Water search error resulting in costs

Lookingforhelp123

Hi all,

We purchased our house several years ago with the intention to do a side extension to expand the property. Our solicitors secured all the relevant searches via third parties. The water and drainage search (completed by SearchFlow) mapped a public sewer passing within 100ft of our property, through the house plot to our right. This was approx 15-20m away from the side of our house we intended to extend over (on the other, far side of the plot, for the purposes of this post the 'left hand side') so we deemed it low risk and not an issue.

When planning our side extension late 2021/early 2022, Building Control checked our plans and instructed us to seek a Build Over Agreement with our water company because of a 'critical' public sewer that ran along the left hand side boundary of our property (the other side, right along the fence line and under our garage). They sent a sewer map that showed this clearly running along our property line. Subsequently, we were informed our plans for a side extension could not be granted by the water company due to the nature of the sewer (a critical public one), resulting in aborted costs of £2,000 in professional fees and planning application.

The map Building Control provided is a GIS map from the Local Authority and clearly consistent with the water company map. The map SearchFlow used in the property search was an older Land Registry map which has been proved inaccurate by some margin.

Our contention here is that a) we may have considered a different price for the house, or not bought it at all, had we been given the accurate search information and b) we would not have proceeded with plans for a side extension by the critical sewer path, thus saving aborted costs of c.£2000. To my mind, SearchFlow have been negligent in providing incorrect information when there is clearly a better source from the LA/water company that they should have used.

I'm not interested in hypothetical litigation around the change in value of the property etc., although I do want reimbursement for the aborted costs, as we were going directly on the search information that has proved incorrect.

Does anyone have any advice on how we might go about this? For example, should we address with our solicitor who did the conveyancing, as they arranged the search on our behalf, or directly with SearchFlow as the third party?

Do we even have a case, or is it just tough luck?

Any support, advice and signposting much appreciated.

Thrugelmir

Searches will only report information held at the time. 

TripleH

Did you check the legislation for building when you bought (it sounds like you planned to expand when you bought)?

Did your conveyancer know of your plans?

The likely argument against your claim is that the conveyancer was only concerned with the impact on your buying the property added to the information you needed to help with future building works was already in the public domain.

Or, that you employed them to organise buying the house, that they cannot be held for work you can't do that wasn't in their original remit.

The above are merely my thoughts for how I'd defend your claim. Others might have arguments that counter my thoughts.

Section62

Lookingforhelp123 said:

Does anyone have any advice on how we might go about this? For example, should we address with our solicitor who did the conveyancing, as they arranged the search on our behalf, or directly with SearchFlow as the third party?

What did the documents supplied by SearchFlow say about the accuracy of the information and what applied in the event of errors or omissions being discovered?

You'd expect them to say something about them doing their best to provide/pass on information which was correct, but not being liable for anything which is missing or not where the plans show it to be.

You need to look at the documentation and T&C's that were supplied at the time of the purchase, not what they may have been before or subsequently.

I'd be even more sure the solicitor will have shown/directed you to a document which absolves them from liability if the search results aren't as accurate as they should be... a solicitor has no way of knowing that the data suppied is incorrect, so couldn't vouch for its accuracy.

AFF8879

TripleH said:

The likely argument against your claim is that the conveyancer was only concerned with the impact on your buying the property added to the information you needed to help with future building works was already in the public domain.

Agreed - I’m sure I read some clause in my solicitors contract pack that said something along the lines of they are only opining on the current title as-is and not on the scope for any future development work, for which separate independent advice needed to be sought 

TripleH

Yes, I think that is my thought.

It is an expected clause (in my view) to limit exposure to liabilities. Just talking about your future plans wouldn't cover you. I think the contract would have to include that you intend to do x as part of the purchase or that the conveyancer was doing x as part of their job.

user1977

Lookingforhelp123 said:

The map Building Control provided is a GIS map from the Local Authority and clearly consistent with the water company map. The map SearchFlow used in the property search was an older Land Registry map which has been proved inaccurate by some margin.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. The Land Registry wouldn't have had the details of the pipes. Are you saying the search result showed the pipe, but the other mapping on their search was different? Or they didn't show the pipe at all? Or were they asked to search against the wrong area because of the wrong map being sent to them in the first place?

ProDave

Before you give up, carefully hand dig a trench to see if the sewer really is where the new map says it is.  If it is not I would go back and ask the water company to come out and show you where it is and if it cannot be found re submit your application stating there is no pipe.

Section62

ProDave said:

Before you give up, carefully hand dig a trench to see if the sewer really is where the new map says it is.  If it is not I would go back and ask the water company to come out and show you where it is and if it cannot be found re submit your application stating there is no pipe.

It could end up being a very deep trench and still not finding the sewer... but it doesn't mean it isn't there.  A 'critical' sewer could be a trunk one, or one serving an entire catchment area.  Which means it could be tens of feet below the surface.

The best method of getting closer to confirmation of where the sewer is would be to get information about the nearest manholes either side of the OP's property and then go and find them.  If they are in the locations where the water company thinks they are then it is a question of whether the line between them does (as the water co thinks) go under the OP's property.  There's still no guarantee as the sewer could deviate in line between the two manholes.

The water co should also be able to provide information about the depth to invert of the sewer at each manhole, and with a bit of effort it would then be possible to work out how deep it is under the OP's land.  That would help give an indication of whether a trial pit has any hope of locating the position precisely.

TheJP

If you based your sale on the basis of extending did you make the conveyancer check this out/did you let them know? Cant see how the price of the property would be different if you couldn't have extended unless you bid over asking by a large amount but again silly if you didn't know if extending was possible.

Sounds like you didn't do your diligence to the level you should have before you bought.

aoleks

1. The search company didn’t make any mistakes, they provided you whatever information was available at the time.

2. if you wanted a 100% guarantee, you could’ve carried out a drainage CCTV survey alongside the house survey for around £200. That would’ve told you exactly what’s under the house and where.

3. other than the decision to not buy the house, which I respect (we were in a similar position), I don’t think the price would’ve changed. You buy a property as is, not a property with potential for extension. Also, an extension is still possible, just not the one you want.