In reply to a post by ParksidePeter:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

but your suspicion that the two addresses No5 and No.5A may be mixed up is quite likely, it also begs the question why would the developer chose to do something this ,

It's quite normal when properties are divided. What else would you expect?

The property wasn’t divided though , it was demolished and replaced with 2 new ones.

I didn't initially appreciate the fact the this ‘new build’ was 2 properties built where one ( demolished) property once stood , I mistakenly assumed it to be a newsite , and part of a group of similar properties , rather than what it actually is , a pair of properties built on an existing plot, so although a ‘new build’ it’s not really a newsite ( well what Openreach considers a ‘newsite’ ), if this number scheme had been adopted on a ‘newsite’ , it would be pointlessly convoluted.

If the demolished property were known as No.5 and were replaced with 2 new properties ( as opposed to a new property simply being built in the grounds if the original property ) then calling the new properties 5A and 5B , and allowing No.5 to disappear as an address , rather than giving one of the new properties the address of the demolished property , namely No.5 , it would have been obvious that an address that didn’t exist was being selected at the point of ordering , but it’s all a little moot now and hopefully the OP is on route to getting service

Edited by Iniltous (Thu 21-Dec-23 21:07:27)

A building which is demolished and rebuilt can have its number re-used, so 5 and 5A is what I'd expect.

I did once have to find a house on a street where all the houses had names rather than numbers. Unfortunately they were not arranged in alphabetical order And this was before Google Maps and the like.