Buying a house - sewage query on searches

SRRAE

One concern from searches is the possibility the small extension was built over a sewage pipe as the search shows it to be very close. 

The inspection cover is over 1m away from the the extension wall and it runs parallel to the house so I'm confident the extension is not it built on top of the main pipe. 

However, the downstairs toilet is on the original back wall of the house. This obviously has a short section of pipe ( I'd say 2-3m ) from the toilet to the main pipe. The extention at the back of the house would be built over this small section; the down stairs toilet is now essentially in the middle of the house.

Who is normally responsible for the shorter sections of sewage pipes which feed into your house? Is it the home owner or the water board? 

There was talk of an indemnity policy when it thought the main pipe was built on, but I don't think te took into account the pipe to the downstairs toilet.

In the unlikely event this small section to the toilet would require repair who normally would pay for that part? 

Woolsery

SRRAE said:

In the unlikely event this small section to the toilet would require repair who normally would pay for that part? 

You would. The water board is only responsible for the pipes that are shared.

However, it's likely a non-issue, as it's such a common scenario. If you want to be certain of the drain's condition, order a drainage survey.

Section62

SRRAE said:

One concern from searches is the possibility the small extension was built over a sewage pipe as the search shows it to be very close. 

The inspection cover is over 1m away from the the extension wall and it runs parallel to the house so I'm confident the extension is not it built on top of the main pipe. 

Have you had a drainage survey carried out?  Really you should upgrade that "confident" to a "know" to avoid any later surprises.  E.g. the inspection cover may not be on the main pipe, unless someone has confirmed this.

The branch to the toilet is your responsibility (as Woolsery says) provided that it only serves your property and is wholly within your boundary.

SRRAE

Section62 said:

Have you had a drainage survey carried out?  Really you should upgrade that "confident" to a "know" to avoid any later surprises.  E.g. the inspection cover may not be on the main pipe, unless someone has confirmed this.

I had this thought too as I presumed it was on the search result was the same drain the inspection chamber at the back as the line is almost perfect. But thinking about it, I didn't surface water and smaller foul pipes didn't show up on searches like this, as I know there are 2 inspection chambers at the side of the house, and nothing appears on the search for that.

Some said its likely to be a main sewer which could be 5m deep.

How much would an inspection like that cost? We are planning to move in to this house soon.  My solicitor said we could get an indemnity or pay to get it inspected.  How would you get a main sewer like that inspected?  Is it a case that an indemnity policy would be cheaper?

I have attached the image from the searches for reference.

Thanks for the advice

aoleks

1. get indemnity insurance. you don't know the depth of the shared pipe's invert level and the size of the manhole. there are strict rules to how far the FOUNDATION of the extension has to be from the external wall of the manhole based on that depth and without digging things up, you won't know what the builder did. for that reason, you need peace of mind.

2. the pipes running under the house to the main sewer are probably newly laid plastic pipes and they're entirely private. that means you're responsible for them, so nothing to do with the water authority. in fact, most extensions have some pipes running under the floor slab, so that's ok.

3. do ask for a build-over agreement and a building control certificate, but do NOT contact the local authority or water authority under any circumstances, this will invalidate said indemnity insurance.

SRRAE

aoleks said:

3. do ask for a build-over agreement and a building control certificate, but do NOT contact the local authority or water authority under any circumstances, this will invalidate said indemnity insurance.

This is the strange thing which our solicitor said.  We can get indemnity, but if we then ask the water authority about it, it voids the indemnity.

The extension didn't require planning permission, as it was built in the 90s and is under a certain square footage.

aoleks

no you don't ask the water authority for a build over agreement, you ask the owner. owner asks the water authority for permission before work starts and they hold the certificate with the rest of the papers. no need to contact anyone.

as for a building control certificate, that has nothing to do with planning permission. it's evidence that the building works have been constructed to the required standard.

Section62

SRRAE said:

Section62 said:

Have you had a drainage survey carried out?  Really you should upgrade that "confident" to a "know" to avoid any later surprises.  E.g. the inspection cover may not be on the main pipe, unless someone has confirmed this.

I had this thought too as I presumed it was on the search result was the same drain the inspection chamber at the back as the line is almost perfect. But thinking about it, I didn't surface water and smaller foul pipes didn't show up on searches like this, as I know there are 2 inspection chambers at the side of the house, and nothing appears on the search for that.

Some said its likely to be a main sewer which could be 5m deep.

How much would an inspection like that cost? We are planning to move in to this house soon.  My solicitor said we could get an indemnity or pay to get it inspected.  How would you get a main sewer like that inspected?  Is it a case that an indemnity policy would be cheaper?

The searches would only show up the information that the sewerage undertaker has - and in most cases their information on non-main drainage is very poor (the bulk of this kind of drainage only became public in 2011).

Your plan extract is definitely incomplete as the pipe at the rear must - somehow - get to a main sewer.  The most obvious thing would be for there to be another pipe running from the rear of the property, through the gap between it and the property to the left, and from there into the manhole in the street.  (or it could be the gap on the right, or passing through either of the neighbour's gardens etc)  Either or both of the inspection chambers at the side of the house could be involved.

A CCTV drainage survey typically costs a few hundred pounds.  Any sewer (not just main ones) could be as deep as 5m (or more), but that isn't really much of an issue.  It is more likely you'll have fairly shallow pipes just serving a few houses, but either way the survey company should be able to deal with it.

If they did find an unmapped main sewer under the property then you'd probably need to get the sewerage undertaker involved to find out what it is and why it was there.

I would just get the drainage survey done first to find out what pipes are where, and what condition they are in.

The need (or otherwise) for an indemnity policy would follow on from that.

Section62

aoleks said:

3. do ask for a build-over agreement and a building control certificate, but do NOT contact the local authority or water authority under any circumstances, this will invalidate said indemnity insurance.

The OP should ask whether the current owners have these documents, but shouldn't (yet) ask for them to be obtained if they don't exist.

If the extension was built in the 1990's then it is possible a build-over agreement wasn't required, and a BC completion certificate is now largely irrelevant.

The "under any circumstances" needs to be read as "yet, subject to what else is discovered".

aoleks said:

2. the pipes running under the house to the main sewer are probably newly laid plastic pipes and they're entirely private.

There's no indication so far that pipes running under the house are connecting to the main sewer. It is more likely they will connect with a public sewer at the rear of the property.

Whether any pipes are plastic or another material can only be determined by CCTV survey. In the 1990's clay was still in common usage.  They will also only be private if they aren't shared, and don't start in someone else's property.

SRRAE

I have contacted my solicitor for advice and more details.
Reading the details of the survey it says:

"Does the public sewer map show any public sewer within the boundary of the property?  No."

Would that imply the sewer line at the rear of the property is not public?  Does that mean, its a sewer pipe which services just this house, or it means the sewer isnt adopted by United Utilities.

thanks again

Section62

SRRAE said:

I have contacted my solicitor for advice and more details.
Reading the details of the survey it says:

"Does the public sewer map show any public sewer within the boundary of the property?  No."

Would that imply the sewer line at the rear of the property is not public?  Does that mean, its a sewer pipe which services just this house, or it means the sewer isnt adopted by United Utilities.

thanks again

It implies that, but on the basis of the map extract I think it very likely the answer is wrong and it should be 'yes'.

If the pipe serves more than one property (or passes from one property into another) and connects to a public sewer then it is a public sewer.

You'll only know for sure by getting a drainage survey to confirm the extent of the pipes within that property's boundaries, and whether any of them cross the boundary and/or connect to a public sewer.