuck with these guys never moving out even when not volunteering, they likely the guys, but realised the legal implications of allowing them to remain.

To me your problem is the premises are being controlled by solicitors, who can't hid behind "Sorry I did not know" and are required to cross all t's and dot all i's and even as a layman it is easy today to read the laws on line.

Put yourself in their position, you are a problem for them, and they would likely like to see you gone, I had the same when my sister died with at the time my dad living with her, the estate was left to a friend of hers, and the first time my dad left the house, all locks were changed and I had to travel 130 miles to pick him up, with Police saying they would arrest him if he tried to get back in. It was the death of him, as medical letters were not redirected and he missed going for an operation and by time it was sorted his health was not good enough for them to operate.

I am not sure what happens if repairs can't be done in 28 days

You may be happy with the situation but, as above, the issue will arise when the situation is brought into compliance with the law, and an electrical inspection is carried out which very probably will require that the CU be re-located within 28 days. However, again, that is not your problem. If the inspection is not undertaken then that non-compliance with the law will eventually result in 'action'.

it has been debated as to if not done, does the landlord have to evict you? I would hope not, but your problem is the solicitors likely know exactly what can be done, and you really don't want to remind them.

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

I am OK with legally mandated work being carried out. My initial guess was that this is just work for works sake. They now also want to do things with the cooker hood - thin end of the wedge I guess.
I will suggest the CU is put outside to minimise disruption and cost.

Many thanks for all your help

Paul

 

[Risteard]

I am OK with legally mandated work being carried out. My initial guess was that this is just work for works sake. They now also want to do things with the cooker hood - thin end of the wedge I guess.
I will suggest the CU is put outside to minimise disruption and cost.

Many thanks for all your help

Paul

Nobody will put it outside.

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

Why is putting it outside a problem. That option was mentioned here yesterday.

 

[ebee]

Sometimes people that are very intelligent make a decision and then some comes along with a simpler more cost effective solution and they "ignore it" purely because they didn`t think of it in the first place. They think it makes them look silly, which it doesn`t.

Then there are those with a "Do as I say" attitude. I knew one like that, he did never admit there was a better way.
He was like a bear with a sore head when he returned from his holidays and the lads had worked well because they`d used sense to do things a better way than the way he wanted. Jobs got done better and quicker and he hated it.
On the very very rare occasion he would decide to do as someone suggested then he would add a very very tiny bit of his own therefore making the whole idea "His suggestion" .
Not only his workforce but some customers could see right thru that.

So are they trying it on to make money or because they lack a bit of common sense even though they might be absolute experts in their own field?

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

The current plan is to pull down some of the ceiling in the annexe to access existing wiring. Wiring comes through back wall of main house directly into my 'kitchen' and toilet setup.
On the landlords side are a row of kitchen cabinets, probably already used for some of the annexe wiring.
I think they could put the wiring through the outside wall into a waterproof, lockable box without even entering the annexe.
Internet verdict (here and elsewhere) seems to be that CU outside in a suitable housing is 'unusual but not illegal'. It would suit me perfectly fine.

And yes I do think the job is being milked. I spoke to the electrician chosen for the job and he became obnoxious when I (politely) asked questions about the scope of the work, timings etc. It seems 'tenant' = 'scum' to a lot of people.

 

[Murdochcat]

Why are you getting so involved?

So what did the EICR say?

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

Involved because I live there and have done for 20+ years, and because I don't want massive disruption (ceilings down - more people in to reinstate + paint etc etc etc. It is a small space, little bigger than a one-car garage. A bunch of people ripping it apart unnecesarily while I sit around protecting my interests for days on end is not my idea of fun - especially if it can be avoided by a little intelligent planning.

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

PS I don't have the EICR, I have asked for it. I don't seem to have any of the document they are supposed to provide to a tenant.

 

[ebee]

https://issuu.com/atmltd/docs/ecn_sept_2023_opt/50 Page 50

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

Thanks ebee
So it is really just common sense - run cables in from underneath and use sealant. I work in the marine industry and all that is standard stuff.

So no real reason why it can't be done?

Many thanks
Paul

 

[JohnW2]

PS I don't have the EICR, I have asked for it. I don't seem to have any of the document they are supposed to provide to a tenant.

Thanks for all the additional information, but I'm getting a bit confused.

I presume that there is some sort of formal 'tenancy agreement'? If solicitors are managing things on behalf of the landlord, they must surely be aware of the legal obligation (on the landlord, on whose behalf they are acting) to both undertake an EICR and to provide the tenant (you) with a copy of the report - so, if they had complied with those legal requirements (on behalf of the landlord) you could at least see if the EICR said that a move of the CU was required.

As I've previously said, none of what we are discussing is really 'your problem', but I do understand your desire to avoid (maybe 'unnecessary') disruptive work in the place you live in. However, although I'm no lawyer, I would imagine that a landlord (or someone acting on their behalf) is probably entitled to undertake whatever work on a rental property that they see fit - perhaps with a caveat that they might have to pay for you to live somewhere else whilst 'disruptive' work was being undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul-in-Sussex]

Yes I think I did get a tenancy agreement when they took the place over. I haven't had all the other bits of paper a tenant is supposed to receive.

They may or may not be aware of their legal obligations but they only seem interested in comissioning juicy work. 30k for plastic lawn, abit of crazy paving and a brick paved parking space for two cars... The garden was a nice little project I imagine, now they have turned their attention to the annexe. Started of with essential compliance which grew into painting the whole place, remodelling kitchen etc etc. To be followed naturally by an attempt at a stonking increase in rent - which I will resist - and all work at the expense of a vulnerable young man. That isn't my problem strictly speaking but someone has to have principles and right now it is me.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes I think I did get a tenancy agreement when they took the place over. I haven't had all the other bits of paper a tenant is supposed to receive.

Fair enough. I was really wanting to be sure that the situation qualifies, in law, as a tenant living in 'private rented accommodation' - but it sounds as if it probably does.

They may or may not be aware of their legal obligations but they only seem interested in comissioning juicy work.

You (as tenant) could, if you so wished, complain to the LA that the landlord (or those acting on his behalf) have not (as is required by law) provided you with a report of an electrical inspection of the property (the legislation actually just calls it an 'electrical safety inspection', ir something like that, and doesn't mention "EICR" but, in practice, an EICR is what it is!) - but you might not want to rock that boat.

30k for plastic lawn, abit of crazy paving and a brick paved parking space for two cars... The garden was a nice little project I imagine, now they have turned their attention to the annexe. Started of with essential compliance which grew into painting the whole place, remodelling kitchen etc etc. To be followed naturally by an attempt at a stonking increase in rent - which I will resist - and all work at the expense of a vulnerable young man. That isn't my problem strictly speaking but someone has to have principles and right now it is me.

If you really believe that those managing his affairs are abusing the situation, by acting in their own interests and probably contrary to the interests of the landlord, and if you feel 'on principle' that something should be done about that, I think you could probably turn to the Court of Protection (or some such legal route) - but you probably wouldn't want the hassle (and possibly cost) of doing that. However, if such are your beliefs you might perhaps discuss the situation with the CAB.

By chance, one of my daughters is a barrister who specialises in these sort of issues (*'mental capacity' etc.) - so, when I have a chance, I will ask her if she has any thoughts, advice or suggestions.

Kind Regards, John