Water search error resulting in costs

Section62

aoleks said:

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

I don't think we know that yet. The OP says the source of the information was the Land Registry.  As user1977 points out, the LR are not the usual source of information about utility equipment.  There seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere.  Until that's clarified we don't know whether or not a mistake has been made, nor who was responsible if one was.

aoleks said:

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.

No, a CCTV drainage survey cannot provide a "100% guarantee".  The survey will only be of pipes the surveyors can find and access, it doesn't rule out the possibility there are other pipes which could be a barrier to building on the land.

Drainage surveyors don't usually go to all the manholes in the neighbourhood and check to see whether the sewer passes under the land being surveyed - they will look for manholes on the property in question, and survey from them.  Unless the 'critical' sewer has a visible manhole in the OP's land then its presence wouldn't be known about.

If the sewer is 'critical' due to the size or flow then standard 'domestic' CCTV survey equipment couldn't be used for any beneficial purpose.  It would require the use of 'industrial' type equipment, and possibly overpumping of the sewer to reduce the water level enough for the camera to be able to see anything at all.  Either would mean survey costs of substantially more than £200.

aoleks said:

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.

Generally people would expect a property with significant utility assets running through it to be worth less than an equivalent property without that encumbrance.

People do buy property giving consideration to the potential to extend.  It is the reason why "STPP" is so often seen in EA blurbs about property.  The potential to extend adds value.

Woolsery

How large is the sewer? In 1987 I built over a public sewer having gained permission from the city council before the water board became responsible for them. It wasn't a large sewer, but it was at a depth of 2m, at an awkward angle and I had to meet some tough specifications for bridging it, which added to the costs. Maybe if I hadn't known a structural engineer I'd have given up, but the build presented no insurmountable problems once the solutions were spelled-out. IN today's money it might have cost around £6k more than originally anticipated.

I assume things may be different now, but even in those far off times, when I asked about potential repairs in the future, the reply was that the sewer could be re-sleeved without digging up floors etc. That was obviously one thing I really wanted to know!

Section62

Woolsery said:

How large is the sewer? In 1987 I built over a public sewer having gained permission from the city council before the water board became responsible for them.

Was this in England or Wales?  If so, the transfer of sewers from Local Authorities to Regional Water Authorities happened in 1974 under the Water Act 1973, although some LA's continued to provide a day-to-day management function under contract to the RWA's.  A relatively minor point, but it could be significant for someone if, for example, they thought having the local authority's building control department agreeing to building work amounted to the agreement of the owner of the sewer(s).  From 1974 on, the LA had to notify the Water Authority of proposals to build or extend over a public sewer.

Woolsery said:

It wasn't a large sewer, but it was at a depth of 2m, at an awkward angle and I had to meet some tough specifications for bridging it, which added to the costs. Maybe if I hadn't known a structural engineer I'd have given up, but the build presented no insurmountable problems once the solutions were spelled-out. IN today's money it might have cost around £6k more than originally anticipated.

I think the difference in the OP's case is their one is a 'critical' sewer.  If something goes wrong with a sewer of this type it can quickly result in foul water flooding of property and/or spillage into rivers and watercourses (topical at the present time of course).  Therefore the water company will be doing a risk assessment that even an unlikely event could have very serious consequences... costs/fines of tens of millions of pounds are quite likely if something does go wrong, so a very cautious approach is to be expected.

If 'critical' means trunk or a catchment main, then it is broadly the equivalent of a National Grid 400kV electricity cable.  I.e. whilst an engineering solution might be possible, it simply isn't worth the risk from the POV of the utility co.

Woolsery said:

I assume things may be different now, but even in those far off times, when I asked about potential repairs in the future, the reply was that the sewer could be re-sleeved without digging up floors etc. That was obviously one thing I really wanted to know!

Likewise, the availability of engineering solutions won't be the issue in the OP's case.  If the sewer is 'critical' then even relining will be a major operation fraught with risk.  The utility co is very unlikely to willingly take on that risk if there is any chance that building work could compromise the structural integrity of the sewer.

Woolsery

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

How large is the sewer? In 1987 I built over a public sewer having gained permission from the city council before the water board became responsible for them.

Was this in England or Wales?  If so, the transfer of sewers from Local Authorities to Regional Water Authorities happened in 1974 under the Water Act 1973, although some LA's continued to provide a day-to-day management function under contract to the RWA's.  A relatively minor point, but it could be significant for someone if, for example, they thought having the local authority's building control department agreeing to building work amounted to the agreement of the owner of the sewer(s).  From 1974 on, the LA had to notify the Water Authority of proposals to build or extend over a public sewer.

Woolsery said:

It wasn't a large sewer, but it was at a depth of 2m, at an awkward angle and I had to meet some tough specifications for bridging it, which added to the costs. Maybe if I hadn't known a structural engineer I'd have given up, but the build presented no insurmountable problems once the solutions were spelled-out. IN today's money it might have cost around £6k more than originally anticipated.

I think the difference in the OP's case is their one is a 'critical' sewer.  If something goes wrong with a sewer of this type it can quickly result in foul water flooding of property and/or spillage into rivers and watercourses (topical at the present time of course).  Therefore the water company will be doing a risk assessment that even an unlikely event could have very serious consequences... costs/fines of tens of millions of pounds are quite likely if something does go wrong, so a very cautious approach is to be expected.

If 'critical' means trunk or a catchment main, then it is broadly the equivalent of a National Grid 400kV electricity cable.  I.e. whilst an engineering solution might be possible, it simply isn't worth the risk from the POV of the utility co.

Woolsery said:

I assume things may be different now, but even in those far off times, when I asked about potential repairs in the future, the reply was that the sewer could be re-sleeved without digging up floors etc. That was obviously one thing I really wanted to know!

Likewise, the availability of engineering solutions won't be the issue in the OP's case.  If the sewer is 'critical' then even relining will be a major operation fraught with risk.  The utility co is very unlikely to willingly take on that risk if there is any chance that building work could compromise the structural integrity of the sewer.

It was in a southern English city and I remember when the changeover happened around 1988 or 89, because about every fortnight two guys from the council would come into the garden, lift the lid on the main junction, stare inside, conclude all was well and then eat their sandwiches beside our pond! We were warned they would do this when we purchased.

After Wessex took over, the men stopped coming, their nice little number obviously being deemed an inefficient extra that could be done without. Someone also told me I was lucky to have only had the city council to deal with for a build-over agreement.

Anyway, it sounds like our sewer wasn't of sufficient magnitude to be an issue. Thanks for the clarification.

Section62

Woolsery said:

It was in a southern English city and I remember when the changeover happened around 1988 or 89...

Strange, by 1988 the only sewers local authorities were responsible for were the private ones on council housing estates and highway drainage (technically not sewers).  These remained with LA's up to 2011 - but it is possible that the local authority negotiated with the water company for its private 'estate' sewers to be adopted by the water co.

What also happened around that time was the start of the ending of term contracts through which some LA's provided sewerage management services to the RWA's or the newly privatised water companies.

Woolsery said:

....because about every fortnight two guys from the council would come into the garden, lift the lid on the main junction, stare inside, conclude all was well and then eat their sandwiches beside our pond! We were warned they would do this when we purchased.

After Wessex took over, the men stopped coming, their nice little number obviously being deemed an inefficient extra that could be done without.

One possibility is that some sewers were built with "flushing chambers" where from time to time a valve would be closed to allow a buildup of sewage, which was then released quickly to "flush" through the system... very similar to the way a toilet functions.  Often operatives would be located at one or more downstream chambers to observe the 'flush' to see how much debris came through and to confirm the water was passing through in a flush-like manner.  Both of which were good indicators whether or not the sewer(s) between the two points were functioning properly.  Flushing was one of several practices that largely came to an end when sewers were transferred from LA's to RWA's... I'm not going to comment on whether that was a good idea or not. But some LA's continued to do flushing even though this wasn't necessarily something that the term contract required them to do.