COV Requested for Electricity Meter That Hasn't Been Used for 6 Months

[Davo36]

Hi guys,

I kicked a tenant out a while back. This is a retail tenancy.

I've got a new, much better tenant in there now but the place has been empty for just over 6 months.

And they went to put the meter in their name last week with their supplier who is Meridian Energy who say they need a COV:

A COV is a Certificate Of Verification, some more details below for you.
·Relates to the electrical safety of the whole property
·Verifies the safety of all internal wiring
·Completed by an Electrical Inspector
·Commonly issued for properties disconnected for over 6 months
·Required for any changes to mains connection into the property



It was rewired 8 years ago, then the tenant have done their fitout and replaced most of it. So most of the wiring is like 2 weeks old!

Has anyone seen this? Do I have to get this? Seems like just another stupid thing to spend money on.

Any advice appreciated.

[Beano]

The insurance company (Aon) has asked my tenants to supply this too.
Difference is the power has not been disconnected
The tenants are not happy having to supply

[Davo36]

I've looked into this a bit further.

1) The power at my place has not been disconnected either. Just not in anyone's name for a bit over 6 months. But I have been using power in there, had contractors in there etc.

2) So this means they shouldn't be asking for this. But they sometimes get confused between the power being 'inactive' and 'disconnected'.

3) Yes sometimes insurance companies require it! I guess they are concerned about electrical fires starting and so want to know what they are insuring. See here for instance: https://cov.electricalinspectors.net.nz/


So I don't reckon I need one at my place, but if the electricity suppliers (all the main ones) really say they want it, then I might have to get it done.

[Davo36]

By the way Beano, that property I was looking at went for a 6.97% return.

This is based on what the property might have let for.

The tenant bought it.

I'm finding the way agents are selling these properties just now is to ignore the current rent being paid (which is usually low - and usually a short term lease, perhaps monthly, or only 6 months to go on lease term) and market the thing based on what they think the rent should be and so expect purchasers to apply a cap rate to that.

Which I find really annoying. They should use the rent actually being paid I reckon. And then if the purchaser buys it, they then get the upside of increasing the rent. Not having to already buy at an inflated price and maybe getting the rent to match some time later!

[Beano]

The agents choose the higher of actual or market rental.
To be able to sell at a higher price of course !

[Davo36]

The agents choose the higher of actual or market rental.
To be able to sell at a higher price of course !

I guess it's their job to get the highest price. But this never used to be done.

As a purchaser, one could argue that if there is a new notional higher rent, then the tenant would be paying that.