Temporary electricity supply.

[Theo]

Yes, it does depend rather what they asked for and what was offered. If the resident insisted on staying, despite the place being unsanitary, there's not much the insurance can do. Or the resident said they could handle it themselves and didn't want to involve the insurance.

Unfortunately handling this kind of thing does require being on the ball about making the phone calls etc, and that is something a 90 year may not cope with. It sounds like one of the daughters is on the case so that's good (although perhaps not if they were in hospital), but if they weren't I'm not sure there is somebody who will automatically take charge of managing a case like that. Maybe Social Services or similar? Somebody would have to contact them in the first place though.

(Having dealt with a case like this, there's a whole patchwork of insurance assessors, claims handling companies, approved contractors for cleanups, etc etc, which makes it a quite complicated job to sort out. They are not proactive, you have to phone them up and pester them. And it may not be the case that the insurance will pay all the costs upfront, they might expect you to pay and then claim back later - which is difficult if you have no spare cash)

At the end of the day, if the resident is unwilling it can be very difficult for people to help.

Theo

[Animal]

A minimal temporary safe install would make the rest of the process far easier. A few sockets downstairs would be enough to get the power back on.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Yes they did. She refused.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Just a general answer based on my memory. Several years ago I installed for her an extra 13 amp socket and a phone outlet for a DECT phone.

I don't think the cable, riser, meter or fuse boxes were under water. They are all close to the cellar ceiling, and the water didn't get that high. if it had, it would have been impossible to get to the internal stopcock.

As I remember it, the ring was likely 50s or 60s. Those rather nasty surface mount MK sockets. But PVC wiring. Earthed only to the incoming water main. A 30 amp fuse switch via a Henlec block. And another for the cooker.

I'd say they would pass tests (except for the earth)

What I was hoping for would be a way to re-connect them and not the lighting. She more or less lives in the kitchen/breakfast room which has a cloakroom attached. At the moment that loo is still flushing from the header tank. But likely not for much longer. She hasn't been able to get upstairs for a couple of years now.

There's some disagreement within the family about the best way forward. All I'm trying to get help with is to get the best for my neighbour who is to put it bluntly, stubborn. But part of her charm. And suggest, if asked.

A story about that stubbornness.

The garden wall between us is mine. Original, and made from cast concrete. About a meter high between the gardens (and that was in excellent condition) but twice that height between the houses - for privacy. And the high part poor. I had it rebuilt (with new foundations) in blockwork and rendered to match the existing. She wouldn't allow the workmen in to render her side. Never said why. But of course her side of the wall now looks distinctly odd.

[Theo]

Presumably there was some outlet in the cellar, which is how the water became live? And without an RCD it stayed that way?

So no consumer unit at all, those things connected straight off Henley blocks from the meter?

If the supply is good and the ring would pass tests, a basic CU with a single MCB+RCD or RCBO way wouldn't seem complicated. The earthing would need sorting out, but perhaps there's an earth off the incomer? If there is only an earth rod, perhaps the DNO could convert it to PME when they come to refit the cutout?

If the cooker wiring isn't good, run a new wire in surface trunking. Likewise for the lighting. Total three RCBOs, £25 each. Probably another £50 for a cheapo CU and a main switch.

I'd imagine around here the work would be sub £1000 depending on the cable runs and other fiddliness - although I'm not familiar with London prices.

If they get a sparky in, they can do the work and coordinate with the DNO to reconnect once everything is safe.

Theo

[Robin]

Very possibly (and last time I checked still for free in London at least) *but* won't be done unless and until main bonding is up to current requirements.

[Theo]

If UKPN has a massively out of date install (which if it was pre-WWII this might have been) I think they are quite keen to bring it up to modern standards when they're on site anyway, and won't worry about charging for that. They came to upgrade my main fuse and ended up changing the entire

1960s service head, for example.

However the current setup is electrically unsafe so sounds like they won't re-energise it until further work takes place. Any new CU install is going to have to bring the bonding up to scratch too. Once installed, the DNO can re-energise.

Theo

[Colin Bignell]

The supplier will want the entire house up to standard before reconnecting. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop somebody reconnecting the lighting once there is power is available in the house.

[Animal]

What's needed is a new CU with RCBO/RCD, main earth bond and 1+ new light/s where the supplier will go. There should be no need to show anyone the rest of the house or discuss any rewiring, and of course the old prewar lighting should not be reconnected. Visible parts of it should be removed. The rest should too really.

Doing the minimum would make her house habitable. From there she can take her time getting quotes etc and dealing with insurers, trades etc, and end up all sorted.

[Colin Bignell]

Even decades ago, when I worked for an Electricity Board, we wouldn't have accepted that. It smacks of somebody wanting to get a sub-standard system installed, once the power is to the house.

[lacksey]

So would I given that there is still so much covid around and she doesnt allow visitors into the place. Your extension cord from your place is the best approach imo.

[Animal]

Firstly that's a guess, and these days not a too realistic one. Secondly a minimal system is safe, legal & habitable.

[Colin Bignell]

It is the voice of experience of what strange things people get up to.

and these days not a too realistic one.

I would have thought that there was a duty of due diligence today, which we didn't have to follow, which would have made it even less likely to be acceptable.

That is not the concern. It is possible sub-standard additions to it, to make the rest of the house habitable, that is.

About the only people I can think of who could have a minimal installation approved like that would be a builder working on the premises, who needs the power (and possibly water) to carry out further work. If Dave knows an accommodating builder who is willing to apply for the supply, but not actually do any work, that might be a way to do it.

[Andrew]

I'm sure all the local (and not so local) burglars will be delighted to watch that news story on social media and work out where the property is, so that they can "check it over" for jewelry and other stuff.

[Colin Bignell]

On 14/05/2022 11:25, Andrew wrote: ..

More likely to be travelling around the area, looking for places without lights or burglar alarm.

[Dave Plowman (News]

I doubt there are any sockets in the cellar, Just a light. But not certain.

My guess is there was current flow to the only ground - to the water pipe. And the daughter standing in water made a better path to ground. I've not been down there to look at things, though. could be the earth connection is on the wrong side of the stopcock - which was installed later, I've been told.

No. As I remember the original lighting predated CUs. So separate switch and fusebox.

Again, as I remember, the cooker circuit was later than the ring.

Although I'm not sure she does any cooking. But does use a microwave to heat ready meals, etc.

[Dave Plowman (News]

That really was what I was hoping for. I'm happy enough giving her a free

13 amp feed for a while. But not for ever. If it were just her, a different matter. But from what some of the relations say, protecting their inheritance seems to be the priority. ;-(

[Robin]

I had wondered about that when you said the flood didn't reach the cut-out etc. And wondered too if water mains (and communication pipes) had been replaced.

[Theo]

I'm not sure what DNO policy on this is. But I think that suppliers who are changing meters won't intervene if there is something not up to scratch with the installation - they will swap out the meter and leave things as equally bad as they were before, but they won't cut people off when they have come just to change the meter. That is presumably why this installation is still going with pre-WWII wiring - the meter must have been changed several times since then, but the installation was not condemned. Maybe the householder was told it needed improvement but then ignored it.

That seems to be in contrast to gas installs where the gas distributor may cut you off if your installation is dangerous. Presumably because a gas explosion affects more people than just those who live in the house. But also because it's easier to live without gas than without electricity.

Perhaps Adam has more experience here?

Also bear in mind the person calling the DNO to re-energise is going to be an electrician not the householder, and the electrician is able to sign off their own work.

Theo

[Dave Plowman (News]

I do know she had a power failure in the last couple of years or so. Remember lending her a Lidl rechargeable LED work light I have which runs for a few hours. The pavement outside her house was dug up for a repair, and done very quickly. But can't say why they didn't refuse to reinstate her supply then. Assuming they went into the house.