Extension built over public sewer

SleepEnthusiast

Hi all, I've been reading MSE for a long time and it seems the perfect place to post now I'm after some advice...

Myself and my wife bought a 2-bed, mid-terraced house in 2009, with a small one-storey extension at the back which contains our lounge. The purchase went through without any issues and (suspiciously) quickly but being FTB's we didn't think anything of it.

Now after a happy 3 years we are selling - we have found a new place, have a good offer for ours and are close to the point of exchange. The last stumbling block that has just come up as part of the buyers' enquiries is that the extension, built in the 1980s over a public sewer, has neither building regs approval (applied but never signed off,) nor a build-over agreement with the water company. This was not brought up as an issue by our original solicitors, and if we had known about it we would not have purchased the property.

The buyers have contacted the council regarding the building regs, and they have issued a 'comfort letter' saying that they will not make us knock the extension down unless it's unsafe. Our solicitor has advised us that the best way to proceed would be an indemnity policy for the build-over agreement. They have tried some insurers but the longest policy they are prepared to issue is 15 years. Our buyers' solicitor thinks this will not be suitable and we will need at least a 25 year policy, preferably perpetual.

Our questions are;

Should we be able to get a perpetual indemnity in this circumstance, and does anyone know any providers who might be able to do this?

If the insurance route is a no-go, what's our next move?

1) Try again to sell it and hope the 15 year policy would be enough
2) Tell water board and hope for retrospective agreement (there is no room for a manhole cover if this would be a deciding factor)
3) Pull down extension and lose £50k off the value of the house

Also, do we have a case for suing our original solicitors for negligence? Looking through all the paperwork (now that we know what we're looking for,) it's clear that all the information is there, he just didn't bring it to our attention.

Any advice gratefully received!

G_M

SleepEnthusiast wrote: »

Also, do we have a case for suing our original solicitors for negligence? Looking through all the paperwork (now that we know what we're looking for,) it's clear that all the information is there, he just didn't bring it to our attention.

I'm afraid this seems a contradiction of terms. Clearly if you have found "that all the information is there," then he DID bring it to your attention.

From a legal viewpoint.

Though perhaps he did not talk you through it.

more_money_for_me

Would certainly not go the pulling it down route, as it will bother some buyers less than others. I have family who work in the water industry, and as I understand it a water company is unlikely to grant retrospective permission, this is because if something goes wrong with the sewer they currently have no liability to you if they need to damage the extension to get to the sewer, and they are unlikely to want to strengthen your position. That said most sewer work is done on a no dig basis these days, with work completed from the sewer. If the buyers are still interested perhaps a price reduction is one way to go to ensure the sale goes through. Otherwise stick it back on at a price that is lower than if there was no sewer, and higher than if you pulled down the extension. At a competetive price you will get viewings and if they seem to like it then be honest and raise the sewer early on. Good luck, having just completed a sale I know how frustrating it can be.

fluffymuffy

Since late last year all sewers that serve more then one property are now classed as Public Sewers. That means that if your neighbour's sewer passes through your property it's a Public Sewer - whether it joins your or not.

Could it be that in the case here the sewer was not classified as a Public Sewer by the definitions of the time it was built?

Topsia

We have a similar problem. We've just found that the property we are about to buy has an extension that was build over the public sewer in the 1970s (It was then a private sewer - it's the usual 6" clay drain). The extension does not have building regulation approval. I think this is now a common problem. We've been offered the usual indemnity insurance by the sellers solicitor, which I understand would cover the legal costs and losses if the water company (Thames) needed to access the sewer or objected to the extension and ordered its demolition. (has anyone ever claimed on one of these?)
My question is this: we plan to add a further extension, and this will involve building over part of the public sewer. As this will need building regulations approval, I think we will invalidate the indemnity policy as soon the inspector sees the old extension.
We think we should insist the seller obtains the building regulations approval, or reduce the price to cover the possible costs of diverting the drain. Does anyone have any advice or experience of a similar situation, please?

KarinaPTC

Building Regs did not always used to be signed off back in the 80ies. It might be a good idea to check with your local authority whether at the time when your extension was built, completion certificates were issued. If not issued at the time, the fact that Notice of Passing of Plans was issued might be sufficient. It is my understanding that if building regs consent exists for an extension, water authorities will have to pick up the bill for taking down the extension and for re-instating it, if they require access. Also I have spoken to Thames Water myseft regarding building over sewers issue and they told me that they would do everything they can to avoid damaging properties as this would be very bad public image for them. I hope this helps. Don't give up on your sale and don't reduce your sale price.

Fire_Fox

SleepEnthusiast wrote: »

Also, do we have a case for suing our original solicitors for negligence? Looking through all the paperwork (now that we know what we're looking for,) it's clear that all the information is there, he just didn't bring it to our attention.

Any advice gratefully received!

Welcome! If the solicitor went through every line of every document conveyancing would be so time consuming and so costly people would not move. The whole point of giving you the paperwork was for you to read it, when you are spending tens of thousands of pounds you are expected to do your own homework.

MrsBno.3

We have the same problem with a conservatory built in 2007. we have provided indemnity insurance to go with the house and have not gone for retrospective build over permission. This is all because of the change in the rules last year. Indemnity insurers are making a mint. How are you supposed to plan your home improvements for changes in the planning laws that no one knows will happen. Crystal balls anyone.

Mickygg

Hmmmm 3 newbies with the same problem!

DRP

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Welcome! If the solicitor went through every line of every document conveyancing would be so time consuming and so costly people would not move. The whole point of giving you the paperwork was for you to read it, when you are spending tens of thousands of pounds you are expected to do your own homework.

Fire Fox, although it isn't necessary for the solicitor to go through every line, i would think it would be part of the solicitors job to translate legalese gobbledygook amongst all the documents involved in the purchase and to highlight any potential issues - this drain/extension sounds like quite a major issue to me!