Help regarding paved over inspection cover for drain!

af2909_2

Hi all:

As a naive first time buyer (just prior to exchange last March) myself and the other half did have a survey done on our property which did recommend a CCTV survey (which I had planned to do post completion)

When they came around they could not find the man hole cover and said the only way to access the drains would be to cut the waste open to ground level and locate the inspection cover from there.

I do have queries here regarding this:

(1) I know the water board are only responsible to the property boundaries, but would they have archived records of where the drain run would be inside the property?

(2) There is a small extension on our property which had planning permission and was signed off by the borough (in 2004 if I remember correctly). Therefore, am I correct in saying that the local authority would not have signed off the extension if it had been built on top of the drain run without the provision of a new inspection point?

Many thanks for your help :beer:

keystone

af2909 wrote: »

(1) I know the water board are only responsible to the property boundaries,

Thats not necessarily so. If yours is a joint drain with someone else or it becomes a joint drain on your property then the sewerage authority are responsible from the point that the drains join. After that point its called a sewer.



so if you lived in either of the two right hand terraces or the RH semi or the detached you'd be correct. If however you lived in the LH semi or either of the two LH terraces then you'd only be reponsible to the join.

but would they have archived records of where the drain run would be inside the property?

Wouldn't it be nice if they did. > 90% chance the answer is no.

Therefore, am I correct in saying that the local authority would not have signed off the extension if it had been built on top of the drain run without the provision of a new inspection point?

There are two possibilities in these circumstances. Reroute the drainage or buildover. In the latter case the existing cover has to be double sealed and an access hatch provided in the floor of the extension so that the inspection chamber remains accessible. Do you have such a hatch?. As its only 9 years ago perhaps a quick call to building control to see if they have retained any records? Have you thought about contacting the vendor to ask them?

Cheers

af2909_2

keystone wrote: »

Thats not necessarily so. If yours is a joint drain with someone else or it becomes a joint drain on your property then the sewerage authority are responsible from the point that the drains join. After that point its called a sewer.



so if you lived in either of the two right hand terraces or the RH semi or the detached you'd be correct. If however you lived in the LH semi or either of the two LH terraces then you'd only be reponsible to the join.

Thanks for the response. To throw a further hand grenade into the mix we live on a private road whereby the drains run down the back of the properties (it's a lane between the backs of properties on different streets)

keystone wrote: »

There are two possibilities in these circumstances. Reroute the drainage or buildover. In the latter case the existing cover has to be double sealed and an access hatch provided in the floor of the extension so that the inspection chamber remains accessible. Do you have such a hatch?. As its only 9 years ago perhaps a quick call to building control to see if they have retained any records? Have you thought about contacting the vendor to ask them?

Cheers

There is no hatch inside - I've had a dig about and lifted 2 loose slabs with nothing underneath.

I may contact building control but if there are problems does this mean that we have to bear the cost of repairs (caveat emptor)?

Also I think there is very little chance of extracting anything from the vendor as she lied through her teeth about the cost of enfranchising lease/extending the lease and we haggled the price down. This isn't the only thing botched in the property but as I say it was down to being a naive FTB :mad:

Back to my earlier point - we are going to be installing a cloakroom toilet and the logical waste water point would be to make it join the existing cast iron waste with a cuff - therefore would it be possible for the CCTV survey to be undertaken even if the soil pipe isn't removed to ground level?

keystone

af2909 wrote: »

Thanks for the response. To throw a further hand grenade into the mix we live on a private road whereby the drains run down the back of the properties (it's a lane between the backs of properties on different streets)

That probably makes it look a little like the terrace of houses (purely from waste water/soil perspecive of course). Are the houses either side identical or at least similar or built at the same time by the same builder? If so where are your neighbours inspection chambers (manholes)? If they are all in a similar position the the likelyhood is that yours is also. Its also possible that the builder didn't put any in! How old is the main property?

There is no hatch inside - I've had a dig about and lifted 2 loose slabs with nothing underneath.

Oh!

I may contact building control but if there are problems does this mean that we have to bear the cost of repairs (caveat emptor)?

What repairs? You haven't mentioned any.

Also I think there is very little chance of extracting anything from the vendor as she lied through her teeth about the cost of enfranchising lease/extending the lease and we haggled the price down. This isn't the only thing botched in the property but as I say it was down to being a naive FTB :mad:

Oh dear.

Back to my earlier point - we are going to be installing a cloakroom toilet and the logical waste water point would be to make it join the existing cast iron waste with a cuff - therefore would it be possible for the CCTV survey to be undertaken even if the soil pipe isn't removed to ground level?

Not quite sure what you mean by cuff but if you are joining 4 inch to 4 inch you'll need a branch. You'll be cutting the old cast down to where the branch is going to be, fitting the plastic branch and replacing the rest upwards in plastic including the branch to your upstairs loo if you have one..

Am rather at a loss to understand why you think you need a CCTV survey actually. If your "survey" was a house buyers report it will be so chock full of CYA stuff on behalf of the "surveyor" that it isn't worth the paper its printed on. They put things like "recommend CCTV survey" in the bat of an eyelid - whether its necessary or not - that covers them for the future irrespective y'see?

Cheers

af2909_2

keystone wrote: »

That probably makes it look a little like the terrace of houses (purely from waste water/soil perspecive of course). Are the houses either side identical or at least similar or built at the same time by the same builder? If so where are your neighbours inspection chambers (manholes)? If they are all in a similar position the the likelyhood is that yours is also. Its also possible that the builder didn't put any in! How old is the main property?

Oh!

What repairs? You haven't mentioned any.

Oh dear.

Not quite sure what you mean by cuff but if you are joining 4 inch to 4 inch you'll need a branch. You'll be cutting the old cast down to where the branch is going to be, fitting the plastic branch and replacing the rest upwards in plastic including the branch to your upstairs loo if you have one..

Am rather at a loss to understand why you think you need a CCTV survey actually. If your "survey" was a house buyers report it will be so chock full of CYA stuff on behalf of the "surveyor" that it isn't worth the paper its printed on. They put things like "recommend CCTV survey" in the bat of an eyelid - whether its necessary or not - that covers them for the future irrespective y'see?

Cheers

Hi again

They are 1930's maisonettes/semi detached properties I've seen that one the other side has one and there is a "new inspection cover" on the other side

It's quite clear that they've paved over the inspection cover, hence the need for a CCTV survey to find where the inspection point is :beer::beer:

Also - just to confirm when I put the branch in I have to replace above with plastic and therefore I cannot fit the branch over the cast iron downpipe (as thats what has been done upstairs)

cyclonebri1

The drains across my property are marked on my deeds;);)

Keystone, you may recall my issues with a neighbours soakaway being too close to my retaining wall, our local authority told me that records were not kept for further than 5 years back

Op, you say in the title "paved over inspection cover"?? why not just lift the paving 1st?

af2909_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The drains across my property are marked on my deeds;);)

Keystone, you may recall my issues with a neighbours soakaway being too close to my retaining wall, our local authority told me that records were not kept for further than 5 years back

Op, you say in the title "paved over inspection cover"?? why not just lift the paving 1st?

Cheers - although this approach will probably mean me lifting up at least 50 slabs that are concreted in place!

af2909_2

Portly_Pig wrote: »

If you find out where the inspection chambers are either side of you would yours not be inline within those meaning only a line of slabs to lift at worse?

It would seem so but the property to my right has had theirs moved - may ask where theirs was :beer:

Tucker

If the inspection cover has been burried under the patio, then it's not been passed by building control on that basis.

Are you sure the extension was signed off by building control (nothing to do with planning permission, that's seperate)?

bryanb

af2009 Are we talking under the extension you mentioned in the OP? Or perhaps under the patio others are mentioning?

jhe

alf2909 we had this problem with a house a few years ago,
the water board did try to help when i phoned them but did not help me locate the manhole cover.
a metal detector might be the answer to it for you.
we eventually located the manhole cover underneath a kitchen extension! the extension had been built years ago and it was passed planning and building control