hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 16, 2018 14:33:31 GMT
This shows the type of we are dealing with in general in P2P. Does it? The plumbers that were contracted have no relationship with P2P, unless you know different? I'm pretty sure that they were oblivious to the method of finance, and would have done the same to the pipework whoever hadn't paid them. I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 16, 2018 14:53:06 GMT
Wetern Powers name been mentioned a few times there. but it was my understanding that the connection was to be completed by an independant connection provider....see if my M.I.T.K can shed some light on that.
as it were! I deal with WPD all the time, and while they can be slow to get going (typically 5 - 6 weeks from paying the bill to getting them on site), they don't normally hang about once they've started. The process typically goes something like this:
- Developer gets quote from WPD and pay it. The quote is normally split into 2 sections between contestable work (work which the developer can do himself if he chooses) like laying the cable, and non-contestable work (like connecting the new cable to the live mains), which only WPD can do.
- WPD confirm installation date and issue the developer an MPAN (meter point access number), which the developer gives to his chosen electricity supplier.
- Electricity supplier registers the MPAN
- Developer provides a distribution cabinet with a backboard. On one side of the backboard the developer mounts the electrical equipment that provides the supply to the building. The developer employs a qualified electrician to certify that his equipment is safe to energise.
- When WPD turn up they check the certification. If they are happy with it they fit a set of cut outs (like large terminal blocks) and connect one end of their cable into them. They connect the other end of the cable to the live supply in the street.
- The developer arranges for his chosen electricity supplier to visit site. He installs a meter and connects one side of the meter to the WPD cut outs, and the other side to the developers distribution system.
- Viola, you have power
I am surprised that the cable appears to have been installed, but not connected. WPD are normally very reluctant to do this, in case some local scally cuts off the visible bits of the cable and has away with it to the local scrappy. Overall, I get the impressions that somebody is being a bit economical with the truth.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 855
|
Post by averageguy on Sept 16, 2018 21:08:30 GMT
Does it? The plumbers that were contracted have no relationship with P2P, unless you know different? I'm pretty sure that they were oblivious to the method of finance, and would have done the same to the pipework whoever hadn't paid them. I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen. Nothing new though is it...in all walks of life....think of the bankers who screwed a fair few folk over...bet their morals aren't anything to sing about.....I could go on..but I think you get the gist
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 16, 2018 21:47:55 GMT
Does it? The plumbers that were contracted have no relationship with P2P, unless you know different? I'm pretty sure that they were oblivious to the method of finance, and would have done the same to the pipework whoever hadn't paid them. I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen. Is there an offset situation here?
If the plumber was owed £10k and causes £10k of damage, is that a quid pro quo type situation, or can the plumber still be prosecuted for causing criminal damage?
|
|
|
Post by funkymonkey on Sept 17, 2018 5:45:40 GMT
I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen. Is there an offset situation here?
If the plumber was owed £10k and causes £10k of damage, is that a quid pro quo type situation, or can the plumber still be prosecuted for causing criminal damage?
It wouldn't be criminal damage, but a civil issue. Assuming that the plumbers supplied the materials, and haven't been paid then they would be entitled to remove the materials they have put on the site as they still own them. They haven't damaged anything belonging to anyone else. The damage has been caused by someone else turning on the water supply, assuming the plumbing was in working order. Reckless maybe, but not criminal damage, IMO.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 17, 2018 5:57:31 GMT
Is there an offset situation here?
If the plumber was owed £10k and causes £10k of damage, is that a quid pro quo type situation, or can the plumber still be prosecuted for causing criminal damage?
It wouldn't be criminal damage, but a civil issue. Assuming that the plumbers supplied the materials, and haven't been paid then they would be entitled to remove the materials they have put on the site as they still own them. They haven't damaged anything belonging to anyone else. The damage has been caused by someone else turning on the water supply, assuming the plumbing was in working order. Reckless maybe, but not criminal damage, IMO. Err the plumbers drilled holes in the pipes so they weren’t in working order
|
|
|
Post by funkymonkey on Sept 17, 2018 9:05:29 GMT
It wouldn't be criminal damage, but a civil issue. Assuming that the plumbers supplied the materials, and haven't been paid then they would be entitled to remove the materials they have put on the site as they still own them. They haven't damaged anything belonging to anyone else. The damage has been caused by someone else turning on the water supply, assuming the plumbing was in working order. Reckless maybe, but not criminal damage, IMO. Err the plumbers drilled holes in the pipes so they weren’t in working order But if they hadn't been paid (and if the materials were supplied by the plumbers) then the pipes belong to the plumbers. You cannot criminally damage your own property.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 9:10:15 GMT
yep, if the plumbers weren't paid, then frankly, I say good on them for refusing to let p!sstakers walk all over them
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Sept 17, 2018 9:40:47 GMT
Does it? The plumbers that were contracted have no relationship with P2P, unless you know different? I'm pretty sure that they were oblivious to the method of finance, and would have done the same to the pipework whoever hadn't paid them. I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen. Personally I find this kind of middle class white collar moralising disturbing, but there you go. Different strokes I guess. I'm sure such lowly tradesmen wouldn't be able to hold a candle to your impeccable standards.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Sept 17, 2018 16:23:29 GMT
Err the plumbers drilled holes in the pipes so they weren’t in working order But if they hadn't been paid (and if the materials were supplied by the plumbers) then the pipes belong to the plumbers. You cannot criminally damage your own property. I think it’s fair to say - per ‘average man in the street’ court test - that the plumbers intended damage to other people’s property (even if they were willing to sacrifice their own): Criminal property damage: By section 1(1) of the Act: A person who destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 17, 2018 16:51:01 GMT
Does it? The plumbers that were contracted have no relationship with P2P, unless you know different? I'm pretty sure that they were oblivious to the method of finance, and would have done the same to the pipework whoever hadn't paid them. I find the behaviour disturbing. I know they were angry but it demonstrates a general element of poor morals in tradesmen. Personally I find that level of staggering generalisation rather disturbing.
I do hope it was tongue in cheek. But I suspect it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 16:58:33 GMT
I think it’s fair to say - per ‘average man in the street’ court test. I wonder what the 'average man in the street' would have to say about spivs doing a runner without paying tradesmen for their labour?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 17, 2018 16:58:45 GMT
But if they hadn't been paid (and if the materials were supplied by the plumbers) then the pipes belong to the plumbers. You cannot criminally damage your own property. I think it’s fair to say - per ‘average man in the street’ court test - that the plumbers intended damage to other people’s property (even if they were willing to sacrifice their own): Criminal property damage: By section 1(1) of the Act: A person who destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. I think that drilling holes in pipes in an uncommissioned system hidden behind walls (presumably plasterboard) would fall into the at very least "reckless as to whether...." category. Leaving notes alongside would probably add to the degree of "intent". Difficult to argue that a plumber would have been unaware of the likely consequences.........
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Sept 17, 2018 17:06:24 GMT
I think it’s fair to say - per ‘average man in the street’ court test. I wonder what the 'average man in the street' would have to say about spivs doing a runner without paying tradesmen for their labour? I would imagine he would say spivs should be pursued through the legal system as anyone else should be (for the avoidance of doubt, I do not write the law, I’m just telling you what it is).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 17:08:05 GMT
I wonder what the 'average man in the street' would have to say about spivs doing a runner without paying tradesmen for their labour? I would imagine he would say spivs should be pursued through the legal system as anyone else should be (for the avoidance of doubt, I do not write the law, I’m just telling you what it is). Maybe not everyone shares your touching faith in the legal system
|
|