Upgrading electricity supply

davenottingham

I rang up the DNO and reported the leaking cut-out and they will be in touch by Friday and send someone round.
The fuse has never blown in the 12 years I have lived there. Let's see what they have to say.
In the meantime thanks for all your advice.

JC_Derby

Ich wrote: »

Yes that is correct, as I say in this case initially just report the leaking bitumen as a cut-out change (which will be free) may solve the problem

actually its not...in the case of asking to renew a supply this is contestable work

Ich_2

renew a supply this is contestable work

Must have changed recently as at least one DNO is saying provision of new supplies are the only contestable cases

Fire_Fox

davenottingham wrote: »

Yes this is before the main fuse/meter. I assume we pay for the all the new supply though (we are all long term leaseholders with a seperate freeholder).
I had an electrician round at the weekend. His comment was 'If that supply was indoors I'd be sleeping with my shoes on. I've never seen anything like it'.
To further add to the woes, the block is 'managed' by a Managing Agent which have successfully done nothing despite being told of the overheating over 2 years ago. Unfortunately they are the only people who can instruct the works.

You have misunderstood: your freeholder (superior landlord) is ultimately liable for their tenants' safety (no matter if longhold or shorthold tenants), the agent is just an agent and acts on behalf of the superior landlord. Landlords cannot delegate their legal responsibilities, only the day to day running but the buck still stops with them.

Write to your freeholder and the agent formally informing them of the dangers, then contact Environmental Health at the local council who can enforce repairs. You might also speak to the Health and Safety Executive and even the buildings insurance company since you must be a fire risk. If you can get written confirmation from the electrician of how dangerous it is that will help but otherwise just pass on their details.

Usually any works costing more than £250 per flat must be consulted on which is time consuming, however the leaseholders can all agree to dispense with this OR the freeholder can apply to the LVT for special dispensation in an emergency. Our old management company/ freeholders should have done the latter when our fire escape partially collapsed. You only have to pay if one or other is done, if they fail to go to the LVT or to consult they will struggle to extract payment but keep that under your hat.
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/

davenottingham

Both the Freeholder and their Managing Agents are well aware of the situation and have been for some time. I want to forward all the details of my findings to the Freeholder to try and force their hand to get this issue fixed.
I suspect that the Freeholder, despite being liable for the safety of the leaseholders, is not liable for any costs associated with ensuring their safety.

Fire_Fox

davenottingham wrote: »

Both the Freeholder and their Managing Agents are well aware of the situation and have been for some time. I want to forward all the details of my findings to the Freeholder to try and force their hand to get this issue fixed.
I suspect that the Freeholder, despite being liable for the safety of the leaseholders, is not liable for any costs associated with ensuring their safety.

Have you written to the freeholder as opposed to less formal communication? If you have bring in EH and the HSE. IMO getting the place safe is more important than who pays, you would find it difficult to sell the flats in the current state anyway. If the freeholder is aware but not taking action you may find the building is not actually insured, even tho premiums are being paid.

No they may not be ultimately liable for the costs (see final paragraph), they are liable for your safety and organising the repairs (see first paragraph). However usually the leaseholders pay for major works in arrears - check your long lease - so they may well have to pay up and then claim the costs back from the leaseholders.

It does really depend whether the change falls under repairs and maintenance/ like for like allowing for new legislation OR a clear upgrade or improvement, unless your freeholder is a council or housing association it's likely improvements (eg. installing the first ever elevator, going from single to triple glazing) is not always chargeable. Again this is something to keep under your hat, just get the place safe and then argue the toss, go to the LVT for a ruling if needs be.

If the supply was never adequate or appropriate or safe for the number of flats you also have the option of formally complaining to your surveyor for not noticing before you purchased.

If you read the link I supplied thoroughly the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders and freeholders are all explained in plain English. This needs to be read alongside your long lease.

Cknocker

This is an interesting one: - How many meters are there? It is unusual to supply four flats on separate meters off of a single phase. Normally there would be four individual services entering the property into separate cut outs.

The compound that is leaking is must be getting warm for it to become fluid, so it is definitely having more current supplied then the cut out is rated for, changing the cut out will get over this issue (Modern cut outs have no compound) and may be rated higher.

It sounds like the whoever did the conversion did not notify the DNO - he should have requested 3 additional services at that point. Generally a landlord would prefer separate services as there are no sub-metering issues.

With regards to provisioning new services, the work will be split into contestable and non contestable elements, the landlord can choose the following: -

1. Pay the DNO to do everything.
2. Pay the DNO to do everything EXCEPT the trenching.
3. Appoint an Independent Connection Provider (ICP) to do the work, who will manage the work and get the DNO to make the final joint.

davenottingham

I'll need to check if the freeholder has been informed in writing of this problem but I can confirm for the fact that the Managing Agents have been informed in writing.
There is a single supply cable in from the street which leads to a single cut-out and four meters- one for each flat in the block. I suspect that when the single house was converted into four flats there was never any attempt to upscale the supply.

Cknocker

Thats what it sounds like, which means its going to be an interesting one to resolve as I expect it is outside of its supply agreement conditions (Which will probably be an 80A or 60A Single Phase Supply) and as such the DNO would be within it's rights and potentially duty bound to remove the service fuse until the landlord has paid for an upgraded supply.

Of course this isn't going to be much help to you as a tenant!

The problem with a single dwelling when its converted to flats is that there are four cookers that could all be on at the same time, there could be four showers on at the same time and four hot water heaters on, as well as small appliances - this can quickly strip out the supply capacity.

JC_Derby

utility_csa wrote: »

It is only new supplies that are contestable, and what a !!!! up half of them are.

i suppos esplitting hairs, however upgrading to 3 phase would be providing a new supply.