Question: We are a small block of eight private flats, post-war bomb damage, in an otherwise 19th century square, designated a conservation area. Recently a gas leak was traced to an underground pipe in the road outside. The utility company said that the pipe-work both in the road and leading to the flats would have to be replaced, and that it was no longer their policy to replace pipes inside multiple occupancy buildings. We had no consultation on the possible sitting of such pipes. Internally the supply pipe that ran upwards through the kitchen of each flat was cut off, and the gas meters were relocated near the front wall. We now have vertical and horizontal pipe-work running across the façade.
We appreciate that the leak had to be made safe and the gas supply restored. But do gas companies really have the right to bypass planning consent, ignore aesthetic considerations, and possibly reduce the value of our property? Even to put us in the position where the Conservation Section of the local Planning Department may ask us to relocate the pipes at our expense? Can you suggest, please, any possible redress? Have there been any other instances of this?
Answer: There have been many occasions over the years when gas companies have refused to reconnect to internal gas pipes, insisted on the external location of gas meters and then individual pipe from each meter to each flat. Indeed, there are many blocks with other cables pipes and wires on the outside, often introduced when communal supplies have been replaced with individual supplies. It is a widespread problem. Some blocks of flats accept external pipes and conduits and nothing further develops. Other blocks take great exception to this multiplicity of individual external surfaces (individual satellite dishes are possibly the most notorious) and great difficulties are created.
Most leases provide that the individual supply pipe or cable is part of the demise as it supplies only that individual flat. Few leases provide that the lessee (or anybody else working for the lessee) can unilaterally put the pipe on the outside of the building where it is technically trespassing. That is often the route by which managing agents or landlords oblige individual lessees to reroute external pipes, cables satellite dishes etc.
Your complaint is against the gas company, but you represent the directors of the RMC and not the individual lessee. It is each individual lessee who is in the contractual position of being able to take issue with the gas company, and the RMC is in the contractual position of being able to take action against the individual lessee. As no steps were taken at the time to stop them whilst the workmen were on site, you now have a situation of acceptance or rectification. It is probably unlikely that the gas company will willingly rectify what they have done. Situations like this often come down to managing peoples expectations: if you expect rectification, you are likely to have to engage in time effort and expense in pursuing remedial works or, arranging for the lessee to remedy the matter, quantify the cost, and attempt recovery action.
A lawyer will tell you that neither party has a cast iron case (nobody has a cast iron case at law) and an assessment will have to be made of your chances of winning and the costs (both money and emotional) of fighting. A gambler will tell you that you have better odds in a bookmaker’s office where it is certain that you will not loose more than your stake before the
race is run!
