Downpipe issue

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Whether that's ideal from a 'technical perspective' is irrelevant - it's how it was done, and how it should be. It should not be altered on to another house without agreement.

Presumably you'd agree that people are allowed to do building work and make changes? That, for example, if you have a shared consumer unit or common water supply pipe you aren't bound to have that forever because "it's how it was done, and how it should be". So if it is ok to make those changes because from a 'technical perspective' (in accordance with modern standards and methods) that's a better way of doing things, then why would the same not apply to rainwater drainage? Agreed?

We also agree that he shouldn't have made the change without agreement. His bad.   But there's also the smallprint that agreement cannot be unreasonably withheld.

So what grounds does the OP have to withhold agreement?  "It's how it was done, and how it should be" is not a valid argument, especially not when an alternative approach is technically the better option.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Have you read about all the issues AN has had with this neighbour? Are they the type of person who would redo this DP is you asked them, even nicely? I don't think so.

We agree again. But whereas you think "force" will work, I think threats in a quasi-legal letter will be laughed at by someone who has the character you think the neighbour has.

So what would your advice to the OP be when the neighbour ignores the letter and calls the OP's bluff.  Do you really think it would be wise for the OP to go ahead and 'sue' the neighbour over a little bit of gravel on a flat roof?

And having issued 'legal' threats, if the neighbour does call their bluff the OP will be left with the choice of a very risky legal action, or an embarrassing climbdown - which would only energise the neighbour's attitude.  Which of those would you advise when that happens?

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Grass, sedum, gravel, pea shingle, whatevs; you reckon - looking at AN's other photo - that the gravel & stuff isn't coming from this neighb's roof? Look again. See? Good.

Could you 'look again' please.  I didn't say the gravel wasn't coming from the neighbour's roof. What I said was your assertion that it was being washed there is problematic.

There is no evidence it was washed there, and the position of the RWP means it couldn't wash material off the neighbours roof. The OP themselves said the debris "actually wasn’t there before & I suspect is stuff he has hooked out of the gutter while doing the downpipe when I get a chance I’ll give it a sweep."

If the OP is going to make a legal claim stating that material is being washed onto their roof then they will need this inconvenient thing called proof. They can prove debris is there, but they cannot prove how it got there. That makes the difference between winning, and having someone else's legal bill to pay.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

You aren't suggesting that this is ok, are you? Cool.

Anything else? Oh yes, the B-R lawyer quip. If the neighb's alteration of the DP coupled with the debris coming from their poorly-maintained roof is causing issues for AN - especially after they've gone to the expense of recovering their roof - and if that neighb doesn't voluntarily sort it (happy to bet on this - and I'm not a betting man), AN should just suck it up? I don't think so, but it has to be AN's call. I've outlined the approach I understand should be taken - whilst making it clear that AN should determine that this is correct. If they have LP on their household insurance, then one call will determine (a) if they'll take it on, and (b) if they don't feel they should, they'll guide AN on what to do.

What's your recommendation - 'suck it up'? Surely not.

For the third time - to check their deeds to see what it says about the shared drainage arrangements.

There is nothing more they can sensibly do themselves without knowing what the legal position is. Their LP (if they have any) won't be able to advise without having that information.

If the deeds say "it's how it was done, and how it should be" then the OP wins. If the deeds contain vague references to rights and responsibilities for drainage then the OP needs to think carefully about embarking on what could turn out to be a very expensive and pointless legal battle. LP will only help them so far.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Sect62 - why?

Because bad 'legal' advice is dangerous and potentially ruinously expensive.  Because people who "imagine" what a letter before claim should contain are not giving good 'legal' advice. Because people suggesting making false or unsubstantiated claims in pre-action correspondence would serve people like the OP much better if they just leave it at "Contact your LP and see what they say".

And because, having been involved in hundreds of neighbour disputes, I know that the advice you gave yesterday (sorting facts from the emotive) is very good advice, but that isn't present in what you are advising today.

The best thing the OP can do now, having got EH involved, is to sit back and see what the outcome of that is. Firing off half-baked 'legal' letters will (if the neighbour shows them to EH or BC) result in "eyes beginning to roll" (to quote the other part of your spot-on advice).

The EH and BC officers will also be incredibly wary about being dragged into a civil legal dispute. That will affect the way they deal with the issues and communicate with both sides.  And that will inevitably be to the OP's detriment.

Ok, Jeeps?

AvivaNightmare

Jeepers_Creepers said:

AvivaNightmare said:

The downpipe (brown ) had a length of pipe that ran from it across his porch roof ( dark blue ) to a drainage pipe ( in red) that was built into the porch roof and down to meet drains, this is how all the houses on the estate were built,  he removed the red pipe when he converted his garage ( half of the white square ) into a room and blocked the hole that the red pipe ran too. The grass area is the top of his porch! 

Ah! Ok - I see now, thank you.

Wow - the audacity of the guy! The presumptuousness! The bludy nerve!

So, you both have pretty much identical porches and pretty much identical garages. He has converted his garage into living accommodation, and - whilst you have recovered your porch roof - he has 'grassed' his? And, whilst he had the responsibility for that downpipe, he has unilaterally cut the drain short and aimed it over your roof instead! He did this even tho' his garage roof is just as capable of accepting this flow as yours is. The cheek!

All he had to do - if he'd wanted to lose that 'red' round drain point - was to slightly extend that red d/p so it directed the flow a foot further on to his own garage roof!

Lawdie - this guy is a piece of work all right! I can't see any valid excuse for him.

Pleased to hear that BC are going to come out to investigate. I hope they have the tenacity to firmly lay down the rules and see it through. I suspect the stove will certainly be a problem for the guy, and I'd also be happy to bet that his garage (and lawd knows what else) does not conform to current regs. Hopefully he'll end up with a sizeable remedial bill, tho' sadly he'll probably just take on the updating task himself - more DIYing...

Based on what I presume is now the whole accurate picture, this is what I'd do if I had to conclude that the neighb was a complete chancer who only responds to force and not to reason, which appears to be the case here.

1) Wait until BC have reported. I doubt you'll get to see all that they report, but it would be nice to know! I think it would be fair of you to at least ask them if the stove flue would now be made HETAS-conforming, since this is causing you genuine medical issues and a genuine practical nuisance. If BC don't involve themselves in the DP issue, then it's up to you. So,

2) Either take this on yourself, or engage the LP on your insurance. It seems pretty clear and obvious to me that the changes this guy has made to his roof - covering it with grass and gravel (is that a deliberate attempt at a green roof, or just serious lack of maintenance?!), coupled with diverting the rain water on to yours - is causing, and will continue to cause, issues to your roof. Looking at your pic now, it's pretty obvious that most (all?) of the moss, gravel and other debris that's collecting on your new roof, helping to prevent it from draining properly, has been washed off his 'roof' and on to yours. He needs to take action to prevent that from happening from now on.

I understand the process is; send a 'put on notice' letter to outline the issues, and warning him of the consequences should he not resolve them. This in essence says, "I am putting you on notice that the debris coming from your porch roof is building up on my recently-recovered roof and is preventing it from draining properly (see photos). If you do not take action to prevent this from happening in future, I will hold you liable for all the cleaning-up costs and any remedial repairs that may be necessary. In addition, I have been advised that the additional flow of water from the downpipe that you have redirected on to my roof without permission is compounding this issue. I ask that you reinstate that downpipe's flow to its original, correct, location, and take action to prevent any further debris from being washed on to my roof from yours - I'd suggest some form of low parapet. If you fail to address these issues within 2 weeks of this notice, I will employ a tradesperson to clean my roof and to return the DP outlet to its original direction and will present you with the invoice for these works. If you do not voluntarily agree to pay for this, I will sue you for these costs instead. If you also do not take action to prevent any further debris from coming on to my roof from yours, I will re-employ that person to keep my roof clean as is required, and will again submit the invoices to you for payment, and will, if necessary, sue you for these costs."

NB I do not know if that is the sort of content these 'putting on notice' or 'letter before action' communications should have, but I'd imagine it is.

If you have LP on your insurance, let them handle this. If, after examining the issue they say "Yup - we'll take this on", then you are home and dry, and can sit back and enjoy.

Meanwhile, how to deal with neighb now you have taken action? Don't avoid him - you have done nothing wrong, but he has. Be super-calm, unemotive, look him in the eye, shrug regretfully and just say "What did you expect? You have taken advantage, you have shown no consideration to others - so what did you expect?" Then walk away.

Don't smirk, however tempting it may be... :-)

No, he hasn’t grassed the top of his porch, it’s lack of upkeep,  moss & rubbish. 

Thanks for the ideas for the letter, I will check home insurance first and see if I LP.

I have been more than patient over the years, he broke my guttering at the rear of the house when he installed the stove by pushing it so a bracket broke & said nothing, he re felted his porch bit at the back of the house or rather his mate did and in doing so I ended up with water pouring down my light fitting onto newly laid laminate, when I spoke to him he claimed it was nothing to do with their work even though it was literally the same day! 

I’m sat in the garden now and he has laid small corrugated sheets on his 2nd extension roof and just left them there, let’s hope it isn’t windy later! 

I will try my upmost to not smirk 😏 

AvivaNightmare

oh ! He has jumped from the DIY on the roof at the back of the house and is now on the garage roof fitting the pipe to take the water from the down pipe to the garage roof!! 

Oh well  

travis-powers

Result! I lived next door to a diy Dave once, many a time I’d come home to something unbelievable!

thegreenone

Excellent.  I wonder what prompted him to do that?

stuart45

thegreenone said:

Excellent.  I wonder what prompted him to do that?

Maybe he's been reading this thread.

travis-powers

stuart45 said:

thegreenone said:

Excellent.  I wonder what prompted him to do that?

Maybe he's been reading this thread.

Be a thread later about a neighbour complaining about diy!

AvivaNightmare

thegreenone said:

Excellent.  I wonder what prompted him to do that?

I did pop round over a week ago and told his wife to ask him to correct it. But never heard a word back. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

Presumably you'd agree that people are allowed to do building work and make changes? YES.

That, for example, if you have a shared consumer unit or common water supply pipe you aren't bound to have that forever because "it's how it was done, and how it should be". YES, but only with agreement since it's a joint service.

So if it is ok to make those changes because from a 'technical perspective' (in accordance with modern standards and methods) that's a better way of doing things, then why would the same not apply to rainwater drainage? Agreed? NO. As I said - check the sat photo - the setup is traditional to that terrace, and has presumably worked fine. The neighb has not altered it (and without permission) to 'fix' anything, 'cos nothing needed fixing; he did it to solve a very minor headache for himself.

We also agree that he shouldn't have made the change without agreement. His bad.   But there's also the smallprint that agreement cannot be unreasonably withheld. IRRELEVANT POINT - since he didn't even ask.

So what grounds does the OP have to withhold agreement?  "It's how it was done, and how it should be" is not a valid argument, especially not when an alternative approach is technically the better option. Rather than divert the water on to a neighbouring property, the simplest thing for the neighb to have done is extend the pipe a further foot. Oh look - he has!

We agree again. But whereas you think "force" will work, I think threats in a quasi-legal letter will be laughed at by someone who has the character you think the neighbour has. ONLY the leviathan will work with folk like this - and it appears as tho' it's starting to do so. Asking nicely won't work - AN has done that a plenty. Could you suggest an alternative - other than 'accept it'?

So what would your advice to the OP be when the neighbour ignores the letter and calls the OP's bluff.  Do you really think it would be wise for the OP to go ahead and 'sue' the neighbour over a little bit of gravel on a flat roof? I suspect there's every chance it will work. If a lack of maintenance by one party causes issues to another, and you have gone through the correct process to try and address this - first a polite request, and then a 'putting on notice', then you pay a handypeep to clean your roof, redivert the DP, and give the neighb the bill. Of course they won't pay. But Moneyclaim.org will make them - there is every chance you'll win. I also suggested that AN calls up her LP team for advice. Again, what's your suggestion?

And having issued 'legal' threats, if the neighbour does call their bluff the OP will be left with the choice of a very risky legal action, or an embarrassing climbdown - which would only energise the neighbour's attitude.  Which of those would you advise when that happens? Not 'risky' - we are talking small sums. And it would only be after taking advice. Put yourself in the shoes of the judge - after having looked at what AN has posted, on what side would you come down? Really?! I don't believe you!

Could you 'look again' please.  I didn't say the gravel wasn't coming from the neighbour's roof. What I said was your assertion that it was being washed there is problematic. Ok, fair point. I cannot prove that it's been 'washed'. The gravel shown in AN's photos - including (especially) the latest one - might suggest the gravel has a specific gravity less than water so has floated there. Or has been carried by gremlins. Or has grown wee legs and walked en masse. Hang on - it really does look to me as tho' it's been 'washed' there. Regardless, what is not in dispute, is that the material has largely come from the neighb's roof, and will be compromising how well AN's roof drains - a situation compounded by the additional water that this same neighb sent over via the DP. On that point, perrhaps the increased flow from the DP was a 'good thing' as it helped clear AN's roof off this debris...

There is no evidence it was washed there, and the position of the RWP means it couldn't wash material off the neighbours roof. The OP themselves said the debris "actually wasn’t there before & I suspect is stuff he has hooked out of the gutter while doing the downpipe when I get a chance I’ll give it a sweep." Yup, possibly.

If the OP is going to make a legal claim stating that material is being washed onto their roof then they will need this inconvenient thing called proof. They can prove debris is there, but they cannot prove how it got there. That makes the difference between winning, and having someone else's legal bill to pay. An equally good point. AN has a new felt roof covering. Photos show it has a wash (oops) of gravel and dirt coming from the neighb's 'natural' roof, and DNA profilling has shown that this gravel is, indeed, the same as the neighb's. What's more, this gravel is a very rare type and doesn't exist anywhere else on this planet. Based on that, I tentatively suggest it can be proven - just by looking at that pic.

Because bad 'legal' advice is dangerous and potentially ruinously expensive.  Because people who "imagine" what a letter before claim should contain are not giving good 'legal' advice. Because people suggesting making false or unsubstantiated claims in pre-action correspondence would serve people like the OP much better if they just leave it at "Contact your LP and see what they say".

And because, having been involved in hundreds of neighbour disputes, I know that the advice you gave yesterday (sorting facts from the emotive) is very good advice, but that isn't present in what you are advising today. Ok, thanks - I take that on board.

The best thing the OP can do now, having got EH involved, is to sit back and see what the outcome of that is. Firing off half-baked 'legal' letters will (if the neighbour shows them to EH or BC) result in "eyes beginning to roll" (to quote the other part of your spot-on advice). Fair do's. I should have made it more clear that AN should be certain that my suggested approach is the correct one - I did couch it in "I understand..." and stuff like that, but that isn't clear enough.

The EH and BC officers will also be incredibly wary about being dragged into a civil legal dispute. That will affect the way they deal with the issues and communicate with both sides.  And that will inevitably be to the OP's detriment. EH will act if there's a genuine EH issue - they have to. And it seems very clear that there is. BC will not get involved in a neighbourly civil dispute.

Ok, Jeeps? OooOOooooh, patronising. :-) 

I think I've answered all your points.

AvivaNightmare

Thanks JC for your help, I also had the housing association ring today ( mine is shared ownership) so they have a vested interest in the property & any damage that could be caused. They advised me the same as you - a letter before action & if he hadn’t sorted it to contact them & they would send a letter. 

As it happens a letter not needed. 

Ps the ‘mute’ button is a handy feature I’ve discovered 😏