Difficult solicitors - advice needed

James_Tyroll

You can see the report here:

http://publicaccess.preston.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=164009

e13

James_Tyroll wrote: »

You can see the report here:

http://publicaccess.preston.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=164009

Pumping stations would also make me nervous - if I'm fully understanding what it is, it will be to pump the sewage out of a pit and into the mains drainage. This means the development will have maintenance and repair costs for the tank, unless these have been passed onto the sewerage company. I would check this, because depending on the pump it may mean all houses have to treat their sewage as if it's going into a septic tank. This isn't something that's difficult to do (just means no sanitary waste etc down the loo, no hot fat etc) but it is difficult to enforce.

On the other hand, if payments for the sewage system are already built into the estate, there might well be no reason why maintenance of the ditch couldn't be included as part of those costs.

marksoton

James_Tyroll wrote: »

Sounds like you have experience in these matters... any idea what sort of cost is involved to clear a ditch around 28m long?

I'd say a mini digger and operative for half a day. Few hundred quid.

glasgowdan wrote: »

So why do they build SUDS?

Agreed they do. And SUDS certainly have their place but they're not the solve all solution some believe them to be. At the end of the day the water has to go somewhere.

James_Tyroll wrote: »

You can see the report here:

http://publicaccess.preston.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=164009

To be fair they do seem to have modelled it.

However:
a) The drawings and model provided are not "for construction drawings" so the plan could change.

b) You've no certainty the contractor carrying out the works will conform to relevant QS.

I know of one new build site in SE England where the residents are going to have years of foul water problems because the management were poor. The groundworks firm didn't know their stuff and pretty much laid the sewer flat. So it does happen.

James_Tyroll

Ah dear, so latest reply from solicitors when we asked for more info

Was simply...

"This is not a brook or a ditch it is a depression in the land"

Reaaaaally. A depression on the land that is marked on the map as a watercourse, and required maintenance. That you called a brook in your previous email... I think my intelligence is being insulted here!

Hoploz

Oh dear this is proving to be a spanner in the works. I wouldn't be happy with that.

(anyway if they genuinely thought that why on earth are they using 'a depression in the land' for surface water drainage in any case??!)

James_Tyroll

Haha, I know it makes no sense.

And surely if it's just a 'depression' then we can move our fence back to the boundary, and not lose 1 meter due to it.

martindow

James_Tyroll wrote: »

Ah dear, so latest reply from solicitors when we asked for more info

Was simply...

"This is not a brook or a ditch it is a depression in the land"

Reaaaaally. A depression on the land that is marked on the map as a watercourse, and required maintenance. That you called a brook in your previous email... I think my intelligence is being insulted here!

This is just semantics and does not alter the realities of what is on the ground. A 'depression in the land' still has the ability to fill with water and flood.

It is like teenagers saying it's not a party, it's a social gathering. Whatever they choose to call it, they will drink dry any bottles they can find and wreck your house.

ReadingTim

You may have to resign yourself to the concept that whatever 'facts' you are trying to ascertain might not be established. Whether this is due to the incompetence of the solicitor, the deceitfulness of the developer, or the mysteriousness of the universe, you may also never know.

It is therefore up to you to decide, based on what you do know, whether you wish to take the risk of purchasing this property. Solicitors and other advisors can only advise - the decision is yours, and yours alone, so grow a pair and make it, rather than blaming someone else for not telling you what to do.

James_Tyroll

ReadingTim wrote: »

You may have to resign yourself to the concept that whatever 'facts' you are trying to ascertain might not be established. Whether this is due to the incompetence of the solicitor, the deceitfulness of the developer, or the mysteriousness of the universe, you may also never know.

It is therefore up to you to decide, based on what you do know, whether you wish to take the risk of purchasing this property. Solicitors and other advisors can only advise - the decision is yours, and yours alone, so grow a pair and make it, rather than blaming someone else for not telling you what to do.

I think the last sentence is uncalled for. We weren't blaming anyone for not telling us what to do - simply expressing that they have been very difficult and therefore asking for opinions on the situation based upon other people's experience so we can make an informed decision.

But thanks for your constructive feedback

James_Tyroll

Looks like we're going to walk away from this. There's too many niggling things like this which aren't giving us much confidence.

Just read the 'free'hold and it contains loads of restrictive coventants - including requiring a certificate from the maintenance company before you can remortgage/sell the house, which they charge for the privilege of. Plus, you can't alter the house in any way or paint the fence without permission - even with a leasehold. Each of those points by themselves wouldn't have been enough for us to pull out but combined, it leads to a situation where even if we were happy, we could then have problems selling in the future.

Time to get house hunting again