Reconnection of Electricity

[TonyW2]

Your problem is that the DNO and the gas supplier can remove their service for safety reasons and make safe any existing equipment (or its remnants). That would be agreed in the very first contract for the installation of service. They cannot charge the HA for that activity.

That has unfortunately come to pass.

(The DNO and elec supplier could charge the person causing damage for the costs, but probably have concluded that such action would be impractical and not cost effective. You have no rights to control their decision)

The HA (or original builder) asked for supply equipment to be connected and that was done. They have not paid for anything else. However, the HA as the property owner still wants a supply system and so will need to agree the terms and the costs of re-providing it.

I doubt that the original contract made with the DNO, to install a supply system, undertook to provide ongoing and unending maintenance of that equipment. (Probably the maintenance of the supply lines is in an agreement between the elec service supplier and the DNO.
The supplier and the DNO are in the driving seat, as they have no obligation to the HA nor the tenants to cooperate.

Surely a HA is aware of the risks they face as landlords?

The van analogy is flawed; you (to make your house more attractive for rent) paid a van owner (DNO) to place a van in your garage. Later, the van owner agreed to let somebody (BG) hire it and then sub-hire it to your tenant. The van got damaged. Why should its owner place another one on your property and possibly repeat the experience?

Edit elec

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[SimonH2]

I can see the point the OP is making - though I can't see him getting far.

At the moment, he is thinking something along the lines of "if BG knew there was something going on that was going to end up with removal of the supply, should they have mentioned it and given the property owner the opportunity to do something about it".

Using the analogy of the van in the garage, should not either the van owner or the intermediary have mentioned to the property owner along the lines of "did you know the occupier has smashed two windows in the van so far ?".

IF there was supposed to have been any such system AND it wasn't followed, then (and only then) would the OP have a claim against BG and/or the DNO to have the reconnection charge reduced. I doubt if there is such a procedure - for one thing, how would either the DNO or BG know who to tell ?

I can see the OP's frustration that BG are apparently refusing to say what the procedure is. On the basis that those who try the hardest to withhold information tend to be those with the most to hide, I can understand why the OP might wonder if BG are in fact hiding something - they aren't exactly renowned for their policy of never ever ripping customers off are they

As others have said repeatedly, if he wants lecky in the house, he's going to have to pay the connection charge. I'd have paid it ages ago on the basis that it would be costing me money not being able to rent the place.
Then look into whether any unfair play went on - and if so, then use the small claims court (if necessary) to recover whatever part of the connection charge shouldn't have been due.
In any case, if he's unhappy with BG then he might want to try contacting OfGem. But based on my observations of how toothless many of these regulators are (my area of interest involves the useless pile called OfCom who've been shown to be ignoring widespread breaches of the Wireless Telegraphy Act by BT), I'd not hold my breath.