Property Search Error

Peter_87

G_M wrote: »

What are you hoping to achieve?
Compensation from someone(solicitor/water board/search provider etc)?
Removal of the water main?
Removal of the trees without risk of being held responsible for any damage to the wm?


To be honest,I can't see a successful outcome for any of the above, but perhaps you are seeking something I've missed.......

I am trying to understand where I stand in terms of liability and loss of amenities.

Someone has failed in their responsibility to provide correct information. I need to know how this affects me and what action I can take to mitigate issues.

Ideally I would like tree and water main removed (it appears not to have purpose). However am unclear what are realistic options. Was hoping someone had similar experience and could share knowledge.

RE other post - that was on DIY board to help identify what had been found. Following that people were advising that “Water & Drainage” search doesn’t highlight water mains (which I know it does) and suggestions of removing roots despite Engineer advising against it and stating I would be liable for damage (if caused as a result). I felt this board would be more relevant as it relates to house purchase.

AdrianC

Peter_87 wrote: »

I am trying to understand where I stand in terms of liability and loss of amenities.

You stand in your garden starting at your hole in your ground, looking at the pipe that you didn't know was there. You can even swear as you do so, if it'll help you. I won't tell anybody.

Someone has failed in their responsibility to provide correct information.

Not the solicitor.
Almost certainly not the water company, within the terms they provide the information.

I need to know how this affects me and what action I can take to mitigate issues.

It affects your plans to do things in your garden.
You can mitigate it by changing your plans a bit, as any other unexpected ground conditions may require.

Ideally I would like tree and water main removed (it appears not to have purpose). However am unclear what are realistic options. Was hoping someone had similar experience and could share knowledge.

The water company have given you their basic option. Do nothing.
They may have a more invasive option, but it's unlikely to be cheap.
No, you don't have any comeback against anybody, unless you can determine that the water search results fell outside their caveats - and that's unlikely.

Here's the Ts & Cs for one provider of CON29DW searches...
https://www.wessexsearches.co.uk/Residential-terms-and-conditions-1st-oct-2017/
You can see that they say "We are not responsible if it's not 100% complete and accurate".

Here's the overarching body's information about it...
http://www.dwsn.org.uk/about-us/con29dw/
Expand the "Complete and guaranteed information" section...

Each Law Society CON29DW Enquiry provides guaranteed and underwritten information on the property’s drainage and water supply, with a clear trail of responsibility back to the provider. The 23 questions in the Enquiry cover:

• services for which the property is connected
• charging basis for services
• contact details for sewerage and water billing company
• meter location (if applicable)
• adoption agreements
• building over consents
• sewers within the boundary and within 100 feet
• low water pressure
• internal flooding from overloaded public sewers
• nearest public sewage treatment works
• a copy of the public sewer and water records

Nowhere in there does it say that it will tell you about every single bit of water pipe on the land, does it? Just that it provides "a copy of the public... records". And that's what you've got. The public records just happen not to be completely accurate - which shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody, given that they've grown organically over a century or more.

Davesnave

Peter_87 wrote: »

RE other post - that was on DIY board to help identify what had been found. Following that people were advising that “Water & Drainage” search doesn’t highlight water mains (which I know it does) .

It was never made clear on the other thread whether you were shown or given a copy of CON29DW and it would be useful if you clarified that.

As I stated there, I had a copy of the search included in my conveyancing pack, but the water main for the village which was shown on it was actually some metres away from the mapped location. In other words, one can never be sure that the map is correct.

davidmcn

If the water pipe is a redundant branch, presumably it could be removed? I expect you'd be paying the cost though.

GDB2222

I’m not surprised you were told by the water company not to dig the roots. Far more interesting is who’s responsible if you do, the water main fractures, and there’s a flood. Would your insurance cover you for a wilful act? Is the water company in fact responsible for their main, despite what they said?

So, it would be helpful to know what the downside is. Would you be flooding a street full of houses, or would the water just drain into the local stream, for example?

AdrianC

GDB2222 wrote: »

I’m not surprised you were told by the water company not to dig the roots. Far more interesting is who’s responsible if you do, the water main fractures, and there’s a flood. Would your insurance cover you for a wilful act? Is the water company in fact responsible for their main, despite what they said?

It doesn't have to be "wilful". You damage the main, you pay for the damage. That simple. Whether deliberate, knowing, or purely accidental.

The OP is documented as knowing the pipe is there, so there's no claim of ignorance - not that it would have excused anything, because you always look where you're digging.

GDB2222

AdrianC wrote: »

It doesn't have to be "wilful". You damage the main, you pay for the damage. That simple. Whether deliberate, knowing, or purely accidental.

The OP is documented as knowing the pipe is there, so there's no claim of ignorance - not that it would have excused anything, because you always look where you're digging.

Read again. I was querying the insurance aspect. If you cause a million pounds worth of damage, the insurers are likely to be rather picky about liability.

Peter_87

Davesnave wrote: »

It was never made clear on the other thread whether you were shown or given a copy of CON29DW and it would be useful if you clarified that.

As I stated there, I had a copy of the search included in my conveyancing pack, but the water main for the village which was shown on it was actually some metres away from the mapped location. In other words, one can never be sure that the map is correct.

I stated a “Water & Drainage” search was carried out - i believe that this is also known as a "Regulated Drainage and Water Search" so not a "CON29DW".

This website compares both searches and according to it it should highligh water mains within boundary:
https://www.severntrentsearches.com/the-con29dw-vs-regulated-searches-whats-the-difference/

I have found the search document and it states:

Q: Does the map of the waterworks show any vested water mains or assets within the boundary of the property?
A: We are not aware of any vested water mains within the boundary of the property

However when Water Board Engineer came to investigate what we located they had a plan which clearly showed a water main on property in location where i was working. Also within my research i also located house plans from 1920s that show existing water main on property.

Davesnave

Peter_87 wrote: »

I have found the search document and it states:
Q: Does the map of the waterworks show any vested water mains or assets within the boundary of the property?
A: We are not aware of any vested water mains within the boundary of the property

However when Water Board Engineer came to investigate what we located they had a plan which clearly showed a water main on property in location where i was working. Also within my research i also located house plans from 1920s that show existing water main on property.

It seems, then, that your argument is with whoever carried out that search and not with the solicitor who ordered it.