New Electricity Connection being prevented

FiOT

Hi there,

I wonder if anyone can give me some information on where we stand.

We have paid for an electricity connection for a new build, the pole has been put up on our land and the wires brought to the meter box. However, the farmer who owns the lands around us is refusing to let the electricity connection workmen to access the pole in his land which we are supposed to connect to for power.

The reason he is doing this is because he is trying to force us to put up a "stock proof" fence around our house which we are not contractually obligated to do. Teagasc and my solicitor have confirmed that we are in no way legally obliged to do this. We have put up a boundary fence but this is not enough for him. So he is using our electricity connection to try to bully us into putting up this very expensive fence.

I just wonder if anyone can shed any light on where we stand, now €2600 poorer but with no electricity, or where we should go from here. All correspondence from electricity connectors has been phone calls kind of trying to mollycoddle me into just putting up the fence and making everyone else's life easier.

nuac

Mod
Thread may continue for now, subject to forum rule against legal advice

Kimbot

Surely a land owner cannot stop the electric company from getting to their property?

FiOT

jonnycivic wrote: »

Surely a land owner cannot stop the electric company from getting to their property?

That's what I would have thought. I think this is why they are calling me instead of putting things in writing, avoiding a paper trail and trying to keep everyone happy so nobody complains... Well, I'm not that happy.

Johnboy1951

FiOT wrote: »

Hi there,

I wonder if anyone can give me some information on where we stand.

We have paid for an electricity connection for a new build, the pole has been put up on our land and the wires brought to the meter box. However, the farmer who owns the lands around us is refusing to let the electricity connection workmen to access the pole in his land which we are supposed to connect to for power.

The reason he is doing this is because he is trying to force us to put up a "stock proof" fence around our house which we are not contractually obligated to do. Teagasc and my solicitor have confirmed that we are in no way legally obliged to do this. We have put up a boundary fence but this is not enough for him. So he is using our electricity connection to try to bully us into putting up this very expensive fence.

I just wonder if anyone can shed any light on where we stand, now €2600 poorer but with no electricity, or where we should go from here. All correspondence from electricity connectors has been phone calls kind of trying to mollycoddle me into just putting up the fence and making everyone else's life easier.

Have you tried to compromise with the farmer?
Maybe share cost of substantial fencing?

Has he specified what type of fencing would be acceptable?

IMO this is not so much a legal matter as one of neighbourly cooperation (or lack of it).

I suggest seriously considering some compromise.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Legally he can't in the same way I can't kill the next idiot I have to deal with at work. However the legal situation may differ from the reality, at work the relaity might get very messy in a minute :pac:

At best the guards might have to get involved at worst I assume cort ordered etc. might be needed.

brian_t

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Legally he can't in the same way I can't kill the next idiot I have to deal with at work. However the legal situation may differ from the reality, at work the relaity might get very messy in a minute :pac:

At best the guards might have to get involved at worst I assume cort ordered etc. might be needed.

But this is between ESB Networks and the farmer, it is not the concern of the OP.

In relation to the stockproof fence, should the farmer not have made it a condition of purchase when he sold the plot.

brian_t

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Have you tried to compromise with the farmer?
Maybe share cost of substantial fencing?

ESB Networks might make a contribution. It might be cheaper then if they have to look for a court order.

Samuel T. Cogley

brian_t wrote: »

But this is between ESB Networks and the farmer, it is not the concern of the OP.

It is if he wants his lights on.

While he won't need to engage directly, he'll need to sit and wait. He may wish to see what he can do to speed things along.

Little CuChulainn

I'd certainly be looking for this in writing from the ESB if I was in that situation.

jimmycrackcorm

brian_t wrote:

But this is between ESB Networks and the farmer, it is not the concern of the OP.

Aren't the ESB obliged to provide the connection?. As the OP has already paid the appropriate fee then he/she should be on to their solicitor to get them to follow up.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

nuac

ESB linesmen are well known for their knowledge of the countryside and for their diplomacy.

Also remember Churchill - "Jaw jaw better than war war".

nuac

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Legally he can't in the same way I can't kill the next idiot I have to deal with at work. However the legal situation may differ from the reality, at work the reality might get very messy in a minute :pac:

At best the guards might have to get involved at worst I assume cort ordered etc. might be needed.

Should those with whom you are dealing be warned?

Normally in the legal world a sharply worded letter or a writ "with the blood on it" is the worst that can happen:)

FiOT

Hi all,

Thanks for all of the replies. I am waiting for a reply from the ESB again, I'm sure it'll be another phone call. I think I will ask for their position in writing at that stage.

I understand everyone's side in this. There was nothing about a stock proof fence in the contract, if there was I would have worked to that.

I just don't know who the book falls with on this one. Obviously we want to move into our house as soon as possible and the quickest way to resolve this is to just put up the fence. However, my concern is that this bullying won't end here. What if our fence isn't up to his standards and there's another issue in the future? What if he's still annoyed with us when repair works need to be done in the future and he denies access again?
I just don't trust that this will all end with a fence as there has been so much preceding this. And not just for us but for everyone who has bought land off him before.

Marcusm

If I understand you correctly; he sold you the plot and didn't set aside funds for a fence to his spec nor require you to fund same in the contract? The stock proof fence is for his benefit as if his animals escape on to your land and do damage, he is liable for remediation. Hard to see why, unless it generates truly bad feelings or you have very expensive landscaping plans, why you would agree to bear this expense.

NUTLEY BOY

OP needs ESB to run cable from his property to the pole on the farmer's land. Is the "farmer's pole" supplying anything else or was that pole erected specifically for the purpose of running cables to the OP's property ?

If the latter, it seems to me that the farmer is utterly out of order and is trying to hold the OP to ransom i.e. trying to assert rights that he does appear to possess in order to make some gain or possibly a touch of unjust enrichment. Conceptually, my inclination would be to suggest politely to the farmer that he insert the mains supply in his ear.....

More importantly, I expect that the contractual nexus is between the ESB and the farmer. In that event I see no part for the OP in this matter as regards the farmer and the enforcement of any rights.

Separately, OP has a contract with the ESB. The OP has furnished his contractual consideration of Euro 2,600. I trust that the OP has the relevant paperwork to verify this. The ESB's contractual consideration and obligation is to supply the electrical service to the OP as agreed. The ESB have failed and continue to fail to perform the contract.

My attitude, were I the OP, would be that I am a stranger to any issue between the ESB and the farmer and I would not allow myself to be drawn in to it. My contract is with the ESB and my legal remedy would appear to be an action against ESB for breach of contract. I think that I would be looking for an order for specific performance. It is for the ESB to figure out how to get the supply to me and their difficulties with the farmer have absolutely nothing to do with me.

jimmycrackcorm

It falls with the ESB Networks. The problem of course is that the farmer is looking for a form of compensation that he is not entitled to either from you not the ESB. There are relevant posts on boards


This is exactly why you shouldn't do it. It will be your responsibility when it isn't. If he sold the land then he has already been adequately compensated for what he wants to do.

loremolis

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

OP needs ESB to run cable from his property to the pole on the farmer's land. Is the "farmer's pole" supplying anything else or was that pole erected specifically for the purpose of running cables to the OP's property ?

If the latter, it seems to me that the farmer is utterly out of order and is trying to hold the OP to ransom i.e. trying to assert rights that he does appear to possess in order to make some gain or possibly a touch of unjust enrichment. Conceptually, my inclination would be to suggest politely to the farmer that he insert the mains supply in his ear.....

More importantly, I expect that the contractual nexus is between the ESB and the farmer. In that event I see no part for the OP in this matter as regards the farmer and the enforcement of any rights.

Separately, OP has a contract with the ESB. The OP has furnished his contractual consideration of Euro 2,600. I trust that the OP has the relevant paperwork to verify this. The ESB's contractual consideration and obligation is to supply the electrical service to the OP as agreed. The ESB have failed and continue to fail to perform the contract.

My attitude, were I the OP, would be that I am a stranger to any issue between the ESB and the farmer and I would not allow myself to be drawn in to it. My contract is with the ESB and my legal remedy would appear to be an action against ESB for breach of contract. I think that I would be looking for an order for specific performance. It is for the ESB to figure out how to get the supply to me and their difficulties with the farmer have absolutely nothing to do with me.

I agree with he above, just two comments:

ESB has statutory wayleave powers under section 53 of the 1927 which allow ESB to place the line on the farmers land and allow the farmer to claim compensation for the loss he suffers as a result.

ESB can't say it isn't their problem. They are legally obliged to provide this service for the amount paid. If ESB fails to provide the service then that is a breach of their license conditions and is a matter which the CER would deal with.

FiOT

Hi All,

Thank you so much for all of the opinions and advice, I really appreciate it.

I am waiting for the ESB to call me today and I am feeling a lot more ready for the conversation now, calmer and a little more knowledgeable about where we stand.

Thanks a million again, fingers crossed we get sorted soon.

Little CuChulainn

If the ESB think it would be easier to simply install the fence then let them pay for it. It'd probably be cheaper than going to court for access and you wouldn't have to worry about issues in the future.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FiOT

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If the ESB think it would be easier to simply install the fence then let them pay for it. It'd probably be cheaper than going to court for access and you wouldn't have to worry about issues in the future.

I would love to hear what they would say to that!

It seems difficult to get by the "lad" that's in charge to somebody who can progress this properly. A lot of local "ah go on" stuff happening.

Phone call today will be asking for everything in writing and it will be the last phone call I take.

NUTLEY BOY

FiOT wrote: »

I would love to hear what they would say to that!

It seems difficult to get by the "lad" that's in charge to somebody who can progress this properly. A lot of local "ah go on" stuff happening.

Phone call today will be asking for everything in writing and it will be the last phone call I take.

It might be no harm to follow up today's telephone call with a written summary of what has happened so far as you see it. For something like this I would tend to express myself with a precise time line to exhibit just how ridiculous this has become. Stick rigidly to facts and offer no opinions beyond expressing your utter frustration and dissatisfaction at the present state of affairs.

Set ESBN a time limit within which to resolve the issue and warn them that you will instruct a solicitor thereafter. Stick to the time limit.

Write any letters as if they were going to be exhibited before a judge at a future date.

As far as any of that indolent local "ah go on" stuff goes I would not tolerate it as it is typically symptomatic of people not doing their jobs properly or covering over their ineptitude where they have messed up. Engagement of a solicitor often softens that particular cough.

BTW if the land on which OP property is based was demised from the farmer's lands it strikes me that the farmer now realises, post contract, that he failed to get an agreement to the building of a fence of the required standard. I was looking recently at some old title deeds relating to land sold to a developer by a religious institution and the contract there covenanted the developer to build and maintain a boundary wall between the demised development lands and the remaining lands not demised by the original owner.

muttnjeff

down the road when you have paid a lot for your lawn and landscaping do you want his cows all over your garden? Even if he does have to pay up- do you want the hasstle of repairing it, or more importantly, your small children or visitors children being able to wander into his field of animals? A proper fence is in both your interests.
Good fences make good neighbours.

ohnonotgmail

muttnjeff wrote: »

down the road when you have paid a lot for your lawn and landscaping do you want his cows all over your garden? Even if he does have to pay up- do you want the hasstle of repairing it, or more importantly, your small children or visitors children being able to wander into his field of animals? A proper fence is in both your interests.
Good fences make good neighbours.

the farmer is responsible for any damage caused by his livestock. A proper fence is primarily in the farmers interest.

muttnjeff

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the farmer is responsible for any damage caused by his livestock. A proper fence is primarily in the farmers interest.

Primarily. Responsible. Yes. But if I had children I would want a good fence too

NUTLEY BOY

muttnjeff wrote: »

Primarily. Responsible. Yes. But if I had children I would want a good fence too

Yes, it is hard to argue against that where children are concerned.

Again, not legal advice but just a few views on the practicalities.

IMHO the farmer should erect the fence at his own expense. However, parties can sometimes agree a solution that may not be legally necessary but which buys goodwill.

Devil's Advocate against my view of this matter - suppose OP decided for any reason to agree to a joint effort or contribution to the fence I would suggest the following ;

1. There should be unequivocal clarity about the character of the fence ;

a) Specifically, is it a boundary fence or a party fence ?

b) If a boundary fence, who is the owner of it and who carries the responsibility for repair and maintenance ? That should be reduced to writing.

2. If it is to be a party fence, that should be reduced to a formal written agreement akin to a party wall agreement. A solicitor should draft that.

a) The party fence agreement should specify the details of the fence in terms of it's materials and construction. This is to stop the farmer agreeing to one thing, taking a financial contribution from OP, and erecting something cheaper and inferior.

b) The convention with a party wall is that both parties are jointly responsible for repairs and maintenance. However, that issue should be stated for clarity.

c) Any agreement should be created in such a manner as to bind the successors in title to the respective properties as distinct from the parties who form the agreement i.e. the rights and obligations go with the properties in perpetuity.

3. In relation to quantum any contribution does not have to be a straight 50 / 50 split. Offhand, the farmer seems more likely to benefit from the type of fence he wants so an equitable and proportionate financial contribution from OP might well be the solution e.g 25%. Again, any such contribution should be nailed down to a formal written document that witnesses what has actually been agreed.