rotten garden wall rebuild and 11kV power cable

[securespark]

If they claim there is a signed wayleave giving them permission, demand to see a copy and ask why they haven't paid you.

I happen to know that wayleave archives are very poor.

Surely if that arrangement was set up with a previous owner, the DNO don't have to do anything with the cable or pole?

 

[oakysmokyjoky]

Surely if that arrangement was set up with a previous owner, the DNO don't have to do anything with the cable or pole?

its a registered land charge/restrictive covenant linked to the original conveyance for the substation. Our property (and all the others on the east side of the close where the HV cable runs) are caught as part of the subsequent owners clause....so we are all bound up! In the meantime I'm still waiting for the 'local depot' of SSE to come up with their solution......

 

[securespark]

Their solution will be "Hard cheese, mate..."

 

[bernardgreen]

Has there been any progress with this ?

 

[oakysmokyjoky]

Update 4th June....no progress! SSE have come back from their wayleaves dept and said "....The cable that has been exposed is at an unsafe depth and therefore the cable needs to be buried to make it safe. Our solution to put the situation right is to raise the levels on top and around the cable as it runs behind the now removed sleepers and underneath the concrete. In order to make it safe, it is likely there will be some adjustment in the way you use the path in its current format."

I have rejected this bodge suggestion, not least because it will make access into our garden much harder...and its a bodge. I have referred it to HSE for advice. I am also engaging our house insurance legal cover.

Meanwhile the dodgy wall issue is still there....

 

[JohnD]

Ask them for a copy of the Wayleave so you can examine its terms. Insist on the actual original terms signed by the previous owner of your house, showing the date and signature.

I happen to know something.

 

[oakysmokyjoky]

Thanks JohnD. I have the original easement which takes the form of a binding conveyance between original owner and Southern Electricity Board in 1967. This was for the transfer of land for the substation at the bottom of the close along with the connecting underground/overground cables, poles and ducts running across the other parts of owner's lane. They say that because the easement says 'approximate route' they can and did stick the cable where they like and its my fault the wall fall exposed the cable. This is a comparison of two images (we are house nearest the pole). Original easment - looks more or less tight to the boundary to me - running north (up) from the pole. The second image is the actual line of the cable...all over the show. Now to me that doesn't look enough of a match to be called 'approximate' as I would think approximate would mean any route within a defined/hatched corridor...otherwise whats the point in having a plan. I'll take other views gladly.

 

[JohnD]

It seems to me that the original plan put the duct close to the boundary where it would be clear of the buildings

but the as-dug is too close to the buildings. And does not look reasonable

I knew of incidents occurring where people worked off the plan and hit cables that did not correspond with it. AFAIK they were rerouted.

this probably needs a person with legal experience of such disputes. I'm sure you will not be the first.

I notice that as well as the route not corresponding to the plan, SSE say it was buried at an unsafe depth. One wonders how it came to be done so badly.

One might reasonably say that the cost and inconvenience of putting right the poor installation should fall on the person responsible for the installation.