Private Pumping Station Problems

Boyley

Afternoon all,

This is a long (ish) one so please bear with. I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on the matter we are currently dealing with.

My two neighbors and I each bought a new build property back in 2012/2013. The three properties were built on a plot of land with a private pumping station already installed (by previous land owner - a developer that never developed on it). Rather than connecting directly to the main gravity sewer, they are served by a private pumping station and wet well, many of which qualify for adoption these days by Thames Water, but ours (due to its commissioning date August 2011) doesn’t. At the time of purchase we were told that it would qualify, and I believe the estate agent and developer genuinely believed it would. We missed the cut off date by a few weeks!


Shortly after the properties were occupied, residents in the already existing properties complained of odors/sewerage smells which we now know are linked to our private pumping station. Short of speaking to Thames Water and the developer in the early days on numerous occasions, very little was achieved and the situation remained unresolved. It is worth noting at this point that we have never experienced any odors in any of the new build properties. It is accepted by the council that the problem is somewhat twofold, and caused mainly by our pumping station and in part by substandard seals and plumbing in the existing properties.


Fast forward to late Summer 2016, and following a couple of independent reports commissioned by the Council in conjunction with their Environmental Health, my two neighbors and I have been presented with a report condemning our sewerage and drainage infrastructure as unfit for purpose due to the over-sized specification of the pumping station wet well. In short the pumping station does not pump out frequently enough in order operate efficiently, causing a build-up of odors affecting neighboring properties. In essence the capacity of the well is too large for the number of properties, and people it serves.

I have contacted the NHBC, under which this is apparently not covered as the problem is not due to constructional or installation defect. The NHBC suggested liability sits with the supplier/installer, the body which signed off the installation (the Council) and/or the developer. The developer very recently confirmed that neither he, nor his company has any liability in this matter. All further communication should be directed through his solicitor (He was very good up to this point with snagging).

After taking legal advice our solicitor advised that there was probably a case against the developer under the Defective Premises act 1972 however this is denied by the developer and his solicitor as the Act relates to dwellings, which the pumping station is not. Our solicitor didnt think there was a case against the NHBC or council.

We were also advised that taking the developer to court even if we won could cost more than what it cost to put right (Circa £15,000+ 10,000 court and legal fees) even if were were successful, and that not all cost are recoverable.

As it stands, work is currently in progress to decommission the pumping station and connect to the main sewer directly, all at our own cost.

I'm staggered that we seem to have no where to turn to other than to foot the bill ourselves and have the work carried out. None the less i'd be interested to hear any thoughts on who actually might be at fault.

Regards
DB

stator

When you bought the property, did your solicitor know about the private pumping station? Did they check it was up to standard? Did they advise you to check anything? Did they advise you to take out an indemnity policy? Did you have a mortgage? Did the lender question anything relating to the pumping station?

I don't think anyone can advise you what your chances of success are against the original developer, but that is where the moral liability lies. They will of course fight you every step of the way.

Boyley

Thanks for your response stator.

We were never advised to check anything or take out any kind of indemnity - and yes the property is mortgaged and it was never raised by the lender. Not even when we remortgaged.

We had to set up a management company for the three of us and were told this would transfer over to Thames Water in a years time. Trouble is unless the pumping station was in service prior to July 2011, it isnt eligible for adoption.

stator

You could try making a complaint about your conveyancer if you think they didn't advise you correctly regarding the original purchase. An unadopted private sewer is definitely something they should have asked questions about, but only if they knew about it. Go back over your paperwork to see if they did.

Furts

Anybody who purchases a new home with a pumping station has to scrutinise everything. Alarm bells immediately ring, and one has to consider carefully the attitude of the water authority. Basically why should they adopt something which will be a long term liability and expense to them? Their default response will be to try and avoid getting involved. In turn a developer and owners have to be 110% certain nothing is wrong to prevent adoption. Bluntly I am amazed that you have ended up in this situation.


I am with your solicitor. Why should the council pick up a liability - unless they did Building Control.


I would have thought a bond would have existed to cover against your situation. It does with roads and adopted sewers and the latter is exactly what you hoped to achieve.


I would be going after NHBC, all the more so if they were the Approved Inspectors. The scheme would have been run past NHBC in order for them to take on the risk, and the developer will have paid a premium, in turn paid between the three future owners.


I would challenge NHBC. All work is covered by their Technical Standards. These comprise various parts, but in essence are split into design, specification, and site works. There is not a cop out that springs to my mind.


There is a puzzle in all this. A pumping station is an expensive piece of work. It is to be avoided at all costs unless there is no alternative. So why can you now make a gravity connection when the developer did not do this?


Finally who designed the size of the pumping station?

Furts

As a rider to the above, I trust you have professional advice, design and everything in line for the decommission and new drainage. If not, and anything, anywhere, is wrong you will end up with no Adoption and in much the same place as you are now.

Boyley

They certainly knew about it - as it was clearly marked on the drawings. Sounds like it is certainly worth following up. The adoption criteria wasn't clear around the time of construction.

In truth, whilst painful at the moment, connecting straight to the mains will save money in the long term as we are solely responsible for the private sewer, and maintenance is expensive. If something goes wrong its extortionate. Companies have you over a barrel for call out fees.

Boyley

Furts

The pumping station wasnt put in by our builder. It was installed by a previous developer who then sold the plot to 'our' developer.

The same council that condemned it were responsible for building control and sign off!

There are thousands of these pumping stations up and down the country and we have had few problems with ours, but it is too big and therefore doesnt operate efficiently!

Boyley

Furts the reason there is no adoption is because it wasn't in service prior to July 2011.

And yes - we are footing a hefty bill to connect to the mains and decommission that has been approved by that same building control and council

Furts

Boyley wrote: »

Furts

The pumping station wasnt put in by our builder. It was installed by a previous developer who then sold the plot to 'our' developer.

The same council that condemned it were responsible for building control and sign off!

There are thousands of these pumping stations up and down the country and we have had few problems with ours, but it is too big and therefore doesnt operate efficiently!

What I am getting at is whose design was it, and for how many homes the land that was sold off?

Furts

Boyley wrote: »

Furts the reason there is no adoption is because it wasn't in service prior to July 2011.

And yes - we are footing a hefty bill to connect to the mains and decommission that has been approved by that same building control and council

But adoption will be Thames Water? If so, what are you working to with regard specification and design?