Can I block my neighbours gutter?

HeWhoDares

I live mid-terraced in a block of 6 houses. 
Originally there were 3 downpipes to take the rain away - two of them have now been removed and the remaining one is between my and my neighbours house.
We often have terrible rain and if the drains/gutters block, the water falls in front of our houses and actually flood the cellars - not minor either, sometimes quite damaging.
We have asked our neighbours to reinstall the downpipes but they refuse.  

Given the recent storms, again we have the problem described above.  My question is:
Can we block off the gutters from the edge of our properties - effectively making the problem they created for us a problem they will need to resolve themselves?

Section62

HeWhoDares said:

I live mid-terraced in a block of 6 houses. 
Originally there were 3 downpipes to take the rain away - two of them have now been removed and the remaining one is between my and my neighbours house.
We often have terrible rain and if the drains/gutters block, the water falls in front of our houses and actually flood the cellars - not minor either, sometimes quite damaging.
We have asked our neighbours to reinstall the downpipes but they refuse.  

Given the recent storms, again we have the problem described above.  My question is:
Can we block off the gutters from the edge of our properties - effectively making the problem they created for us a problem they will need to resolve themselves?

It depends what your deeds say about shared drainage rights.

But notwithstanding that, if the gutter has a fall on it running towards your properties, if your neighbour blocks the gutter between them and their neighbour further 'up', then the point the remainder of the gutter will overflow from is on that boundary - so although you'll be fine, the neighbour will be deluged.

It will help if you could explain the situation by giving each property in the terrace a number (1-6) and which of those numbers are yours and the also-affected neighbour.

E.g. 1,2,3,4 (no downpipes), 5 neighbour - downpipe - 6 (you)

...and similar for how it was originally.


I know that at least one poster has a very different view to me on rights of one owner to alter shared guttering... so be prepared to hear some alternate points of view with no definite conclusion.

HeWhoDares

The original configuration was:
1,2 DPA 3,4 DPB 5,6 DPC

It is now 
1,2 DPA 3,4 XX, 5,6 XX

DPA is the only remaining downpipe as DPB and DPC have been removed.
The water falls directly between houses 2 and 3.  I live at 2.  

Brie

who removed them and why?  if your neighbours have done something that is damaging your property there may be reason to claim against their insurance which might cause some action to get things resolved.

You could potentially raise the gutter from the edge of property 1 so it all drains down to property 6 but that's rather drastic and will be a big issue for those at no 6.

we had a similar issue at a previous property with a semi detached and when one owner of the other bit had their gutters replaced and raised having removed the drain on their side.  that resulted in a similar issue to yours but didn't effect us but just their property as the water would seep into their loft and through their ceiling.  They seemed to think this was our fault as we hadn't replaced our gutters at the same time.  We hadn't been consulted on their gutters or told what was happening so I told them that as we weren't having a problem it was something that they would need to fix. 

mrschaucer

So only 1 and 2's water should end up in DPA, and it's now coping with water from the whole terrace.  The fall on the guttering for 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 should be going the other way though?

Section62

HeWhoDares said:

The original configuration was:
1,2 DPA 3,4 DPB 5,6 DPC

It is now 
1,2 DPA 3,4 XX, 5,6 XX

DPA is the only remaining downpipe as DPB and DPC have been removed.
The water falls directly between houses 2 and 3.  I live at 2.  

Ok, so still subject to exactly what it says in your deeds, it can be argued that 5 and 6 have no claim to use DPA because their flows should have gone down DPB and DPC and never reached DPA.

4 is tricky, because their flow could go either to DPB or DPA, depending on the fall.

If neighbour (3) disconnects their gutter from 4, then 4 could have cause for complaint that a shared drainage right has been removed.

1 should clearly have a right to use your gutter (2) to get to DPA. I don't think you will find any grounds to disconnect them.

Logically, you'd expect the fall from that pattern to be in the direction 1 to 6 with two properties each using one downpipe. (1,2 =A  3,4=B  5,6=C).  But equally, the gutter could have been designed dead-level.

But if water from 5 and 6 is getting to DPA and overflowing, then it suggests there is at least some fall (created in the replacement guttering?) from 6 towards 3.  Otherwise you'd expect the gutter to overflow at 5/6.

Are any of the properties owned by a council or housing association?

Jeepers_Creepers

HWD, please tell me you have LegProt on your house insurance? Phew - well done.

Read your deeds carefully to see what - if anything - it says. In theory, if it says now't, then - yes - you (and house 1) are on your own, so block away. However, that might not be the best approach - surely better if all 3 DP properties take back the shared responsibility they originally had, and presumably was original to the terrace?

Armed with the info you have - content of deeds, evidence of change to DPs, evidence of water damage (if not 'evidence', as least photos and/or a clear description of events) - call up your LP for a guidance chat in the first instance, and possibly for action.

What action this would be depends on what your deeds say. If the deeds make it clear that the original layout was 6 houses, 3 DPs, and shared responsibility for the whole guttering, then the approach would be to 'oblige' the two twittish owners to reinstate their DPs forthwith. This is done by gathering evidence of the overflowing, and how if affects your property. You then put the 2 twits 'on notice' of the (potentially very serious) damage being caused by what they've done, and that - if they don't sort it - they will be legally liable for rectifying all the subsequent damage caused. If this includes, say, penetrating damp, the bill could be many £100's or £ks. The next time any 'damage' is caused, you don't clean it up yourself, but get pros in to do so (which will include a description of the cause), and you send the neighbs the bill. If they don't pay, you sue them using MoneyClaim.org.

Armed with the evidence - 2 missing DPs, your letter 'putting them on notice', their failure to act, and the subsequent flooding - you will win, no question. And they will sober up big time at the potential larger costs that will continue.

But you must carry out each logical and evidenced step properly, so there is nothing they can claim; "Awe, we didn't know...", "Boo-hoo, they neffer said nuffink...", "Sob - they neffer gave us a chance..."

If, however, the deeds say now't, then it's potentially each house on its own. In this case you'd - again - give the two twits good notice of your intention; 'happy to go back to the original setup - 3 DPs in their original positions - or equally happy to go 'individual' - each to their own, and I'll be blocked off the guttering at the boundary. Oh, and if any of your water comes over that end guttering on to my property, I will be suing you for any damage caused'. In which case it's the same as before - get pros in to clear up, and sue them.

BUT, the neighb in house 1 has done nothing wrong, so shouldn't be tarred with t'same brush - I presume you'd be happy to share your DP with them? Cool.

That, I believe, is what to do. FAR better if it's done with the guidance and threats of your LP. But, do NOT take unilateral action without FIRST making it clear to the other parties what the issue is, and how you intend to sort it if they don't.

These two are twits, you are not.

DB1904

HeWhoDares said:

The original configuration was:
1,2 DPA 3,4 DPB 5,6 DPC

It is now 
1,2 DPA 3,4 XX, 5,6 XX

DPA is the only remaining downpipe as DPB and DPC have been removed.
The water falls directly between houses 2 and 3.  I live at 2.  

So if shared a down pipe with no 1 then your gutter would stop at the down pipe. So 3 and 4 have changed the fall of their gutter tapping into your. Is that correct and at what point was this done?

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

In theory, if it says now't, then - yes - you (and house 1) are on your own, so block away. However, that might not be the best approach - surely better if all 3 DP properties take back the shared responsibility they originally had, and presumably was original to the terrace?

....

Armed with the evidence - 2 missing DPs, your letter 'putting them on notice', their failure to act, and the subsequent flooding - you will win, no question.

....

If, however, the deeds say now't, then it's potentially each house on its own. In this case you'd - again - give the two twits good notice of your intention; 'happy to go back to the original setup - 3 DPs in their original positions - or equally happy to go 'individual' - each to their own, and I'll be blocked off the guttering at the boundary. Oh, and if any of your water comes over that end guttering on to my property, I will be suing you for any damage caused'. In which case it's the same as before - get pros in to clear up, and sue them.

Four snags Jeepers.

1) The OP would appear to be on good terms with neighbour 3, so stiffing him by blocking the gutter at the 2/3 boundary might not be the best solution.

2) Neighbour 3's gutter is attached to a running outlet on DPA, so the design (if not the deeds legal position) is that neighbour 3 has good reason to expect to be able to use DPA. If it was as black and white as suggested, then DPA would have been fitted with a stop-end outlet from the start.

3) Blocking the gutter at the 2/3 boundary will continue to cause overflowing at that point.  When the OP complains that the overflow is damaging his property, the counter-argument is that the OP has caused the problem by blocking the gutter. Also, the overflowing water will be coming from the gutter belonging to 3, so the person the OP would need to be suing is 3 (not 4, 5 or 6). The "twits" are untouchable, the 'good terms' neighbour gets to pick up the tab.

4) What happens when 3,4,5, and 6 all say - "That's how it is, and that's how it must remain" the moment the OP gets his ladder out?


For your approach to work it is the neighbour (3) who needs to disconnect from 4 and for them (3) to be prepared to be flooded and/or sued by 4.

And there is, as we all know, no guarantee of a win when you take legal action.

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

Four snags Jeepers.

1) The OP would appear to be on good terms with neighbour 3, so stiffing him by blocking the gutter at the 2/3 boundary might not be the best solution.

2) Neighbour 3's gutter is attached to a running outlet on DPA, so the design (if not the deeds legal position) is that neighbour 3 has good reason to expect to be able to use DPA. If it was as black and white as suggested, then DPA would have been fitted with a stop-end outlet from the start.

3) Blocking the gutter at the 2/3 boundary will continue to cause overflowing at that point.  When the OP complains that the overflow is damaging his property, the counter-argument is that the OP has caused the problem by blocking the gutter. Also, the overflowing water will be coming from the gutter belonging to 3, so the person the OP would need to be suing is 3 (not 4, 5 or 6). The "twits" are untouchable, the 'good terms' neighbour gets to pick up the tab.

4) What happens when 3,4,5, and 6 all say - "That's how it is, and that's how it must remain" the moment the OP gets his ladder out?


For your approach to work it is the neighbour (3) who needs to disconnect from 4 and for them (3) to be prepared to be flooded and/or sued by 4.

And there is, as we all know, no guarantee of a win when you take legal action.

1) On good terms with '3'? I can't see that anywhere in HWD's posts. In any case, I did suggest simply 'blocking off' wouldn't be the best approach. Having said that, if there is nothing about the shared gutter ownership in the deeds, and if 'HWD' were bludy-minded enough, and given some notice (as I have repeatedly made clear they should), there is nothing to stop them going it alone, and blocking it off. If HWD is on good terms with '3', then I have to leave it to them to make the right call about their relationship and how to deal with this - ideally it would be the two of them taking action against the twits. I haven't covered every possible eventuality, but outlined the process. Thankfully, you are here, as always, to cross the 'i's (without actually suggesting how the OP should approach this.).

2) If the deeds say so, yes. If they don't, then no. I think that is pretty clear? Did I say that HWD should make his intentions clear before acting? I think we can assume, if he's 'on good terms neighbour' '3', he'll sort it out appropriately; "hang on, I'm with you on this - how about we both take action to make the twits reinstate the 2 DPs?".

3) Ditto.

4) It depends on what's in the deeds. Based on that, HWD takes one of two courses of action as I have outlined.

No guarantee? Of course not. But with LP on the case, I'd be happy to bet. You know what I mean, and only a pe....

Norman_Castle

HeWhoDares said:

The original configuration was:
1,2 DPA 3,4 DPB 5,6 DPC

It is now 
1,2 DPA 3,4 XX, 5,6 XX

DPA is the only remaining downpipe as DPB and DPC have been removed.
The water falls directly between houses 2 and 3.  I live at 2.  

Which properties flood?