Meter Tails

[JohnW2]

I suppose so - but it WAS British Gas who fitted the new meter and left the tails where they are.

That's true, but I think all they do at a meter change is reconnect the new meter to whatever tails were previously there, isn't it? Indeed, if they started 'interferring with' those tails (e.g. shortening them, or even re-routing them), they could, in some circumstances, probably be 'in trouble' with the owner of the installation, couldn't they?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I don't think any meter operator would shorten the tails, just reconnect what's there.

If you happened to be there while they were disconnected and trimmed them, fine, but otherwise, they would be reconnected as is.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I am not querying the length but if I had done some work and left some wiring non-compliant I am sure it would be ME who would be asked to correct it - not the owner of said wires.

 

[JohnW2]

I am not querying the length but if I had done some work and left some wiring non-compliant I am sure it would be ME who would be asked to correct it - not the owner of said wires.

Fair enough - but would you necessarily be allowed (e.g. by your employer) to 'interfere' with that wiring which belonged to someone else?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ldoodle]

Just to clarify, BG didn't install overly long tails. They re-used what was there.

I missed a trick - the fuse in the 'head unit' (not my terminology) blew a couple of weeks ago - meaning no power what-so-ever. Should have trimmed them myself when I had the chance!

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, but it was they who left them non-compliant according to their colleagues.

Had I done that you would be after me to put it right.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but it was they who left them non-compliant according to their colleagues. Had I done that you would be after me to put it right.

As you can probably imagine, I'm still not convinced. If you had been employed solely to change the meter, would not your responsibilty be limited to leaving the installation 'no less safe' (or 'no less compliant') than it had been before you changed the meter?

If the tails had been unsatisfactory (damaged, single-insulated, wrong CSA or whatever) would you have expected, as the 'meter changer' to be responsible for rectifying that? I think not - if the problem was serious enough, you ('the meter changer') would probably have told the customer to get a electrician to sort it out before you were prepared to reconnect the tails, wouldn't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I must say I am at a loss to understand your acceptance of this.


Are you saying that all BG has to to is stick two wires in two holes and tighten two screws with no consideration for anything else?

 

[JohnW2]

I must say I am at a loss to understand your acceptance of this. Are you saying that all BG has to to is stick two wires in two holes and tighten two screws with no consideration for anything else?

Firstly, I'm a bit confused about this 'BG' business, because I didn't know that (any part of) BG was a 'meter operator'- have I missed something?

Anyway, the answer to your question is 'not quite'. As I see it, the 'meter operative' does 'have to give consideration' to aspects of the tails but, having given that consdieration, then has two choices - either to 'stick the two wires into two holes and tighten two screws' or, if they feel that something about the tails renders them too unsafe, refuse to reconnect the tails until the problem is sorted out (by someone else).

You didn't respond to the second part of what I wrote. If there is something 'wrong'with the tails (damage, incorrect cable etc.), do you feel that the meter operative should replace them (involving work in the customer's CU) themselves, or what?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

You didn't respond to the second part of what I wrote. If there is something 'wrong'with the tails (damage, incorrect cable etc.), do you feel that the meter operative should replace them (involving work in the customer's CU) themselves, or what?

Well, I know they wouldn't.
They would just tell the householder (I have said before that BG are too big to have customers so they don't have to keep them happy) to replace them and they will deign to come back another day.

However, I don't think it beyond credibility that they could.
If the customer chooses to call BG for the work they would, I presume, send someone else.


I will say that this example of non-compliance is very trivial but the principle is the same.

 

[JohnW2]

You didn't respond to the second part of what I wrote. If there is something 'wrong'with the tails (damage, incorrect cable etc.), do you feel that the meter operative should replace them (involving work in the customer's CU) themselves, or what?

Well, I know they wouldn't.
They would just tell the householder ... to replace them and they will deign to come back another day.

Quite so - that was my point (assuming that BG were acting as a 'meter operator' at the time). So, if you were the 'meter operative', why do you think you would be held responsible for (expected to remedy) the trivial non-compliance of the tails we've been discussing, but not a more serious problem with the tails?

I will say that this example of non-compliance is very trivial but the principle is the same.

Sure, I agree that it's trivial in this case but, like you, I'm talking about the principle.

In passing, I could report the experience of a friend a year or three ago. An operative who came to change the meter refused to do so because it would have involved removing some clips on the tails. Had my friend been around, he would have undoubtedly pulled out the clips himself (and then told the guy to get on with his job!), but his wife (who was the person around at the time) didn't feel happy to do that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It looks as if we will have to agree to differ.



Before I give up, what if -

not so trivial - the meter operative connects the tails the wrong way round?

Would that be down to the householder because the tails belong to him?

 

[westie101]

Before I give up, what if -

not so trivial - the meter operative connects the tails the wrong way round?

Leaving the supply on with the correct polarity is part of the job description (MOPS generally get sacked if they get polarity wrong, DNO staff severely disciplined)

Shortening or altering the customer's tail is not part of the job description, most MOPS would do it though if the customer was there and requested them to do so

 

[JohnW2]

It looks as if we will have to agree to differ.

It does seem that way, but I'm a little surprised that we're disagreeing. I thought it was a well-established (and generally accepted) concept that everything beyond (but not including) the meter's output terminals was the property and responsibility of the owner of the installation.

Before I give up, what if - not so trivial - the meter operative connects the tails the wrong way round? Would that be down to the householder because the tails belong to him?

No, of course not As above, correctly effecting the (sealed) connection from the meter to the outgoing tails is clearly the responsibility of the meter operator. Anyway, this is a bit different, because you are talking about the meter operative 'doing something wrong' (so clearly their responsibility to rectify). If they damaged the (customer's) tails during their work, they would clearly be 'responsible' for getting that rectified - but whether they would do the rectification themselves (they might not even be regarded as 'competent' to work within a CU!) is a different matter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

they might not even be regarded as 'competent' to work within a CU!)

That is very often the case, they are not required to be competent electricians to be a MOP, just trained to safely withdraw the cut-out fuse and change the meter - nothing more![/quote]