Buuying - Issue with buildover agreement on extension built pre-2011

CaptainH

Hi guys, I'm trying to buy a house but it's hit in the days before we exchange. They have an extension built pre-2011 (before Thames Water took over ownership of the shared sewer drainage thing) and now the lender won't give us a mortgage because they don't have a buildover agreement for an extension built over a manhole that covers a few properties around us, even though the extension was built before it was required and therefore shouldn't be necessary according to what I've read.

Sorry for the short post but I've been up for about 36 hours due to work and I'm going to get some sleep before I call the mortgage lender myself (not trusting the broker). Would anyone be able to help prepare me for what's going on. I don't really see how this has come about.

Thanks, I'll post more detail later if necessary.

Doozergirl

Has your solicitor messed up somewhere?

In order to have a building control completion certificate, you have to comply with the buildover rules. If an agreement was required, BC would have wanted sight of it.

Just sounds wrong to me - unless the house is built pre 1936? Those drains were already adopted. Even then, BC would have been involved.

I find that solicitors often don't appreciate the nuances in planning legislation and building regulations.

Is indemnity policy an option? It is frustrating that sometimes these policies are bought but not required. It's just for an easy life.

davidmcn

You should really be speaking to your solicitor rather than directly to the lender, it's not as if you're likely to sway their decision if the solicitor has advised them not to lend.

Davesnave

As Doozergirl's post above, I built-over in 1987, before adoption by South West Water, but the council, who were then responsible for the sewer, still required a build over agreement.

teneighty

Davesnave wrote: »

As Doozergirl's post above, I built-over in 1987, before adoption by South West Water, but the council, who were then responsible for the sewer, still required a build over agreement.

That is not strictly correct. You only needed a build-over agreement for an adopted public sewer. That consisted of the major trunk sewers and back in the day you usually weren't allowed to build over a public sewer.

If it was just a shared private drain, as it would have been in those days, the council in the guise of the building control officer would have asked for the drain to be protected and the foundation strengthened as necessary but it was not a formal build-over agreement. It was just to ensure the drainage and foundation complied with the building regulations the same as if there was a tree nearby with shrinkable clay or there was a redundant well under the extension.

The mortgage lender is talking nonsense. Assuming it was not an adopted public sewer there was no requirement for a build-over agreement prior to the new rules adopting all shared drains.

Davesnave

teneighty wrote: »

That is not strictly correct. You only needed a build-over agreement for an adopted public sewer. That consisted of the major trunk sewers and back in the day you usually weren't allowed to build over a public sewer.

If it was just a shared private drain, as it would have been in those days, the council in the guise of the building control officer would have asked for the drain to be protected and the foundation strengthened as necessary but it was not a formal build-over agreement. It was just to ensure the drainage and foundation complied with the building regulations the same as if there was a tree nearby with shrinkable clay or there was a redundant well under the extension.

It was a sewer carrying the waste from 40 properties and surface water.

I had to engage a structural engineer, who specified 2 reinforced concrete bridges, one 14' long and about 2' thick at a depth of 2m. I also had to have reinforced concrete floors carrying the weight across into the walls.

There was definitely a build over agreement. I was told I was lucky as they were soon to be discontinued, possibly because of the planned hand-over to the water authority.....can't remember exactly.

teneighty

Davesnave wrote: »

It was a sewer carrying the waste from 40 properties and surface water.

I had to engage a structural engineer, who specified 2 reinforced concrete bridges, one 14' long and about 2' thick at a depth of 2m. I also had to have reinforced concrete floors carrying the weight across into the walls.

There was definitely a build over agreement. I was told I was lucky as they were soon to be discontinued, possibly because of the planned hand-over to the water authority.....can't remember exactly.

If you needed a build-over agreement in 1987 it must have been an adopted public sewer, seems likely if it served 40 other properties. I suspect the confusion was the local Council engineering depts often used to work as agents for the water companies on adopted public sewers.

That is not the same as a shared private sewer which would have been adopted more recently under the new rule changes as described by the OP.

You were indeed very lucky. Most of the cases I dealt with back then were rejected out of hand.

CaptainH

From what I've been told all the work has been done to a good standard and the paperwork's all in check. I'm going to talk to the solicitor shortly as I'm waiting for a callback. What I'm going to propose to the lender is that we have a manhole put in the extension which will require moving a bath, and we'll tell the seller to knock the house price down according to what this will cost. We'll then agree with the lender that a condition of the mortgage is that this money is used to get the work done.

I keep getting people talking about this buildover agreement but since it was pre-2011 I think all that's irrelevant.

There's also talk that the insurance won't cover subsidence (I wouldn't have expected them to cover this at all to be honest) but since the extension has all been done in line with BC I don't see why there would be a problem. Many of the other houses on the street have all got extensions, including both neighbours. The lender is saying that's an issue apparently.

I'm going to get the solicitor to clarify the lender's issues because they seem to be making problems out of nothing. I'm wondering if the lender doesn't realise the extension is pre-2011.

*edit*

And just to clarify something; there's no way Thames Water can just turn up and tell me to demolish the extension, is that correct?

AdrianC

CaptainH wrote: »

I keep getting people talking about this buildover agreement but since it was pre-2011 I think all that's irrelevant.

No.

A build-over would still have been needed. It was only who would have granted it that changed in 2011.

CaptainH

Okay, thanks for the info. Is there any way of finding out who would have owned this stuff in the area at the time?