Indemnity policy over public sewer - conservatory

Section62

Snookie12cat said:

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.

Correct - except the requirement relates to the proximity of the work to the sewer (usually 3m) - you don't have to physically build over or 'cover' a sewer to trigger the requirement.

JonMitchell

Thanks all for your comments and advices.

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

In my opinion, it's inheriting somebody's problem despite there being an indemnity policy. I do understand there are many properties that have been extended without build over agreement, but is the risk of having the extension ripped off (in extreme case) higher than "worrying" a blockage might just happen before my daughter sell the property in say 10yrs time and also facing the same issue?

I presume asking for a retrospective building agreement is too much a risk for anyone at this point or is it worth venturing into?

Doozergirl

JonMitchell said:

Thanks all for your comments and advices.

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

In my opinion, it's inheriting somebody's problem despite there being an indemnity policy. I do understand there are many properties that have been extended without build over agreement, but is the risk of having the extension ripped off (in extreme case) higher than "worrying" a blockage might just happen before my daughter sell the property in say 10yrs time and also facing the same issue?

I presume asking for a retrospective building agreement is too much a risk for anyone at this point or is it worth venturing into?

Have you ever heard of an extension being ripped down so that someone can get to a pipe?   I've been on these boards for over 16 years and I haven't. 

When I was saying that there are so many build overs out there, I'm referring to those the *never* needed a BOA.  They can't go threatening to knock those down, you have to find a different way.   So there are different ways...  whether it's rodding from elsewhere, diverting the pipe, lining the pipe from the inside... 

House come with issues.  Some you know about, most are happily hidden for you to find down the line. 

Get a CCTV survey to check the state of the drains (which is what people should be doing anyway) and, if they're fine, just get on with it.   

user1977

Doozergirl said:

JonMitchell said:

Thanks all for your comments and advices.

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

In my opinion, it's inheriting somebody's problem despite there being an indemnity policy. I do understand there are many properties that have been extended without build over agreement, but is the risk of having the extension ripped off (in extreme case) higher than "worrying" a blockage might just happen before my daughter sell the property in say 10yrs time and also facing the same issue?

I presume asking for a retrospective building agreement is too much a risk for anyone at this point or is it worth venturing into?

Have you ever heard of an extension being ripped down so that someone can get to a pipe?   I've been on these boards for over 16 years and I haven't. 

Same here. And bear in mind that in the immensely unlikely event that the pipe has to be dug up, that's going to happen. An indemnity policy will just cover the costs, not prevent it from occurring.

There are 1001 more likely risks of owning property which your daughter should be worrying about instead (assuming that your daughter, rather than just you, was worrying about this in the first place!).

Section62

JonMitchell said:

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

You said at the start of the thread the "searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory."

Does that mean the sewer passes near the conservatory, or under the conservatory?

Whilst others are correct that it is quite rare for people to have part of their home demolished to gain access to a public sewer, it does however remain a real risk in certain circumstances.

If the sewer is near, rather than under, the conservatory then it would be likely that any necessary work can be carried out without affecting the building.  The water company might ask for some kind of waiver that relieves them of liability for any damage to the building (including due to ground movement) as a result of their work.

The problematic cases come where in-situ repairs are not possible, or there is no alternative route to relocate the sewer to, or where the sewer is not of a type where diversion is possible (e.g. 'trunk' or some 'main' sewers).

The information in your posts only refers to this being a 'sewer', and I think all of us have assumed it will be a small (=<6") pipe serving a pair, or row of houses.  I would seek information confirming what type of sewer it is - although you can't obtain that information from the water company without invalidating the indemnity policy, a private* drainage survey should confirm what kind of sewer it is. (*be aware some water companies operate arms-length companies which appear to be private contractors - do your research to check there is no link)

The second question to ask yourself is whether there is enough space for working on the sewer, and (if necessary) to divert it.  It is harder to deal with (/divert) sewers in the rear garden of a mid-terrace property than it is in the garden of a semi or detached property.  The risk level (i.e. how much more likely that building demolition becomes necessary) will increase with the level of difficulty involved in gaining access.

There is a third issue (not immediately relevant in this case) of building type.  It is relatively easy to dismantle and rebuild a conservatory compared to doing the same with a two-storey extension. And conservatories typically have a relatively short design life.  A factor in your daughter's decision should be whether she is likely to want to replace the conservatory with a more permanent extension, or new conservatory, during her ownership of the property.  If so, then a new buildover agreement would be required at that time, with the potential risk of not being able to get one, added to the complication this would have alerted the water company to the existing situation.  If she's happy with what is there and won't want to make changes then this isn't an issue for her to worry about.

JonMitchell

Section62 said:

JonMitchell said:

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

You said at the start of the thread the "searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory."

Does that mean the sewer passes near the conservatory, or under the conservatory?

Whilst others are correct that it is quite rare for people to have part of their home demolished to gain access to a public sewer, it does however remain a real risk in certain circumstances.

If the sewer is near, rather than under, the conservatory then it would be likely that any necessary work can be carried out without affecting the building.  The water company might ask for some kind of waiver that relieves them of liability for any damage to the building (including due to ground movement) as a result of their work.

The problematic cases come where in-situ repairs are not possible, or there is no alternative route to relocate the sewer to, or where the sewer is not of a type where diversion is possible (e.g. 'trunk' or some 'main' sewers).

The information in your posts only refers to this being a 'sewer', and I think all of us have assumed it will be a small (=<6") pipe serving a pair, or row of houses.  I would seek information confirming what type of sewer it is - although you can't obtain that information from the water company without invalidating the indemnity policy, a private* drainage survey should confirm what kind of sewer it is. (*be aware some water companies operate arms-length companies which appear to be private contractors - do your research to check there is no link)

The second question to ask yourself is whether there is enough space for working on the sewer, and (if necessary) to divert it.  It is harder to deal with (/divert) sewers in the rear garden of a mid-terrace property than it is in the garden of a semi or detached property.  The risk level (i.e. how much more likely that building demolition becomes necessary) will increase with the level of difficulty involved in gaining access.

There is a third issue (not immediately relevant in this case) of building type.  It is relatively easy to dismantle and rebuild a conservatory compared to doing the same with a two-storey extension. And conservatories typically have a relatively short design life.  A factor in your daughter's decision should be whether she is likely to want to replace the conservatory with a more permanent extension, or new conservatory, during her ownership of the property.  If so, then a new buildover agreement would be required at that time, with the potential risk of not being able to get one, added to the complication this would have alerted the water company to the existing situation.  If she's happy with what is there and won't want to make changes then this isn't an issue for her to worry about.

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation. The public sewer was under the conservatory as the manhole is next to the side of the conservatory as she is buying an end terrace. She is waiting to hear back from drainage survey companies to see when they can do a survey.

 

aoleks

on a more general note, what's the big issue with sewers/drainage pipes? they're literally pipes carrying a bit of water/sewage from point A to point B. as long as you protect them while building, for example by encasing the pipe in the foundation, what's the big deal? a blockage would not require digging up the pipe, that's not how things get done nowadays anyway.

Section62

aoleks said:

on a more general note, what's the big issue with sewers/drainage pipes? they're literally pipes carrying a bit of water/sewage from point A to point B.

If you've had one of those pipes stop working and the contents start coming out into your garden or home (especially where the contents have originated from someone else's property) then you'd appreciate why people see it as a big issue.

There's nothing like having someone else's condoms, tampons, nappies and turds floating around on your property to make you really want to make sure nothing like that happens in the future.  From that point you can work back to people who just have some undefined idea that this isn't something they want to deal with (even though it has never happened to them).

Imagine watching as the entire contents of the ground floor of your home is loaded into skips to be dumped... that, generally, is why people get concerned about drainage issues.

aoleks said:

as long as you protect them while building, for example by encasing the pipe in the foundation, what's the big deal?

Drains/sewers only work properly when the pipe is intact and laid to the correct line and level.  If there's a problem, say a pipe 'dips' a bit, the drain/sewer no longer works as it should.  Drainage problems are also typically cumulative - the dipped pipe has probably been stressed by ground movement, leading to it cracking, leading to the supporting ground being washed into the pipe, leading to loss of support and further cracking, until eventually the pipe collapses and the drain/sewer becomes completely blocked.

How long that takes to happen depends on the type of pipe and ground conditions, as well as the flow in the pipe.

As the pipe starts to deteriorate, materials can be deposited or become snagged on defects - like wet wipes snagging on sharp edges of a crack.  That can speed up the rate of deterioration of the drain/sewer, and also lead to blockages.

So the mantra is to avoid doing anything on or near a drain/sewer which imposes additional loads on it, or might cause (differential) ground movement.

"encasing the pipe in the foundation" will result in the pipe being exposed to additional loads, whilst at the same time removing a degree of flexibility in the drain/sewer.  Encasing a pipe in a foundation is one of the worst things you can do because the encased section is then forced to move with the foundation and you get differential movement.  The right way of doing it is to 'bridge' the load over the top of the pipe, with enough fill material of a flexible nature to ensure the pipe and foundation can move independently of each other.

aoleks said:

a blockage would not require digging up the pipe, that's not how things get done nowadays anyway.

Clearing the blockage can usually be done by rodding or jetting - but 'healthy' sewers don't normally block.  A blockage is usually an indicator that something is wrong with the sewer itself.  Investigation of the cause of the blockage will often reveal defects.

Then it is down to what those defects are, and how serious they are, whether remedial work is required.  (A) to stop a repeat of the blockage, and (B) to stop further deterioration.  Bear in mind that a leaking sewer/drain may well be putting water into the ground close to the foundations of the building - which in the long-term is not healthy for the building.

And sometimes - not within your control - the only sensible way of dealing with a defect is to dig a hole down to the pipe and repair/replace as much of it as is necessary to restore the drain/sewer to a satisfactory state.

Bear in mind that if a water company are aware of a defect (and that defect leads to foul water flooding) the water company will be responsible for removing all those condoms, tampons, nappies and turds - and the affected contents of the house - and then compensating you for the loss of your possessions and your extra costs living somewhere else whilst your home is returned to being a place where it is safe and fit to live.

This is why water companies get a bit edgy about people building over sewers - and why the various pieces of water and public health legislation give the companies some fairly draconian powers to start knocking parts of people's property down (if necessary).

Doozergirl

JonMitchell said:

Section62 said:

JonMitchell said:

So for this property my daugther is buying, do you reckon this is still a route plausible to continue with the purchase or due to concern about no build over agreement in place for build over a public sewer that she considers not buying the property.

You said at the start of the thread the "searches came back to say there is a public sewer passing the conservatory."

Does that mean the sewer passes near the conservatory, or under the conservatory?

Whilst others are correct that it is quite rare for people to have part of their home demolished to gain access to a public sewer, it does however remain a real risk in certain circumstances.

If the sewer is near, rather than under, the conservatory then it would be likely that any necessary work can be carried out without affecting the building.  The water company might ask for some kind of waiver that relieves them of liability for any damage to the building (including due to ground movement) as a result of their work.

The problematic cases come where in-situ repairs are not possible, or there is no alternative route to relocate the sewer to, or where the sewer is not of a type where diversion is possible (e.g. 'trunk' or some 'main' sewers).

The information in your posts only refers to this being a 'sewer', and I think all of us have assumed it will be a small (=<6") pipe serving a pair, or row of houses.  I would seek information confirming what type of sewer it is - although you can't obtain that information from the water company without invalidating the indemnity policy, a private* drainage survey should confirm what kind of sewer it is. (*be aware some water companies operate arms-length companies which appear to be private contractors - do your research to check there is no link)

The second question to ask yourself is whether there is enough space for working on the sewer, and (if necessary) to divert it.  It is harder to deal with (/divert) sewers in the rear garden of a mid-terrace property than it is in the garden of a semi or detached property.  The risk level (i.e. how much more likely that building demolition becomes necessary) will increase with the level of difficulty involved in gaining access.

There is a third issue (not immediately relevant in this case) of building type.  It is relatively easy to dismantle and rebuild a conservatory compared to doing the same with a two-storey extension. And conservatories typically have a relatively short design life.  A factor in your daughter's decision should be whether she is likely to want to replace the conservatory with a more permanent extension, or new conservatory, during her ownership of the property.  If so, then a new buildover agreement would be required at that time, with the potential risk of not being able to get one, added to the complication this would have alerted the water company to the existing situation.  If she's happy with what is there and won't want to make changes then this isn't an issue for her to worry about.

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation. The public sewer was under the conservatory as the manhole is next to the side of the conservatory as she is buying an end terrace. She is waiting to hear back from drainage survey companies to see when they can do a survey.

 

The good news is that there probably aren't any joins under the house because you still have a manhole visible on the land.   Makes for easier rodding/jetting access.  

Should hopefully just be a straight run.
 

andy444

It's only really an issue if the extension is built over an existing manhole cover as the utility company will legitimately say that the extension is blocking ready access to the length of pipe. But as you say that the manhole is next to the conservatory then that's no problem. The chances of any extension having to be removed is miniscule.