Unadopted Sewer

brewerdave

Maybe I'm being very stupid but......presumably the OP's sewerage was been taken away from his property - and he wasn't being charged by anyone else to treat it...so where is his financial "loss"???
Presumably it still ended up in United Utility's treatment works??

poppasmurf_bewdley

Just because a debt is older than six years doesn't mean it cannot be claimed. It just means you cannot take the claim to court. The debt still remains.

United Utilities are still liable for the full amount of the debt owed to you, and should pay it. Statute Barred just means you cannot sue them for it.

But I'm sure you could deduct it from future bills if they refuse to pay.

Cardew

brewerdave wrote: »

Maybe I'm being very stupid but......presumably the OP's sewerage was been taken away from his property - and he wasn't being charged by anyone else to treat it...so where is his financial "loss"???
Presumably it still ended up in United Utility's treatment works??

The OP states it was a new build estate 16 years ago; thus it would have had a meter.

If the rebate for 6 years is approx. £220 (£37 a year) it certainly isn't the 'sewerage charges' that are being refunded as the OP states, but the element for un-adopted sewers

we are due compensation because they failed to adopt the sewer serving our new build estate from the builders until 16 years had elapsed.

This explanation is from the Severn Trent website:

Private or Unadopted Sewers

There are some sewers within North Warwickshire that are not owned by Severn Trent Water. These are called private or unadopted sewers. These sewers may have been built with the intention of becoming publicly owned, but the owner or developer did not wish them to become public sewers or they failed to acceptable standards. Consequently they have remained privately owned, either by the developer or jointly by the owners of the properties which they serve.

My assumption is that had there been problems with the Sewers from the time the estate was built, United Utilities(UU) would not have been liable and the cost would have fallen on the developer/owners. i.e. rather like an insurance policy, the developer/owners carried the risk.

However given that it was clearly an error that UU did not adopt the sewer, had there been problems would not UU have been obliged to repair the sewers regardless?

As the OP has not mentioned that owners have not been obliged to pay for sewer(not drains) repairs, it would appear that the £220 rebate is a 'bonus'.

In the unlikely event that UU waived the 6 year 'statute barred' provision and back-dated 16 years, would not some of those years rebate be payable to the developer? It is not unusual in planning permission for developers to have a 10 year liability.

The above are questions and assumptions only!

brewerdave

Cardew wrote: »

As the OP has not mentioned that owners have not been obliged to pay for sewer(not drains) repairs, it would appear that the £220 rebate is a 'bonus'.

In the unlikely event that UU waived the 6 year 'statute barred' provision and back-dated 16 years, would not some of those years rebate be payable to the developer? It is not unusual in planning permission for developers to have a 10 year liability.

The above are questions and assumptions only!

...that was my assumption also -so to ask for more than £220 when NO financial loss has been suffered ,when such extra compensation would be funded by other cutomers of UU, seems a bit of a cheek!!

OhReally_2

brewerdave wrote: »

Maybe I'm being very stupid but......presumably the OP's sewerage was been taken away from his property - and he wasn't being charged by anyone else to treat it...so where is his financial "loss"???
Presumably it still ended up in United Utility's treatment works??

I think stupid would be a little harsh, misinformed more likely

The financial loss is because the water company are chargeing for a service they are not providing.

Its surface water sewers that should not be charged for wehere unadopted. This is because surface water is rainwater that runs off roofs and driveways (and roads) and usually just runs directly into rivers, watercourses and eventually the sea. There is usually no treatment.

The charge a water company makes for surface water sewerage is mainly for the cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the pipes as necessary. Where the sewer is unadopted, the water company will not do any of this saying they are not their pipes. Usually a bond exists that is provided by the seller of new builds to cover the period a road or other services are unadopted (this allows for the maintenance, repair or replacement as necessary, if the builder were to not be in a position to do so themselves, until adoption takes place.)
Essentially the OP has paid for this when they bought the house. The builder pays these costs, so why should the water comnpany be collecting mmoney for doing nothing?

OhReally_2

Cardew wrote: »

The OP states it was a new build estate 16 years ago; thus it would have had a meter.

If the rebate for 6 years is approx. £220 (£37 a year) it certainly isn't the 'sewerage charges' that are being refunded as the OP states, but the element for un-adopted sewers

This explanation is from the Severn Trent website:

My assumption is that had there been problems with the Sewers from the time the estate was built, United Utilities(UU) would not have been liable and the cost would have fallen on the developer/owners. i.e. rather like an insurance policy, the developer/owners carried the risk.

However given that it was clearly an error that UU did not adopt the sewer, had there been problems would not UU have been obliged to repair the sewers regardless?

As the OP has not mentioned that owners have not been obliged to pay for sewer(not drains) repairs, it would appear that the £220 rebate is a 'bonus'.

In the unlikely event that UU waived the 6 year 'statute barred' provision and back-dated 16 years, would not some of those years rebate be payable to the developer? It is not unusual in planning permission for developers to have a 10 year liability.

The above are questions and assumptions only!

Often it sinply that the water company won't adopt the sewers unless the council adopt the road itself.

There can be many reasons for such a delay, but a permanent decision to leave roads, sewers, etc unadopted can have a significant impact on the home value as eventually the homeowner will have to pay for thier upkeep. Any half good soliciltor should check these things out and inform a prospective buyer accordingly. As I said, normally a bond is to be put in place whilst construction is ongoing to cover the cost of adoption later should the builder not be in a position to ensure it takes place. (Of course, agreements also need to be in place to adopt the roads, sewers, etc in due course)

No extra money is due to the developer. The developer agrees to get the roads, sewers etc adopted and is responsible until they do. (That's why there should also be a bond in place in case they don't). This can cover for example street lighting too, and the electricity so consumed.