Help! House Purchase – Water Main, Lost Deeds, No PP/BC …

quantumlobster

Davesnave wrote: »

Out came the divining rods....The water main ws about 5-6m from the barn, but I still didn't know how deep till 2013, when we almost drove a gatepost through it. It was only 600mm down!

Yeah, I think I see the problem - you were using a "detection" method that is proven to be no better than chance, at best.

Davesnave

quantumlobster wrote: »

Yeah, I think I see the problem - you were using a "detection" method that is proven to be no better than chance, at best.

Really? I must've been dead lucky then.

Regardless of your prejudices, it worked, and it proved far more accurate than whatever it was that the water board used!

Rogue_G

pinklady21 wrote: »

Just to add - and you may already be fully aware of this - but if you are going to try and get some indemnity insurance, it is vital that you do NOT contact either the Council or the water company. Your solicitor should be in the best position to advise you whether any indemnity insurance is required and who should pay for it. Best of luck!

Is this because we won't be able to get indemnity insurance if you are aware of the problem beforehand?

Rogue_G

UPDATE - I put it to the seller that without a Build Over Agreement we would not recognise the double-garage building i.e. not paying for it. The seller has now suggested that they would pay for re-routing of the pipe, and that we'd build that into the exchange contract.

Am I right to insist that (prior to contract exchange) the water board comes out to the house, inspects the site/location, gives them a direct quote for re-routing of the water main (thus implying approval that it can be done), and then take that value off the agreed price??

davidmcn

Rogue_G wrote: »

Is this because we won't be able to get indemnity insurance if you are aware of the problem beforehand?

No, it's because the insurers won't cover the risk if the water company or council have already been "tipped off" by someone that there's a problem.

Am I right to insist that (prior to contract exchange) the water board comes out to the house, inspects the site/location, gives them a direct quote for re-routing of the water main (thus implying approval that it can be done), and then take that value off the agreed price?

The problem with that is that insurance then isn't an option, for the reason stated above. And future purchasers/lenders might insist that the problem is actually sorted out or insured against (and if you're buying with a mortgage, that might be the stance your lenders take too).

quantumlobster

Davesnave wrote: »

Really? I must've been dead lucky then.

Regardless of your prejudices, it worked, and it proved far more accurate than whatever it was that the water board used!

Yes, you were lucky.

It's not prejudice: no-one who didn't know roughly where the water was beforehand has ever been able to do better than chance at detecting it, when subjected to scientific controls.

If you can detect water with your dowsing rods, give James Randi a call. There's a million bucks with your name on it, if you can prove it.

Rogue_G

davidmcn wrote: »

No, it's because the insurers won't cover the risk if the water company or council have already been "tipped off" by someone that there's a problem.

The problem with that is that insurance then isn't an option, for the reason stated above. And future purchasers/lenders might insist that the problem is actually sorted out or insured against (and if you're buying with a mortgage, that might be the stance your lenders take too).

Hmm ... sounds like the best option (if we still want the house) is to not pay for the Double-garage building at all. Then there's no risk. And if/when we'd move in, get the water main re-routed to avoid all this mess in the future when we come to sell on!

quantumlobster

Rogue_G wrote: »

UPDATE - I put it to the seller that without a Build Over Agreement we would not recognise the double-garage building i.e. not paying for it. The seller has now suggested that they would pay for re-routing of the pipe, and that we'd build that into the exchange contract.

Am I right to insist that (prior to contract exchange) the water board comes out to the house, inspects the site/location, gives them a direct quote for re-routing of the water main (thus implying approval that it can be done), and then take that value off the agreed price??

I'd go further, and insist that the work be actually done and signed off.

That's the route to happiness - you don't get caught out by the work needing stuff that is outside the scope of the quote but is still your problem, and you don't have to do the hokey-cokey with the price.

davidmcn

Rogue_G wrote: »

Hmm ... sounds like the best option (if we still want the house) is to not pay for the Double-garage building at all. Then there's no risk. And if/when we'd move in, get the water main re-routed to avoid all this mess in the future when we come to sell on!

Like I said, if you have a mortgage (do you?) then the lender will need to be happy too - they might prefer the discrepancy is covered one way or another rather than you merely getting a discount.

Ozzuk

It is great to get advice on stuff like this from forums - lot of knowledgeable people on here.

However, you are paying a professional to manage this for you, and you'll have comeback against them if they miss something or their advice is wrong. I really would be sitting down with your solicitor and listening to what they have to say.