Power cut compensation

RichW_2

Cardew wrote: »

I also fail to see the logic in that statement.

If your car is vandalised - even set alight - when parked, would you accept that you are at fault for not 'securing it well enough'?

Fair point but obviously the full details of the incident are unknown. The official line at the moment is that they suspect that the fire was started by "unauthorised people interferring with the cables".

Now as these cables are clearly essential in providing a service to thousands of people and businesses, all of whom pay a substantial amount of money for it and rely on it, then it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that the company responsible for these cables ensures that either they are not accessible to "unauthorised people" or that there is a plan in place if they become so.

The analogy of my car doesn't really work I'm afraid as I am the only one affected. However, if others relied on my car being mobile and paid me to provide a reliable service using my car, then I would of course have to consider certain risk factors that I do not so much now, and if someone did manage to set fire to my car then the people who rely on it would expect that I should have a plan in place and/or pay the money back to them, no?

picardygirl

Just watched EDF representative on BBC news, he said 45000 properties are back on permanently, 39500 are back on generators for 3 hour time periods and 10000 people are still without power at all.

He also said EDF hope that the issue be resolved by tomorrow morning.

He was asked about compensation, and said as soon as the problem was resolved EDF would be talking to their regulators to sort out entitlements.

Evilution

I have been without power for just over 74 hours with none of the temporary power afforded to many of the other households. I'm so glad I have a gas hob otherwise I would have been very hungry, I can't afford to eat out 3 nights in a row.

EDF claimed that everyone got their power back between 6am and 6.30am. That is untrue, mine didn't return until 2:15pm.

If some kids had been electrocuted and killed when they started the fire on the service bridge, EDF would have been held accountable for not securing their equipment properly, why should it be any different if their lapse security of the site caused such a major blackout?

The freezer contents is unfit for human consumption. I sure as hell won't be claiming on MY insurance, once you've paid the excess and the increased premium next year you have pretty much paid for it yourself anyway.

If you told anyone to draw a grid, I suspect it would look similar to everyone else's picture of a grid. So why then does EDF's power grid only feed from one bridge? Isn't that "putting all your eggs in one basket"?
I thought the point of a grid was it could be fed from numerous points.

So c'mon you lot, use your loaf, this is supposed to be money saving expert and you aren't saving money by claiming off your insurance or just living with what has happened. If someone had posted "I know how to get £100+ just by making 1 complaint" it would be a very popular thread. I also suspect if this happened to you it would be a different story.

dcpc2003

I am a outage sufferer from Welling in Kent. I've lost several hundreds of pounds worth of freezer damaged food, paid for takeaways every night and have been unable to carry out my business since the afternoon of 20 July 2009. We have no cooking facilities and we have pets and fish that depend on pumps and lights to maintain their habitats. The traffic lights are out and two of my neighbours have already been involved in RTAs. The area I live in has been subject to burglar alarm sirens almost continuously since that date as they automatically arm and trip themselves when the power goes on and off sometimes at 12 midnight or 3:00am. Our quality of life has been severely reduced.

Add to this the advice from our insurance company of, "Your excess is £100 and your premium next year will be raised as a result of this claim". The general feeling amongst us sufferers is that it would cost us more to claim than just take the hit.

There's a few things I'd like to know about this incident before I can start to map the path to rightful compensation.

When did the incident start ie at which point were gates breached, padlocks snapped and ingress take place?

What evidence is there of the alleged break in?

How long after the incident start did the power outage occur?

At what point were EDF aware there was a problem?

At what point were the authorities notified of this incident?

I am not aware, at the moment, what security measures should be employed at sub-stations but in my opinion strategic sites such as oil/gas installations, power stations and substations should be protected to a degree that would make it impossible for vandals or opportunistic individuals to break into these sites easily and without detection.

They should also have security devices installed that would detect and report unauthorised entry immediately to a central control for area for action. I would also expect automatic fire suppressant equipment to be installed at unmanned sites.

EDF's initial helpine message stated vandalism as the cause and the media reported that both ends of the Dartford Creek bridge had been broken into. Later the cause was regraded to 'interference by unauthorised personnel' by EDF in their media statements. I wonder why they changed the wording?

Any compensation will be affected by the outcome of the criminal investigation into the cause of the damage. Until then I'm holding back.

adprob

"I am not aware, at the moment, what security measures should be employed at sub-stations but in my opinion strategic sites such as oil/gas installations, power stations and substations should be protected to a degree that would make it impossible for vandals or opportunistic individuals to break into these sites easily and without detection."

I would have thought that it would be nigh on impossible to completely secure the entire electricity / gas network. A lot of the network crosses remote locations.

Out of interest would the followers of this thread be willing to see an increase in their bills if nat grid, local distributers were to make secure the entire UK network from vandalism or other forms of attack as dcpc2003 alludes to?

Cardew

I would have thought that it would be nigh on impossible to completely secure the entire electricity / gas network. A lot of the network crosses remote locations.

Out of interest would the followers of this thread be willing to see an increase in their bills if nat grid, local distributers were to make secure the entire UK network from vandalism or other forms of attack as dcpc2003 alludes to?[/QUOTE]

Agreed,

Fixed machine guns, minefields, redeploy the army from Afghanistan;).

I read an article about the proposed cost of security for the new gas storage facilities - £millions for one site.

£billions would not secure the National Grid.

MissMoneypenny

RichW wrote: »

I do believe they are doing all they can but ultimately its their responsibility to provide a service, which they are not providing.
I know its harsh but at the end of the day if their equipment breaks because of a fault then they have not maintained it well enough, and if the equipment breaks because of vandalism then they haven't secured it well enough.

EDF directors made a decision about the number of generators they needed to have in case supplies went off and their numbers were out when an emergency happened.

It seems from todays thelondonnews, that EDF are stalling on payments Ofgen state they must pay of "£50 if a blackout lasts longer than 18 hours, and then make further £25 payments for each extra 12 hour period until the supply is reconnected."
Also
"the matter is compicated because EDF provided short three-hour bursts of power to some homes during the cut, so the continuous payment periods may not be long enough to qualify."

picardygirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

EDF directors made a decision about the number of generators they needed to have in case supplies went off and their numbers were out when an emergency happened.

It seems from todays thelondonnews, that EDF are stalling on payments Ofgen state they must pay of "£50 if a blackout lasts longer than 18 hours, and then make further £25 payments for each extra 12 hour period until the supply is reconnected."
Also
"the matter is compicated because EDF provided short three-hour bursts of power to some homes during the cut, so the continuous payment periods may not be long enough to qualify."

We were out for 20 hours consequtive hours until we got power in 3 hours bursts with 6 hours breaks in between - so according to Ofgen we should be entitled to £50 compensation ..... doesnt cover the food i had to throw away and rebuy though, but its something.

For the really unfortunate people in Dartford (i think parts of Slade Green came into that too) who were without power for the whole time, i do not think the £125 suffices (think thats the maximum claim - if claims are successful at all!)

As for local businesses, many had to shut down for 2 days what will they be entitled too - anything?

dcpc2003

adprob wrote: »

"I am not aware, at the moment, what security measures should be employed at sub-stations but in my opinion strategic sites such as oil/gas installations, power stations and substations should be protected to a degree that would make it impossible for vandals or opportunistic individuals to break into these sites easily and without detection."

I would have thought that it would be nigh on impossible to completely secure the entire electricity / gas network. A lot of the network crosses remote locations.

Out of interest would the followers of this thread be willing to see an increase in their bills if nat grid, local distributers were to make secure the entire UK network from vandalism or other forms of attack as dcpc2003 alludes to?

If I walk from Welling High Street to The Broadway at Bexleyheath I pass around 40 CCTV cameras that are there for 'public safety' reasons. I note the proliferation of Community Enforcement Officers who are empowered to detain me for littering, parking indiscretions or riding my bike on the pavement. But I see no hint of this surveillance at a site that provides power to 90,000 premises in the area.

No we don't need to redeploy troops, dig shark pits or put minefields around these sites but I'd expect a decent level of monitoring ie intrusion alarms, CCTV and fire sensors. This would not cost millions but would surely save many times that amount if they were to prevent what happened this week.

We are paying enough to the energy suppliers to expect them to provide a decent level of service that is not compromised by shoddy security at vulnerable sites. So no I wouldn't expect to pay more for something that should already be in place.

I await the results of the Police investigation with interest.

gloucesteroldspot

I wouldn't shed too many tears over EDF having to pay compensation (if indeed they do). This is an aggressive multi billion pound company that is determined to achieve a dominant position in the UK energy market. Just this morning it has been fined two million pounds for 'poor customer service'. It has been under investigation by the EU for possible involvement in price fixing in Europe since March.

The company might have many enemies, all with sufficient motive to deliberately sabotage its services, and it seems to me that this is much more likely cause of the problem than casual vandalism. Don't forget that it is to be deeply involved in the building of the next generation of nuclear generators here, and rabid anti-nuclear protesters might have a desire to disrupt services, as well as people with more sinister motives who could be very interested in how easy it seems to be to bring large parts of the country to a halt. Under these circumstances it has a clear obligation to improve its security.

Anyway, I bet they manage to wriggle out of most compensation payments through having provided temporary bursts of power to avoid the 18 hour rule. Our first temporary connection here was after the first 17 and a half hours! I might be judged to be too cynical if I say that the temporary connection rotas could have been designed for this purpose.

Doesn't all this, together with the current row over water prices, make you wonder precisely what benefits the privatisation of the utilities has had for us, the customers?