Legalities of a power disconnection from another provider

gregmcc:

I guess you missed the bit where I said "Reasonable", it's in the Electricity Act. Usually if you want a private pillar the network company will sign you up to an easement that grants them access.....

Dude, just stop. If you think randomly claiming to reference the Act in some one-liners but not citing the relevant provisions -- nor actually considering their words -- constitute some kind of argument, you're kidding yourself. Here's what s 23D says:

23D Land owner may set reasonable conditions on line owner’s entry

The owner or occupier of the land may set reasonable conditions relating to the timing of entry under section 23 and the access route, but those conditions may not—

(a)

delay the entry by more than 15 working days; or

(b)

require monetary or other consideration; or

(c)

otherwise defeat the ability of the owner of the works to exercise effectively the powers in section 23.

Kyanar is right. You can't through setting conditions essentially defeat the right of the distributor to maintain existing works, if existing works are at issue. The conditions have to relate to some legitimate interests of the owner and/or the land and not just "No I don't want you here. This is my land!".

if it was a network pillar on private property, yes the network company does have the legal right to access it, but for maintenance and safety reasons and the property owner can set reasonable access conditions, but for disconnection purposes I doubt he Electricity Act would allow the network company acces

Bzzt. Wrong. You're conflating the Electricity Act's provisions on existing works which, for distribution equipment anyway, typically refer only to works lawfully installed before 1 January 1993. A distributor's access rights for equipment installed after 1993 are secured typically via (in order of most desirable/secure from the POV of the distributor) (1) an easement on the land title; (2) a relevant contractual term inserted into the customer's contract with their electricity retailer (typically required under the Use of Systems Agreement between the retailer and a distributor); and (3) a works agreement between the (then) land owner that arranged the installation of the equipment and the distributor. (3) is not binding upon any subsequent land owner.

The definition between works and installation is clearly defined in the electricity act, it is the boundary line of the property, clearly the private pillar that the OP had installed at their cost is part of the installation, even if it was works the property owner is allowed to set reasonable restrictions on access.

Christ, buddy, forget about actual practice experience for a moment and just imagine this: some of us went to law school for 4 years at a minimum (more for honours graduates and those who pursued further PG education) - if everything is as clear and obvious as it seems to be for you, when are you accepting an appointment to be our Chief Justice? The relevant definition of installation is this:

(i) in relation to a property with a point of supply, all fittings beyond the point of supply that form part of a system that is used to convey electricity to a point of consumption, or used to generate or store electricity; and

(ii) in relation to a property without a point of supply, all fittings that form part of a system that is used to convey electricity to a point of consumption, or used to generate or store electricity;

So one thing is immediately obvious - the boundary line of the property isn't the sole determining factor. That's because "point of supply" is also defined:

In this Act, point of supply, in relation to a property, means the point or points on the boundary of the property at which exclusive fittings enter that property...

Have you examined the relevant pillar to confirm that the pillar is an exclusive fitting? It's really frustrating to see people who obviously have a limited understanding of the issues going around acting like everything is clear and obvious when the OP's worldview is fairly fixed and his understanding of the relevant points of contention are limited. You're only encouraging him to react in a silly fashion with this nonsense.

gregmcc

dejadeadnz