Neighbour's electrical wire over my door

arciere

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Arc, would you be 'happy', for the sake of good relations, to ask your builders to include burying the cable in a conduit under the path whilst they are there? If so, put that very reasonable and more-than-kind offer to your neighb. (If you can't bear the thought of paying for this yourself, then get a quote from the builder, and tell your neighb 'this is a great offer - it's much cheaper because they are already here.' Or, offer to go 'halves'.)

Good relations have long gone (take a look at my previous posts if curious).

We both share the freehold of the building, which, in a way, just makes things worse. So far, we have gone from "happy for your builders to remove it, because we don't even need it" to "if something fails, we will blame you and your builders" and "that cable has been there before we moved in, so you have no right ask for it to be removed/fixed/made safe".

So, basically, they won't be doing/spending anything at all on that cable.

arciere

Section62 said:

arciere said:

the idea of having a 230V cable 5cm above our heads is not amusing.

On this bit here's some reassurance.  Unless the cable has been seriously damaged so a live conductor is exposed, being 5cm above your heads poses no risk whatsoever.  If it was, then touching extension leads or appliance leads while they are plugged in and switched on would also be dangerous.

arciere said:

Plus, it looks horrible on the new door we are fitting...

Is this the main reason you are unhappy with the cable then?  Nothing wrong if it is, just try and avoid doing what the builder has done and introduce other things like fire risk if there is no obvious evidence of a problem.  The trip going is evidence of some kind of problem, but that isn't necessarily due to the cable.

If you don't like the appearance of the cable then you can ask the neighbour to change it.  If they refuse, you can ask for permission to change it at your expense. If they refuse then your options are limited, and probably all rather expensive.

Generally, while doing building work, small details can look like real eyesores - often because we focus attention on them.  In normal day-to-day life we don't usually pay much attention to those small details. Human sight is a wonderful thing that can block out things that don't matter, while giving laser focus on details.  See here for an example.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

In other words, if you aren't looking at the cable, you'll probably stop noticing it is there.


Edit: Having now seen the photo, presumably the person designing the building works was aware of the cable and had planned to securely attach the cable/conduit neatly to the finished structure, not just leave it across the doorway?

It's a combination of a lot of things, mainly their refusal to do anything because 'it was there before we bought the flat'.

When we first raised the issue with the neighbours, they (he) said that they were happy for our builders to remove it, because they were not using it anyway and it was also a 'nuisance' to them since it keeps tripping the electrical panel. Now they (she) decided that that's no longer the case, so they need that cable, it's always been there and that they won't be doing anything about it (let alone let our builders go inside their house and touch the electrical wires there).

Jeepers_Creepers

Fair do's.

There must come a point where, if the obstacle continues to cause even a partial obstruction after the owner is made clear it is a breach of the RoW, they must then hold some responsibility? Take it to its logical conclusion - the cable runs across that path at knee height. The owner has no responsibility?

This cable looks to be at a height that many folk would brush their heads against.

In practice, when it can be shown that the owner has just absolved themselves of any responsivity even when it's been made clear it is some impediment to rightful passage, should the obstacle subsequently be damaged as a result, they must have some responsibility.

Surely?

The OP could cover it in hi-vis tape, prop a stick under it to lift it higher, but that clumsy builder still... tsk.

Arc, who is the Freeholder? After checking your deeds, that's probably a good first call.

arciere

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Arc, who is the Freeholder? After checking your deeds, that's probably a good first call.

We both are, we jointly own it (Flat 1 and Flat 2)

Section62

arciere said:

(let alone let our builders go inside their house and touch the electrical wires there).

To be honest, on the basis of the line they have spun about the shed being a fire risk, I  wouldn't allow the builder into my property to look at the electrics, let alone touch them.  I wouldn't trust them not to whip out a pair of sidecutters and cut the cable, leaving me the bill to repair it or make it safe.

I'm a bit puzzled, and possibly won't be the only one.  From the thread title - and you mentioning refurbishing your patio - it sounded like the cable was above an existing door and the builder was just doing a bit of landscaping.

The picture shows a significant construction project - and unless I'm misinterpreting things, the 'door' is actually just a hole where a new door is going.  The building work looks like some kind of extension.  Is this assumption right, and if so, can you confirm this work is being done for you, not the neighbour or anyone else?

Again, if so, have you got planning consent (if required), and have plans been submitted to Building Control for approval?

I ask, because I don't understand how you would get planning consent and BC approval to build what you are building if the shed genuinely poses a fire risk.  I also don't understand how a BC officer making their inspections wouldn't have flagged up the problems of (a) the shed and (b) the cable.  BC officers aren't what they used to be, but even so....

The shed looks very close to the new construction (but that could be an optical illusion) - is it even possible for the builder to finish that wall with the shed in the way?

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Fair do's.

There must come a point where, if the obstacle continues to cause even a partial obstruction after the owner is made clear it is a breach of the RoW, they must then hold some responsibility? Take it to its logical conclusion - the cable runs across that path at knee height. The owner has no responsibility?

This cable looks to be at a height that many folk would brush their heads against.

In practice, when it can be shown that the owner has just absolved themselves of any responsivity even when it's been made clear it is some impediment to rightful passage, should the obstacle subsequently be damaged as a result, they must have some responsibility.

Surely?

The OP could cover it in hi-vis tape, prop a stick under it to lift it higher, but that clumsy builder still... tsk.

There's two, possibly three, different issues being conflated there.

In relation to CDM, the responsibility rests with those involved with doing the work.  Who is responsible depends on the type of work, and what agreements (if any) have been made in relation to the client duty.  The responsibility is pretty much absolute though.

To give an analogy which makes things a bit clearer, if a gas company worker starts digging a hole in the road and 6 inches down hits a 33kv cable which converts the worker into a smouldering pile of carbon, the worker's company will be the one answering very difficult questions.  There's no point them arguing the cable shouldn't have been there, or that someone should have warned them it was there - the duty is on the client and contractor to plan the works, which includes informing themselves of what is there, and using a working method that takes into account the danger posed by unknowns.  The electricity company won't be without any responsibility if they laid the cable that shallow, or knew that it was, but the mere ownership and use of it doesn't pass the responsibility to them.  The worker's company have the immediate responsibility to stop the last hole opening up in the Swiss cheese.

With the work going on here the hidden nature of the cable in that analogy doesn't apply. The cable is visible, if it was knee height it would be a trip hazard as well as an electrical danger. It is a clear risk that the client/designer/contractor should be able to identify, plan mitigation, and deal with safely.  The cable owner's responsibility is the same as any other householder's responsibility for a domestic electrical installation, and the same as any other property owner's responsibility for not obstructing a RoW.

The sting in the tail is that now the builder and client(?) have had a discussion about the safety aspects, and attempted to contact an authority (the fire service) about it, it would be difficult for either to deny safety awareness if a 'tragedy' was to happen involving the cable.

(OP - all the above is only a discussion response to Jeepers_Creepers questions)

As for obstructing the RoW (if that is an issue) - on the wall end of the cable, by counting the courses of brick, I'd estimate it to be about 2.6m above what seems to be the original ground level. The shed side a bit less, say 2.3m. But we don't know if it was higher or lower before the building work started.

I'm not sure many people are 2.3m or taller... so I don't see very much head brushing going on at that height.

Jeepers_Creepers

Now you've got me counting bricks

Yup, fair points.

I do make the lowest part of that cable more like 2m high from the inner level, tho'; it's clearly hanging below the upper door frame.

Annoying that there's only 2 FH owners, tho' - I wonder how the vote on this would go?

Arc, regardless of how you approach this, since the path is being dug to some degree, worth burying a conduit down there? Tuck it so's the end comes up behind that wall end so's it's out of sight.

Rosa_Damascena

arciere said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Arc, would you be 'happy', for the sake of good relations, to ask your builders to include burying the cable in a conduit under the path whilst they are there? If so, put that very reasonable and more-than-kind offer to your neighb. (If you can't bear the thought of paying for this yourself, then get a quote from the builder, and tell your neighb 'this is a great offer - it's much cheaper because they are already here.' Or, offer to go 'halves'.)

Good relations have long gone (take a look at my previous posts if curious).

We both share the freehold of the building, which, in a way, just makes things worse. So far, we have gone from "happy 

Remind me - are they the ones with the spicy cooking that refuse to ventilate? If they won't do anything that costs them nothing, don't expect them to spend a penny.

Sharing a party wall is bad enough, there is no way I could share a building with others. A communal environment just ain't for me.

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Now you've got me counting bricks

Always count the bricks.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I do make the lowest part of that cable more like 2m high from the inner level, tho'; it's clearly hanging below the upper door frame.

Sure. But that change in height is happening due to someone's building works. From a technical perspective it would probably be better to run the shed supply in SWA with a duct under the path, or keep it in conduit neatly attached to the new building above the door level. It could be designed to blend in quite nicely.

But what do you do if the owner of the cable, when asked politely if they are Ok with it being changed (at no expense to them), responds with something like "it's how it was done, and how it should be" (with apologies to the originator of those words).

My suggestion is that both sides should look very carefully at their deeds to see what they say about shared rights and responsibilities....

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Annoying that there's only 2 FH owners, tho' - I wonder how the vote on this would go?

....because in that situation the one wanting the changes will either need to go to court, or change their plans.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Arc, regardless of how you approach this, since the path is being dug to some degree, worth burying a conduit down there? Tuck it sos' the end comes up behind that wall end so's it's out of sight.

Luckily, in this case the neighbour seems content to let the work be done, provided there is the (perfectly reasonable) acceptance of responsibility for any damage done by the tradespeople. Any competent tradesperson wouldn't have an issue with agreeing with their client how that responsibility will be shared, and would exercise care to minimise the risk of damage being caused (not to mention taking plenty of photos before during and after their work, just in case of 'problems').

So if the building work is an extension there must be a qualified electrician due to visit some time before completion. What would it cost for them (while on site already) to terminate the T&E and conduit in a suitable box, connect up a length of SWA, terminate the SWA in the shed, (+worst case add an RCD somewhere in the house to protect it all), test, and issue the paperwork?

Got to be cheaper than going to court I'd think.

arciere

Section62 said:

arciere said:

(let alone let our builders go inside their house and touch the electrical wires there).

To be honest, on the basis of the line they have spun about the shed being a fire risk, I  wouldn't allow the builder into my property to look at the electrics, let alone touch them.  I wouldn't trust them not to whip out a pair of sidecutters and cut the cable, leaving me the bill to repair it or make it safe.

The fire risk is only one of the reasons why we (us and the builders) want that cable removed. That shed is made of wood that was not treated in any way (see below for more details about this). The electrical cable gives power to a light bulb/switch and a power socket (or more than one), that the previous owners, who built the shed and were not electricians, used for a tumble dryer. Now, that socket gets very often soaked in rain because there are holes in the walls of that shed and a big one on the roof. The neighbours complained about it on several occasions saying that it was tripping their electrical panel. So, regardless of how much of a fire risk this is, it's not something I enjoy having next to my entrance door.

Section62 said:

arciere said:

(let alone let our builders go inside their house and touch the electrical wires there).

I'm a bit puzzled, and possibly won't be the only one.  From the thread title - and you mentioning refurbishing your patio - it sounded like the cable was above an existing door and the builder was just doing a bit of landscaping.

The picture shows a significant construction project - and unless I'm misinterpreting things, the 'door' is actually just a hole where a new door is going.  The building work looks like some kind of extension.  Is this assumption right, and if so, can you confirm this work is being done for you, not the neighbour or anyone else?

Previously, we had a shed (same material as the neighbours') that also was our 'entrance'. Basically, you had to go through a tiny door, then the main door was on the right side of the building. We decided to have that 'shed' redone because it was falling apart and the wood was contracting-expanding so much that in winter we often got stuck inside because both doors (the one leading to the garden and the one leading to the pathway) wouldn't move. I spoke with 7 different builders and they all told me that the existing construction had to be demolished.

The 'hole' is where the new door will be, which will be a standard UK size door. The main door is still where it's always been.

Section62 said:

arciere said:

(let alone let our builders go inside their house and touch the electrical wires there).

Again, if so, have you got planning consent (if required), and have plans been submitted to Building Control for approval?

I ask, because I don't understand how you would get planning consent and BC approval to build what you are building if the shed genuinely poses a fire risk.  I also don't understand how a BC officer making their inspections wouldn't have flagged up the problems of (a) the shed and (b) the cable.  BC officers aren't what they used to be, but even so....

The shed looks very close to the new construction (but that could be an optical illusion) - is it even possible for the builder to finish that wall with the shed in the way?

Planning application sent to council and approval received last year. BC application submitted and first visits already done, but then we got confirmation that the project is exempt because it falls within the 'patio' rules (I wish I had known that earlier). This has been confirmed in writing by the council.

Section62 said:

The shed looks very close to the new construction (but that could be an optical illusion) - is it even possible for the builder to finish that wall with the shed in the way?

The builder was able to build the wall that faces the neighbour's shed and then 'lift it'. They were able to do that because it's a timber construction. In case of bricks, we would have had to demolish the neighbour's shed and rebuild it (to which they happily agreed).