Incorrect Invoice / Dispute over damage to electrical cable

peter_the_piper

I know that when I ran a cable to our biggest greenhouse I was under the impression that all buried cable had to be either armoured or in conduits, plus more than 600mm.

if its the power company claiming the money it may well be worth getting an independent report as I can't believe the power company actually buried plain cable so shallowly.

Nilrem

peter_the_piper said:

I know that when I ran a cable to our biggest greenhouse I was under the impression that all buried cable had to be either armoured or in conduits, plus more than 600mm.

if its the power company claiming the money it may well be worth getting an independent report as I can't believe the power company actually buried plain cable so shallowly.

Depending on where and when it was laid, the power company may I believe have left final burial to a contractor, or laid before current regs.
I know our supply cable is only about 300mm under the surface as when it died the supply companies' guys had to dig it up and were surprised. We ended up very carefully digging alongside the cable and putting bricks down with slabs over them from memory.

The_Rainmaker

There is negligence somewhere here and I'm not sure it is the OPs.  OP get yourself acquainted with the necessary legislation and then decide how to proceed.  Don't think I'd be paying it (at first glance) having had to bury electrical cable in the past 2'6" was the depth we went to.

Robin9

knightstyle said:

I thought that in the UK a buried cable should be 600mm deep and have a warning tape or mesh 150mm above it?  Did this cable have this?  If not then your partner should counter claim.

No -  when laid services cables to houses should be 450mm to the bottom of the trench. There is no requirement that they should be covered by tiles or tape.  Higher voltage cables have a deeper initial installation depth. 

Things change and cables can subsequently have reduced cover.  

Smartlucinda

I think what I am trying to get my head around is perhaps not the invoice number but instead the letter of claim they issued beforehand. The company just changed the accident circumstances when liability was denied under the streetworks act (which wasn't relevant in this situation on private grounds). Surely they cannot just do a u-turn using the same invoice number?  

The cable was too shallow according to their own regulations. We are aware of the HSG process for safe digging and the power company do not have any evidence to suggest he was negligent (even on their own damage report forms). According to their own regs published publically they would have to relay the cable at the correct depth regardless as it is a danger to the occupant. There I still fail to see how my partner is liable in this situation. 

davidmcn

Smartlucinda said:

I think what I am trying to get my head around is perhaps not the invoice number but instead the letter of claim they issued beforehand. The company just changed the accident circumstances when liability was denied under the streetworks act (which wasn't relevant in this situation on private grounds). Surely they cannot just do a u-turn using the same invoice number?  

Changing the basis of their claim is hardly "doing a u-turn", even if something gets as far as court action you can still use several alternative arguments for why the other party is liable. It makes perfect sense for them to use the same invoice number for the same amount being billed to the same party, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you've found some kind of "gotcha". And where are you going with this line of argument anyway? Are you suggesting your partner would have been liable if the claim had been worded differently in the first place?

Aylesbury_Duck

Smartlucinda said:

I think what I am trying to get my head around is perhaps not the invoice number but instead the letter of claim they issued beforehand. The company just changed the accident circumstances when liability was denied under the streetworks act (which wasn't relevant in this situation on private grounds). Surely they cannot just do a u-turn using the same invoice number?  

The cable was too shallow according to their own regulations. We are aware of the HSG process for safe digging and the power company do not have any evidence to suggest he was negligent (even on their own damage report forms). According to their own regs published publically they would have to relay the cable at the correct depth regardless as it is a danger to the occupant. There I still fail to see how my partner is liable in this situation. 

What outcome are you looking for?  In your initial post you seemed to be suggesting that there was an administrative problem around the invoices.  Now it seems you're trying to avoid paying altogether.

[Deleted User]

Smartlucinda said:

I think what I am trying to get my head around is perhaps not the invoice number but instead the letter of claim they issued beforehand. The company just changed the accident circumstances when liability was denied under the streetworks act (which wasn't relevant in this situation on private grounds). Surely they cannot just do a u-turn using the same invoice number?  

If the invoice number bothers you that much, just stick an A on the end of it or something.  No one will mind and I'm sure they'll still be able to match payment up to the incident.

Smartlucinda

What outcome are you looking for?  In your initial post you seemed to be suggesting that there was an administrative problem around the invoices.  Now it seems you're trying to avoid paying altogether.

I'm looking to understand whether my partner is actually liable or not, given the evidence in possession of both parties, and to what extent. I guess I was trying to understand whether the continuing administrative errors add weight/justification for denial of liability (although I'm hearing loud and clear that it doesn't). There are processes regarding correct invoicing found on the gov. uk website (invoicing and taking payments from customers) which haven't been followed in this situation, so why should we play by the rules when they aren't?  Whether it would have been 'worded correctly' (i.e. he was held liable under the correct legislation at least!) or not we would still be contesting the amount. It just doesn't feel right to be billed over £700 for a cable that was laid too shallowly and was exposed via careful-hand digging as stipulated by HSG; it only adds salt to the wound that the administrative errors keep on rolling in. 

garth549

I don't know what the building regs are but even if it's illegal to lay a cable at 27cm in 2020 it may not have been illegal when it was initially laid.  If this is the case then there's no negligence on the part of the contractor/electricity company.

Do you have legal cover on your home insurance?  If so that's your best point of call by far.