Indemnity policy over public sewer - conservatory

JonMitchell

My daughter is buying her first property, though searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory.

The seller has agreed to provide an indemnity policy as there was no build over agreement. 

Daughter's solicitor sounded ok to proceed as mortgage lender is alright with the indemnity policy, but one thing is still bugging me.

Am I right to say one clause of indemnity policy is that the build over issue must not be disclosed to 3rd party, eg water utility firm. My question will be, say in 10years my daughter plans to sell her property and long come a buyer and for whatever reason, the future buyer approach the water utility to discuss about the build over issue or being naughty just to report about the build over issue, then decides not to buy the property. Effectively then my daughter would not be able to sell the property as her indemnity policy will no longer be valid as there is a known breach due to the disclosure of the build over issue by the buyer?     

Any thoughts and advise would be great.

user1977

You're correct, which is why it's best not to advertise the fact you've got an indemnity policy too early in the process. But I've never heard of the situation you describe arising in practice.

Bear in mind that the risk in the first place is absolutely tiny, which is why the policies are so cheap.

JonMitchell

user1977 said:

You're correct, which is why it's best not to advertise the fact you've got an indemnity policy too early in the process. But I've never heard of the situation you describe arising in practice.

Bear in mind that the risk in the first place is absolutely tiny, which is why the policies are so cheap.

I'm just thinking of a worst case scenario, eg buyer holding a grudge for whatever reason, taking a sweet revenge of the sale.

Doozergirl

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

JonMitchell

Doozergirl said:

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

The property is an end terrace circa 1900'ish.

Conservatory built 2010, 1 yr before the 2011 date.

Doozergirl

JonMitchell said:

Doozergirl said:

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

The property is an end terrace circa 1900'ish.

Conservatory built 2010, 1 yr before the 2011 date.

If it's 1900 then it always needed a build over agreement.  

I think you're worrying way too much though.  I think most house sales end up with indemnity policies these days.   There breaches of this and that all over the place. If your daughter behaves honourably then there's no need for any future buyer to seek retribution for anything.  The likelihood of the water company doing anything is pretty low anyway.  They're only going to be interested if it's genuinely in the way of something - even then, they'll look for work-arounds rather than anything drastic.    There must be hundreds of thousands of build overs that didn't have or need permission.  They can't go threatening those people with anything.  

Snookie12cat

JonMitchell said:

Doozergirl said:

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

The property is an end terrace circa 1900'ish.

Conservatory built 2010, 1 yr before the 2011 date.

There is no build over agreement because legally they didn't exist, because the conservatory was built when the sewer was private and then became public. 
If it ever needed work doing on the sewer the water board would be liable for any repairs or damages as they have adopted the sewer as it is.

I am selling my house now and it's the exact same thing, built in 2009. The seller has done nothing wrong. 

Snookie12cat

JonMitchell said:

My daughter is buying her first property, though searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory.

The seller has agreed to provide an indemnity policy as there was no build over agreement. 

Daughter's solicitor sounded ok to proceed as mortgage lender is alright with the indemnity policy, but one thing is still bugging me.

Am I right to say one clause of indemnity policy is that the build over issue must not be disclosed to 3rd party, eg water utility firm. My question will be, say in 10years my daughter plans to sell her property and long come a buyer and for whatever reason, the future buyer approach the water utility to discuss about the build over issue or being naughty just to report about the build over issue, then decides not to buy the property. Effectively then my daughter would not be able to sell the property as her indemnity policy will no longer be valid as there is a known breach due to the disclosure of the build over issue by the buyer?     

Any thoughts and advise would be great.

To reiterate. If it was built over on 2010 then there is no beach, you don't even need am indemnity policy really.  The sewers would have been private so you didn't need a build over agreement. If it was built after 2011 then you would. 
The water company would be liable for repair costs if work was needed because they adopted it as it is. 

Doozergirl

Snookie12cat said:

JonMitchell said:

My daughter is buying her first property, though searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory.

The seller has agreed to provide an indemnity policy as there was no build over agreement. 

Daughter's solicitor sounded ok to proceed as mortgage lender is alright with the indemnity policy, but one thing is still bugging me.

Am I right to say one clause of indemnity policy is that the build over issue must not be disclosed to 3rd party, eg water utility firm. My question will be, say in 10years my daughter plans to sell her property and long come a buyer and for whatever reason, the future buyer approach the water utility to discuss about the build over issue or being naughty just to report about the build over issue, then decides not to buy the property. Effectively then my daughter would not be able to sell the property as her indemnity policy will no longer be valid as there is a known breach due to the disclosure of the build over issue by the buyer?     

Any thoughts and advise would be great.

To reiterate. If it was built over on 2010 then there is no beach, you don't even need am indemnity policy really.  The sewers would have been private so you didn't need a build over agreement. If it was built after 2011 then you would. 
The water company would be liable for repair costs if work was needed because they adopted it as it is. 

To repeat, it *was* required because the house was built prior to 1936 which means that the sewers have always been in public ownership! 

The 2011 adoption can't apply to sewers that were already adopted.  

Section62

Snookie12cat said:

JonMitchell said:

Doozergirl said:

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

The property is an end terrace circa 1900'ish.

Conservatory built 2010, 1 yr before the 2011 date.

There is no build over agreement because legally they didn't exist, because the conservatory was built when the sewer was private and then became public. 
If it ever needed work doing on the sewer the water board would be liable for any repairs or damages as they have adopted the sewer as it is.

I am selling my house now and it's the exact same thing, built in 2009. The seller has done nothing wrong. 

Snookie12cat said:

To reiterate. If it was built over on 2010 then there is no beach, you don't even need am indemnity policy really.  The sewers would have been private so you didn't need a build over agreement. If it was built after 2011 then you would. 
The water company would be liable for repair costs if work was needed because they adopted it as it is. 

You've got this completely wrong.

Build over agreements existed, and were required for building over a public sewer before 2011.

There is an incorrect urban myth going around that this requirement only started in 2011.  It simply isn't true.


Pre-2011, public sewers were either 'trunk', 'main' or what were known as 'Section 24'.  All of them required build over agreements prior to 2011.

Section 24 sewers are the 'drains' serving two or more properties that 'communicate' with a 'main' public sewer.

Section 24 applied to properties where the drainage was shared, primarily in cases before 1936, but in some (rare) cases up to 1965.

So a property constructed around 1900 that had shared drainage would be a 'Section 24' property with public sewers - for which a build over agreement was required.

Properties with 'trunk' or 'main' public sewers on them have required buildover agreements since they were first constructed.

The only change is that in 2011 properties that had shared drainage that weren't already 'Section 24' properties had the shared drainage (communicating with a public sewer) and any drain serving another property converted (through legal process) into public sewers.

Thus many more properties which previously had private drainage, now have public sewers, and as a result more properties are now required to get build over agreements if the circumstances so require.  That is the root of the '2011' urban myth.

Snookie12cat

Section62 said:

Snookie12cat said:

JonMitchell said:

Doozergirl said:

When was the house built? 

When was the conservatory built? 

The property is an end terrace circa 1900'ish.

Conservatory built 2010, 1 yr before the 2011 date.

There is no build over agreement because legally they didn't exist, because the conservatory was built when the sewer was private and then became public. 
If it ever needed work doing on the sewer the water board would be liable for any repairs or damages as they have adopted the sewer as it is.

I am selling my house now and it's the exact same thing, built in 2009. The seller has done nothing wrong. 

Snookie12cat said:

To reiterate. If it was built over on 2010 then there is no beach, you don't even need am indemnity policy really.  The sewers would have been private so you didn't need a build over agreement. If it was built after 2011 then you would. 
The water company would be liable for repair costs if work was needed because they adopted it as it is. 

You've got this completely wrong.

Build over agreements existed, and were required for building over a public sewer before 2011.

There is an incorrect urban myth going around that this requirement only started in 2011.  It simply isn't true.


Pre-2011, public sewers were either 'trunk', 'main' or what were known as 'Section 24'.  All of them required build over agreements prior to 2011.

Section 24 sewers are the 'drains' serving two or more properties that 'communicate' with a 'main' public sewer.

Section 24 applied to properties where the drainage was shared, primarily in cases before 1936, but in some (rare) cases up to 1965.

So a property constructed around 1900 that had shared drainage would be a 'Section 24' property with public sewers - for which a build over agreement was required.

Properties with 'trunk' or 'main' public sewers on them have required buildover agreements since they were first constructed.

The only change is that in 2011 properties that had shared drainage that weren't already 'Section 24' properties had the shared drainage (communicating with a public sewer) and any drain serving another property converted (through legal process) into public sewers.

Thus many more properties which previously had private drainage, now have public sewers, and as a result more properties are now required to get build over agreements if the circumstances so require.  That is the root of the '2011' urban myth.

You are 100% right. I didn't really think about the property age and just focused on the conservatory built in 2010.

You didn't need a build over agreement if you covered a private sewer which is now public prior to 2011. This is what applies in my properties case.