Is this conveyancing negligance?

AdrianC

MattLBeck wrote: »

One such question was over detail about our septic tank. Our conveyancers probed for additional detail beyond when it was installed such as where it was located, if it was shared etc. and did not receive any proper answer from the other side.

And you were told that before exchanging, but decided to go ahead anyway?

After having moved into our house, we were then informed by our helpful neighbors that our septic tank was probably discharging in to the stream beyond our garden, and an upcoming 2020 environmental regulation would make this illegal, so we have to upgrade it in the next few months. We have had quotes for the upgrade, which are a minimum of around £6k.

If you google the phrase "septic tank legislation", one of the first auto-complete entries adds "2020" to that.
One of the first results for that search is https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-to-a-surface-water
DOES your tank discharge directly to surface water? I very much doubt it. It almost certainly discharges to an underground soakaway field, which then percolates indirectly to the waterway.

Discharging directly would be massively unusual and would have raised your eyebrows at the merest glance.

If we had discovered this detail about the septic tank and known of the environmental regulation, we would have certainly re-negotiated with the vendor to compensate for having to upgrade within the year.

And if the vendor had said "No", would you have walked?

My question is, have our solicitors been in some way legally negligent for not following up on queries relating to the septic tank during conveyancing?

No. You were told they hadn't had answers, and you made the decision to exchange.

Davesnave

AdrianC wrote: »

You were told they hadn't had answers, and you made the decision to exchange.

We don't know the circumstances surrounding that decision, particularly what advice the solicitor gave as to the seriousness of the non-disclosure in this situation.

The OP paid a legal expert to guide them, so they were entitled to expert advice. From what we're told, it doesn't appear that they received it.

Davesnave

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

Zero future maintenance too.

Not quite. Drainage fields inevitably clog-up, but it takes a fair time if the user behaves responsibly. If they are in the habit of blocking drains and having them jet blasted, it happens more quickly.


And all septic tanks need enptying periodically, but not completely, as you need some bugs left.

davidmcn

AdrianC wrote: »

No. You were told they hadn't had answers, and you made the decision to exchange.

The solicitors should have given appropriate advice having considered whatever information was provided.

Mutton_Geoff

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

Zero future maintenance too.

Davesnave wrote: »

Not quite

House now sold. Zero future maintenance (for me) :beer:

martindow

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

My previous house in the Cotswolds had one of these "Klargester" systems that was faulty when I bought the house (lack of use as old owner deceased over two years prior). At my builders suggestion, it was cheaper to dig trenches and install slotted pipes deep into the ground to allow the run off from the tank to digest naturally through the ground than it was to process it and then dump into a stream. Zero future maintenance too.

I thought this was not now allowed if the leach field is within a certain distance from a watercourse and that this is why systems are having to be changed.

Davesnave

martindow wrote: »

I thought this was not now allowed if the leach field is within a certain distance from a watercourse and that this is why systems are having to be changed.

As I remember the rules, the termination of the leach field cannot now be within 7m of a watercourse for new installations.
Old installations aren't affected.....yet!

ThePants999

Personally, I think that if the solicitors delivered the Report on Title without having had all their questions answered, or if they exchanged before delivering the Report on Title without an explicit conversation with the OP saying "this is premature and inadvisable, are you really sure?", they were negligent.