Buying a property with a Macerator

vratnayaka

eddddy wrote: »

I think a lot of people's first reaction is 'yuk!' - many will get over it, maybe some won't.

Will that bathroom be used by guests, or just family?

I guess the awkwardness of having to tell guests what they can/can't put down the toilet might be an issue. And it might be embarrassing if they forget.

Maybe when you do another viewing, say you want to turn on the bath taps to set the macerater going, and then go to different rooms to judge noise levels.

And maybe flush the toilet, to see how long the noise lasts.

And find out the precise model that's been fitted, and research it online - for reliability, what the manufacturers say you can/can't put down it etc.

I think it would be used more like an en-suite. Its across the hall from the master bedroom upstairs; I think we will only use it overnight. We might also use it to give our 1 year old baths regularly as the bathroom downstairs has only got a shower.

When we have guests over, I think we'd expect them to use the downstairs loo and we'd use the upstairs loo a bit more during this period.

We are planning on making another visit and doing exactly what you suggested.

vratnayaka

Rambosmum wrote: »

I wouldn't for a main bathroom but for an en suite I don't see the issue. They do make a noise, but so do a lot of toilets.


I hate them in basements as the smell tends to linger as it can't flush through properly but we haven't had that issue in the loft one.

Thank you. I think it will be used as more of a ensuite. The downstairs bathroom is likely to be the main bathroom.

vratnayaka

G_M wrote: »

Have you been back and tried it? One of you waits down below and listens, the other flushes the loo.



Is this going to be a main bedroom in constant use?


Critically, has the conversion received Building Regulations sign-off?

Buildings regulations have been signed off. I think it is unlikely to be used as a main bathroom but more like an en-suite. Thank you.

vratnayaka

agrinnall wrote: »

I've stayed in a few holiday cottages with macerators, and while I've never had a problem they can indeed be quite noisy and you have to be careful what you put in them. If it was a guest bathroom or a toilet that would probably only be used during the day it might not bother me, but if I intended to use that room as one of the main bedrooms then it would put me off.


Edit: As it's an upstairs room is there a good reason why a macerator is used rather than gravity?

Thanks agrinnall. I think it;s used because of the positioning of the loo. For it to be on the right side - it will need to be under the eves

EachPenny

vratnayaka wrote: »

The toilet is in fact in the wrong end. It looks like the eves would stop it from being on the right end of the pipes going down. Having the toilet on the right end would make it very difficult to sit and stand.

I've attached a few photos of the pipes leading to below. I think its the grey pipe.

I'm not convinced. If I understand the orientation of the pictures correctly, the doors giving access to the pipework is in the wall behind the person taking the first picture (the one with the bath), so the grey pipe is running along the wall behind the camera, turning around the corner to the left of the camera position, then running behind the wall to the rear of the toilet and bath?

If so, then how is the macerator accessed for maintenance? Presumably it is behind the wall behind the toilet? Are there more access doors in that wall?

Am I right thinking that the pipework (and shower pump?) visible through the doors are sitting above the ground floor toilet?

Also (mainly out of interest) where is the bathroom door? Is it to the right of the camera position? And does it lead to a bedroom, or to a landing?

vratnayaka

EachPenny wrote: »

I'm not convinced. If I understand the orientation of the pictures correctly, the doors giving access to the pipework is in the wall behind the person taking the first picture (the one with the bath), so the grey pipe is running along the wall behind the camera, turning around the corner to the left of the camera position, then running behind the wall to the rear of the toilet and bath?

Spot on

If so, then how is the macerator accessed for maintenance? Presumably it is behind the wall behind the toilet? Are there more access doors in that wall?

There is a access door behind, and there is enough space there to reach it etc.

Am I right thinking that the pipework (and shower pump?) visible through the doors are sitting above the ground floor toilet?

Yes.

Also (mainly out of interest) where is the bathroom door? Is it to the right of the camera position? And does it lead to a bedroom, or to a landing?

Yes


EachPenny, do you think this means that, if the macerator doesn't work for us after a few years, we can get a good plumber to plan a gravity based pipe doing down getting rid of the macerator?

Thank you.

Owain_Moneysaver

vratnayaka wrote: »

I've attached a few photos of the pipes leading to below. I think its the grey pipe.

Going by the standard of that plastic piping I don't think they employed a plumber at all. It's all over the place. A complete disgrace.

And the output from the macerator must have a continuous fall otherwise the minced-up 'solids' will settle in the pipe and block it. It must also be clipped properly so it doesn't burst open at the joints (which must be solvent weld, not push fit) and spray minced-up 'solids' under pressure all over your loft void.

You know what I mean by 'solids', don't you?

EachPenny

vratnayaka wrote: »

There is a access door behind, and there is enough space there to reach it etc.

So if I understand your description and plan correctly, then (a) toilet is somewhere left of centre on the wall marked with the 4 dots, and is connected via a 4" pipe to the macerator which is behind the access doors the other side of the bath? (or (b) do the 4 dots represent the macerator position).
If (a) is correct then they have run the soil pipe for about half the width of the room in the opposite direction to where the outside pipes are. If they have done this, then it would have been just as easy to run the waste pipe in the opposite direction (towards the outside pipes) and have a gravity solution. This also rings an alarm bell because I'd question whether the pipe between the toilet and the macerator has an adequate fall.

If (b) is true, then it will be an especially unpleasant job trying to do any maintenance on the macerator (hands and knees job in a tight space). And I don't understand why they then didn't put access doors to the macerator on the other side of the toilet.

vratnayaka wrote: »

EachPenny, do you think this means that, if the macerator doesn't work for us after a few years, we can get a good plumber to plan a gravity based pipe doing down getting rid of the macerator?

Possibly, but difficult to tell for sure. There might be a constraint which isn't visible in the pictures.

To start with I would have placed the outside pipe in the far corner of that outside wall (to the left of the double window) because it is nearer to the source of the water upstairs, and would also be less obtrusive in the corner than in the middle of the wall (next to the flower basket).

I would guess that a gravity stack outside in that corner would give a reasonable fall from the toilet where it currently is. But would have needed more work doing outside and in the roof, so is probably why they avoided that option.

The first thing I would have done would be to look at the downstairs toilet and see whether it was possible to adapt that, so the drainage from upstairs made use of an internal stack and discharged into the downstairs toilet drainage system. That might still be an option to consider in the future - perhaps when (if) you refurbish that room.

But if the distance from the outside pipes to the toilet (where it is) was too far to get an adequate fall then I would have looked at having a larger void (possibly utilised as a store cupboard) in the area at the top left-hand corner of your plan, so the toilet could be placed against a wall with greater headroom.

This would have reduced the floor space in the bathroom, but the way I see it is you have a lot of floorspace not doing very much, and pay the price of a more complicated drainage system which will have ongoing maintenance and energy consumption requirements.

EachPenny

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

Going by the standard of that plastic piping I don't think they employed a plumber at all. It's all over the place. A complete disgrace.

I've seen a lot worse, but TBH it was exactly the kind of thing I suspected the OP might find as soon as the words "macerator" and "roof space" were used about the same room.

If the planning is poor you can be fairly confident the execution won't be much better.

MobileSaver

vratnayaka wrote: »

Do you think it will effect future re-sale?

It would be a deal-breaker for me so yes it will affect future re-sale but to what extent is anyone's guess.

In your shoes I'd be getting a quote to convert it to a normal soil pipe and then negotiating with the vendor to reduce the sale price by the same or at least a large proportion of that cost. (Your survey picked up the macerator so it's highly likely any others will too so this problem is not going to go away for the vendor.)