ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST’S FIVE-YEAR PERSECUTION OF AN OAP.
ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST HAVE ERECTED AN UNLAWFUL FIFTY FOOT MAST AT THEIR SUBSTATION IN GRANGE OVER SANDS, IN THE CONSERVATION AREA AND ALMOST TOUCHING THE HOUSE I AM BUILDING. THEY APPLIED FOR A LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AND WITH FALSE INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION. THE PLANNING DEPT SHOULD HAVE NIPPED IT IN THE BUD THEN. I TRIED TO STOP THEM MYSELF AND THUS STARTED A FIVE-YEAR CAMPAIGN OF PERSECUTION CULMINATING IN A FALSE CLAIM THAT IT WAS MY HOUSE THAT WAS ENCROACHING ON THEIR LAND.
ENW STARTED A CLAIM AGAINST ME IN THE HIGH COURT WHICH THE COURT LATER DOWNGRADED TO THE COUNTY COURT. ENW RAPIDLY RAN UP COSTS OF £50,000 WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO PAY BY DEFAULT IF I REMOVED MY DEFENCE, PLUS ANOTHER £80,000 (ESTIMATED AND FILED WITH THE COURT) ON TOP OF THAT IF IT WENT AHEAD TO THE THREE-DAY HEARING. THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND THEIR CLAIM HAD A REQUEST THAT I BE MADE TO DEMOLISH THE WALL OF MY HOUSE.
I HAD A MUCH BETTER CASE THAN THEM BUT I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO RISK OVER £130,000, WHO IS? AND THE DEMOLITION OF MY HOUSE IF I LOST. THIS WAS UNJUSTIFED AND THRUST UPON ME OUT OF THE BLUE. I HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER AND IT WAS UNLIKELY THAT I WOULD GET A FAIR HEARING.
MY WIFE AND SOULMATE DIED WITH A STRESS INDUCED HEART ATTACK IN THE FIRST YEAR AND MY OWN HEALTH HAS SUFFERED. THEY HAVEN’T BROKEN ME BUT THEY HAVE DAMAGED ME.
THE WHOLE SITUATION IS BIZARRE, KAFKAESQUE AND ILLOGICAL. ENW MUST HAVE SPENT AT LEAST £100,000 OF THEIR CUSTOMERS MONEY TO PERSECUTE ME OVER A SMALL STRIP OF LAND. THE ALLEGED ENCROACHMENT WAS AN INVENTION OF THEIR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SACKED. THE LAND WAS OF NO USE TO THEM WHATSOEVER EXCEPT AS A STICK TO BEAT ME WITH. I OFFERED THEM SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SITING THE MAST, ONE OF WHICH WOULD HAVE COST THEM £21,000, AND THE BEST ONE NOTHING.
THEY EVENTUALLY OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT, I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THEIR OFFER WITH FOUR PAGES OF USELESS CONDITIONS AND A THIRTEEN PAGE SETTLEMENT DEED. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS, THEY WON’T TELL ME BUT IN PRACTICE AS WELL AS COSTING THEM £100,000, IT HAS LEFT THEM IN A WORSE POSITION THAN BEFORE THEY STARTED. AND IRONICALLY ME IN A BETTER POSITION DESPITE HAVING TO MAKE A PRAGMATIC DECISION TO BUY A STRIP OF MY OWN LAND FOR £1. I WAS JUST RELIEVED TO HAVE REMOVED THE THREAT OF LOSING £130,000 AND THE DEMOLITION OF MY HOUSE, WHICH IS BASICALLY NOW MY PENSION POT.
I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS NO WAY FOR ANY COMPANY TO BEHAVE ESPECIALLY ONE IN RECEIPT OF PUBLIC FUNDS. IT IS HARDLY A GOOD USE OF THOSE FUNDS, THEY APPEAR TO HAVE HAD ONLY ONE OBJECTIVE, TO GET AT ME FOR HAVING THE AUDACITY TO STAND UP TO THEM AND THEY EVEN FAILED IN THAT. I HAVE BEEN GAGGED FROM PUBLISHING DEROGATORY REMARKS ABOUT THEM SO I WILL HAVE TO LEAVE IT TO THE READER TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THEIR ETHICS AND DECENCY EVEN THEIR COMPETENCE!!
I own land adjacent to Electricity North West’s primary substation in Grange over Sands. Between my boundary and ENW’s operational area, which is enclosed by a high metal fence, there is a small area of land. Until more recently, before ENW took over from United Utilities nobody gave any thought as to who owned this land, my neighbours used to park on it.
I got planning permission to extend a stone garage on my land and convert it into a dwelling, which my wife and I were intending to move into. The extensions were built and nothing was said at the time or for several more years about any possible encroachment. I did everything properly. As we were building up to a wall that we then incorrectly assumed to be a boundary wall my architect surveyed the position on the ground and negotiated a Boundary Wall Agreement with ENW’s Estates and Wayleaves Officer who examined the plans and therefore knew exactly what we were intending to do.
Several years later ENW decided to erect a fifty-foot communications mast on the land almost touching the new build, it was unlawful in several respects. Among other things civil engineering rules for developments at existing substations state that nothing should be higher than the existing buildings and there should be a two or three metre level clear area around the outside of the railings, they built the mast on that!! When I pointed it out ENW’s Operations Director was sacked but they still went ahead with the mast. They tell me that they have already, or intend to, put these masts at nearly every primary substation in the Northwest; so that is an awful lot of building they should have to undo or not do in the first place. What is the point of having rules if the regulator allows them to get away with breaking them? Given all the money they spend on legal fees they must have known and deliberately broken the rules.
Obviously, I tried to stop them, they then began a five-year campaign of relentless persecution. My efforts failed and they went ahead and built the mast. Their attitude apparently being we will do whatever we want, what are you going to do about it?
All those who should have helped me, the planning dept. the regulator etc didn’t want to know and were heavily biased in ENW’s favour. The CEO Peter Emery and the Chief Planning Officer both met me at the site on separate occasions, so they must have been aware that they had got it wrong. ENW also arranged meetings on neutral ground but in all cases they refused to deviate from their script, answer my questions or even make minor compromises, so it was a waste of time. I think it was just so they could tell the court that they had made every effort to settle out of court. ENW did many other things wrong, in fact just about everything they did was wrong, but no doubt they knew that given the reluctance of the authorities to do their jobs properly and their almost unlimited funds they would probably get away with it.
They took me to Court and the costs (£180,000) were out of all proportion, bearing in mind this was a strip of valueless land comprising only a small part of the land between us and was of absolutely no value or use to them. I can only assume they were trying to punish me for standing up to them.
ENW had applied for the LDC without telling anyone who would be affected by it and with false information on the application, among other things the distance from the lane and properties was understated by a factor of 10. Those living nearby, and the various environmental organisations did not have any opportunity to object. What ENW have built does not even conform with the details on the LDC. Planning Enforcement acknowledge that but say they are not going to do anything about it, orders from above perhaps?
I offered to let them put the mast in my woodland where it would have been out of sight and not a blight on the conservation area. I thought they had agreed, but they suddenly changed their minds and went back to the original plan, just after the last election. They could have bought the house for its valuation right from the start as was offered to them, that would have cost them nothing as they would have continued to own the asset. They could then have done whatever they wanted at the substation and none of this would have arisen. My wife would still be alive, I would be healthy and their Operations Director would still have his job. So far, he is the only one who has got his just deserts. Since he was sacked, I have been dealing directly with the CEO, Peter Emery, who is even worse. I was hoping to get him sacked as well but he is due to retire shortly so it seems I have missed my chance. He will no doubt get his MBE and have a prosperous retirement paid for by you and me, I can only hope that karma will catch up with him.
Ironically though, I am in a much better position than I was, I now have a FORMAL agreement to access the back of my property across ENW’s land, now fenced off, which I didn’t have before, and the threat of ludicrous costs and demolition of my house has been removed. What on earth was their objective in starting this claim? I have asked them many times but they have refused to answer. I suppose they couldn’t admit that it was just vindictiveness, and in fact they have never answered any of my questions!
They are also in breach of a covenant from when the land was purchased in the 1960’s that was intended to stop the owners of the substation doing just what ENW have done; and they should have had a Party Wall Agreement as they were building so close to another property. Unfortunately, there is no authority responsible or mechanism in place to make them abide by these rules and I would have had to fight them in the Courts myself. Given the bias of the Courts and the cost it was not an option.
The estimated and actual costs were out of all proportion to the value of the disputed land. They started this case in the High Court, who later downgraded it to the County Court. Any case that is for less than £100,000 should be decided using the Small Claims Track, where the potential costs are capped at £1,500, this case was for £1 and the estimated costs were £130,000. There is something called the Overriding Objective which is intended to put both sides on a more equal footing and ensure the eventual costs are proportionate to the value of the claim. It was never even mentioned by the Judge in pre-hearing discussions and when I mentioned it I was ignored. I was pretty much ignored by the court anyway. So, the Court was obviously biased. The evidence shows that ENW’s overriding objective was to get at me, whatever the cost. As the claimants ENW had a duty to pass on information to me the defence; on at least two occasions they sat on information until it was past the deadline for me to act.
I had a much better case than ENW, including solid evidence based on features on the ground, remains of walls, that the actual boundary, the original wall referred to in the conveyance, was a couple of metres nearer the substation than they claimed. In any case I also had an evidence picture that clearly showed I had only built up to, not over the wall that they incorrectly continued to claim to be the boundary wall. Ironically, this was supplied by ENW when they had me investigated, they know more about me than I do myself they dredged up disputes I had decades ago and had forgotten, and searched back through all my old Facebook postings, they also read this blog. Their case had no solid evidence and was based entirely on the opinions of “experts”, mostly their own staff, who came up with a different position for the boundary each time they surveyed it. The boundary has even been put in a different position in the settlement deed than in their claim to the Court. There doesn’t seem to be anyone at ENW who is capable of interpreting plans and photographs. I also had the agreement with their Estates and Wayleaves Officer. There has been no judgment about the position of the boundary, ENW have been able to bring about a miscarriage of justice purely due to their ability to threaten me with ludicrous costs.
Under our legal system whoever has the most funds will usually win, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case. The facts are less relevant than the financial positions of the parties, and their willingness to pay huge fees.
Under the terms of the settlement, I am allowed to say that there is a settlement but not what the conditions are, which is a bit unnecessary as most of the conditions are already a matter of public record and on both our Land Registry deeds. Mine CU168339 and ENW’s CU241849. These conditions are fairly easily circumvented and are in any case attached to the property so will not apply to me when I sell it. Two other conditions that are personal to me are also easily circumvented, the fact that you are reading this shows how easily.
I am not allowed to publish any derogatory statements about them, and I am not allowed to say why; but I think they must know what they have done is very wrong and understandably don’t want the world to know about it. I have told you what they have done, it is well documented so why the gagging conditions? I will have to leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.
All those who should have helped me Courts, Planning Dept., Regulator, Police failed to do so. Before the Court action ENW came onto my land and erected a rudimentary fence. Presumably to provoke me, it worked and when I trashed it, I had to argue with the police for several hours. They said I was coming close to the handcuffs going on and a trip to the police station, I called their bluff and said go ahead then but they didn’t. Two big vans and dogs, what no armed response unit? They said I could be prosecuted; not ENW who had unlawfully trespassed on my land and caused criminal damage, they were just “doing their job”. So, the police are obviously biased also. ENW have done many other things wrong, in fact just about everything they have done is wrong.
When the mast was finished the concrete base which spanned the gap between their transformer house and my new build was transmitting noise and vibration into the house, as I warned them it would. ENW refused to accept that or even come and listen, until I got the Council’s Environmental Health Dept involved. Then ENW agreed to commission a noise test, by their pet noise consultants. On the morning of the test the loud hum that could previously be heard throughout the house, I have witnesses, was suddenly reduced to a more acceptable level and has remained so. It is still a bit louder than it should be inside but outside in the garden is totally unacceptable. They will have to run their 60 year old main transformers at a reduced load for evermore even to maintain that level, or replace and move them at a cost of £1million each.
Environmental Health are not able to issue a Noise Abatement Notice until the house is first occupied.
I would like to see them heavily fined and made to remove any unlawful developments, I would like to see an outcry that would discourage ENW and others of the same ilk from doing the same again and discredit privatisation, although I think in most people’s eyes it is already discredited. I would like to see a major reform of our legal system that presently allows the powerful to bring about miscarriages of justice by threatening overwhelming costs. And I would like to see all those bodies that should be there to protect the public made to do so.
I think there are several other people and organisations waiting to step in if and when I give up and I think they might be more willing than I to cause damage to the mast and substation. So far it is only ENW who have caused criminal damage, but they have set a precedent. Such is the corporate fascism people are facing in these situations that it is no wonder they take direct action. An activist friend of a friend said sabotage should be your first action, not a last resort.
Me john@whaleoilbeefoct.org
CEO Peter Emery’s email address peter.emery@enwl.co.uk. The substation is at the top of Eden Mount, Grange over Sands. LA11 6BZ the lane is a private road but a public footpath, there are two security cameras at the front, nothing at the back.
whaleoilbeefoct 