Unexpected Bill

[Sanza]

I cut through an electrical cable outside my home and had to call the electricity board who came and spent 40 minutes caring out a repair. I've since received a bill for £1241. They didn't tell me it would be anything like that cost. Is that legal?

[efpom]

Was the cable on your property?
Is negligence alleged?

See the attached

[des8]

Yep, that is legal and similar to other charges I've seen.
Do you have house insurance as that might cover

Not only was it on your property, but was it the supply to your house or others?
Was it a buried cable, and if so how deep?

[efpom]

I respectfully disagree with DES8:

What the prospective claimant must prove:

• That it has an interest in the goods.
• What that interest is.
• That it does not have a right to compensation under a contract with any 3rd party.
• That it had permission from the owner or occupier of the land to put the goods on the land.
• That it had notified the landowner of the accurate location of the goods.
• That it had imposed a duty on the landowner to give that information to any occupier of the land.
• That in the event that a person lawfully engaged in activities on the land damaged the goods, that such permission did not include any clause furnishing the landowner or occupier or that person with immunity from suit.
• If it can prove all of the above, if it sues in negligence, it must prove negligence by the defendant.

On quantum, it can only sue in negligence for actual loss i.e. no markup

[des8]

Hang on a bit
With the little info given I assumed this was the overhead supply cable to the OP's house (I know I shouldn't assume )
The power distribution companies don't come out to repairs which aren't their responsibility so we can assume their interest in the cable
If (repeat if) it was the OP's means of supply, permission for placing the supply cable must be assumed
If cable was in full view it will be hard to deny liability for damaging it

I wonder if it was an itemised bill,
Labour charges will be high if the repair was effected after 4.00pm

[efpom]

Bear with me!

The purpose of the liberalised electricity network is to feed electricity to consumers who have entered into a contract with an electricity seller. There is a split between the owners of the infrastructure who have a statutory duty to maintain and develop that infrastructure and the operator of the feed to consumers.

The infrastructure owners need permission to lawfully put their goods on, under, and over land. Thus, they make, or have inherited, contracts with the owner or occupier of the land – commonly a wayleave agreement, less commonly an easement.

Such a contract will usually exclude any duty of care otherwise owed by the landowner and occupier to the proprietor of the goods, and hold both harmless if any damage occurs to their goods, because of the lawful activities of either.

It gets more interesting, when the either the operator or the owner of the infrastructure, lets out a contract to a 3rd party to maintain the infrastructure. These are the guys that pitch up to repair the damage and are entitled to bill for their costs in repairing the damage under the contract.

The legal question then becomes "Does the repairer have standing to bring a claim in negligence against the tortfeasor that damaged the goods"

In my opinion he does not, unless he can prove that he has he has an interest in the goods. My first bullet point. See The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, introduces a collective term ‘wrongful interference with goods’ to cover trespass, conversion, negligence, and any other tort resulting in damage to goods but otherwise seems to me to have little or no impact on the principles of liability developed by the common law.

In this Act “ wrongful interference” , or “ wrongful interference with goods” , means—
(c)negligence so far at it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods.

Also interestingly, it is a commonplace for the claimant to plead that the the defendant was negligent in failing to heed the Health and Safety Guidance relating to Avoiding Dangers from Underground Services (HSE Guidance-HS(g)47)”

HSE Guidance-HS(g)47 is guidance aimed at preventing injury and death. It is not legislation.

The claimant elevates it to legislation, a status, which if true, would trump the common law, because it would impose a strict liability legislative duty on everyone digging on land to perform a diligent search, no matter what the cost, aimed at preventing damage to the claimant’s goods, even where the claimant gave no warning of either their existence or location.

Thankfully, HSE Guidance-HS(g)47 is not legislation, as if it were, it would trump the House of Lords decision in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman UKHL 2 [1990] and National Coal Board v JE Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd, [1951] 2 KB 861

Of course, if the goods were over, on (or under) the land without the knowledge or permission of the landowner or occupier, it could not possibly succeed in a claim alleging negligence.


If the landowner’s permission had, in fact, been given and the proprietor of the goods had provided the landowner with the exact location of the goods, but the landowner failed to give that information to the occupier, it is possible, that if damage occurred, the proprietor could sue the landowner but in the case of the electricity network, that liability is usually excluded by the contractual arrangement between the landowner and the network operator.

My advice, for what its worth, is that the enquirer should wait until negligence is alleged and set it to its proof using the pullet points above as a guide.

If you think I thought this up "off the cuff" , you declare me a genius Now - shoelaces: Is it right over left or left over right?