Electric Cable running across Garden

[Paula]

Hello
Looking for a bit of advice.
I live in a flat and the upstairs neighbours had an unarmoured electric cable running from their house down the property wall and across my pathway. I asked them to look at it as live and unarmoured and they got someone in who has put armoured cabling in directly from their flat to their shed. The new cable now runs through the air across my garden and is a complete eye sore. Would the electrician fitting it have assumed they had saught my consent before installing this new cable and can iI ask them to remove it?

 

[Squid]

The problem being is the cable was already there and it would be interesting to know for how long, it was replaced in the same position with a better safer cable, the trouble is the person who installed it did not adhere to the regulations in place and advise the customer that it should be run as per regs, the way it should have been done is that at the shed end they should have cemented in a scaffold pole and as Pete mentioned ran a catenery wire to the house to attach the cable to (I wonder if my stuff is still installed at Kew and Richmond stations hmmmmm)

 

[Midwest]

Flipping heck, I wonder who else is going to say that, you cheeky monkey

 

[pirate]

Been dying to say that for ages, Pete!

 

[johnduffell]

This problem is nothing to do with electrical regs, that just dilutes things. Simple fact is it's your land, they have no right to use it.
Having said that if you want to find a middle ground to avoid devaluing your house for the future I'd push for a minimum 3.5m tall permanent post on their property to keep the cable out of harm's way. And a legal agreement giving them a licence to have it there, just to be sure they don't get the right to have it there.

 

[Squid]

This problem is nothing to do with electrical regs, that just dilutes things. Simple fact is it's your land, they have no right to use it.
Having said that if you want to find a middle ground to avoid devaluing your house for the future I'd push for a minimum 3.5m tall permanent post on their property to keep the cable out of harm's way. And a legal agreement giving them a licence to have it there, just to be sure they don't get the right to have it there.

Isn't it dependant on how long its been there?

The house I live in the previous owners waaaaaay back built a wall on their own land, my garden is now 6" wider 12 year rule and I had great pleasure in reminding one of the previous neighbours that it was his wall and not mine as who the hell wants to maintain an 80 foot brick wall that looks like it may fall down in the next 10 years.

 

[johnduffell]

Isn't it dependant on how long its been there

I guess a lawyer could answer, but i think that applies to boundary features because they exclude the rightful owner.
I'm pretty sure people can get lots of money from the electric dnos where wires cross their land without permission but are not service their property. And can get them moved.
However I'll let a lawyer answer!!

 

[brianmoooore]

I'd push for a minimum 3.5m tall permanent post on their property to keep the cable out of harm's way.

The requirement is for the MINIMUM height of the cable to be 3.5m, and for most spans, this will require the fixings to be higher than this - a cable will sag considerably in the middle of the span.
In my opinion, this should be the OP's opening gambit to address the problem. Having established that more work has to be done, they could then push for an alternative route to be considered.
Any chance that the original cable was in position before the property was split into flats?

 

[Octopus]

Think you need to back that up with a reg number ....

 

[Spoon]

Think you need to back that up with a reg number ....

Which part mate? There is the reg I quoted in post #10 about the min distance of 3.5 meters. Or am I misreading your post....

 

[Octopus]

708.521.1.2 Overhead distribution circuits
All overhead conductors shall be insulated.
Poles and other supports for overhead wiring shall be located or protected so that they are unlikely to be damaged
by any foreseeable vehicle movement.
Overhead conductors shall be at a height above ground of not less than 6 m in all areas subject to vehicle movement
and 3.5 m in all other areas.

Hum .............. Section 708

"Electrical Installations in Caravan / Camping Parks and Similar Locations"

So not applicable to back gardens IMHO

 

[Spoon]

Hum .............. Section 708

"Electrical Installations in Caravan / Camping Parks and Similar Locations"

So not applicable to back gardens IMHO

IMHO I would say the principle applies to gardens, as there doesn't seem to be a specific reg for gardens and other locations.

 

[Octopus]

IMHO I would say the principle applies to gardens, as there doesn't seem to be a specific reg for gardens and other locations.

I would disagree .............

3.5 meters is about 11' 6 " - so if you have a bungalow and a detached garage about 1 meter apart a 3.5 meter pole arrangement would look rather odd to say the least

Its a bit like the depth to bury swa cable ..................... all very open ended.

Very unsatisfactory

BS 7671 should, at the very least, offer suggestions

In respect to this thread, the height is irrelevant ......... a way-leave is required IMHO

 

[Spoon]

3.5 meters is about 11' 6 " - so if you have a bungalow and a detached garage about 1 meter apart a 3.5 meter pole arrangement would look rather odd to say the least

In this circumstance you would hope that the electrician would recommend burying the cable, unless the customer insists on having an ugly pole and cable going overhead.

 

[Octopus]

In this circumstance you would hope that the electrician would recommend burying the cable, unless the customer insists on having an ugly pole and cable going overhead.

In this case I would say burying it at a minimum of 600 mm is the only way forward.....

 

[elsparko]

In this case I would say burying it at a minimum of 600 mm is the only way forward.....

burn your neighbours shed down, problem solved.

Disclaimer: not legal advice