Lack of build over indemnity insurance

sunshineli

We are selling our house and have a garage (built in the 1970s when the house was built) that is built over a sewer. There is a manhole in the garage where the water company can access the sewer. The buyers solicitors have insisted we get a lack of build over indemnity insurance in place.

We have been quoted £450 to get this indemnity insurance. Is this necessary? It seems like an awful lot. This is not a problem we have encountered before.

housebuyer143

Were your drains privately owned prior to 2011? This is when the water company took them over and if so, then no build over agreement is needed because it wasn't a thing then, because you didn't need permission to build over private drains. The water company took these on in the condition they were in 2011. 
You wouldn't need retrospective build over either because it wasn't something you failed to get when it was built, it literally wasn't a requirement for private drains.
I would say a 1970a house it's quite likely the drains were private tbh. If you are sure if this then you should be able to argue your case with the solicitor. Same thing happened to me and I managed to get out of paying for the indemnity.

Section62

sunshineli said:

We are selling our house and have a garage (built in the 1970s when the house was built) that is built over a sewer. There is a manhole in the garage where the water company can access the sewer. The buyers solicitors have insisted we get a lack of build over indemnity insurance in place.

We have been quoted £450 to get this indemnity insurance. Is this necessary? It seems like an awful lot. This is not a problem we have encountered before.

It would be a bit unusual for builders to build a new house and garage and design the main drainage system so that it runs under any part of the buildings - you'd normally route the drainage around, unless the pipes are only connections to appliances in the house.

Are the neighbouring properties the same age and are they detached, link-detached or terrace?

Is the garage attached to the house and if so, is there a kitchen, toilet or bathroom along the wall between the garage and the house?

It sounds as if this manhole might just be one on a private connection, not a sewer.  But if it is a public sewer and was at the time the property was built, then the buyer would be wise to take a very cautious approach.  The issue may not be a lack of buildover agreement, but rather one of having a larger than typical sewer running under the building.

sunshineli

housebuyer143 said:

Were your drains privately owned prior to 2011? This is when the water company took them over and if so, then no build over agreement is needed because it wasn't a thing then, because you didn't need permission to build over private drains. The water company took these on in the condition they were in 2011. 
You wouldn't need retrospective build over either because it wasn't something you failed to get when it was built, it literally wasn't a requirement for private drains.
I would say a 1970a house it's quite likely the drains were private tbh. If you are sure if this then you should be able to argue your case with the solicitor. Same thing happened to me and I managed to get out of paying for the indemnity.

Thanks for your reply that’s helpful. I am pretty sure that the sewer will have been privately owned at the time the house / garage was built too but I will need to confirm this. Do you know the best way I can confirm this? Would I need to contact the water company directly? 

sunshineli

Section62 said:

sunshineli said:

We are selling our house and have a garage (built in the 1970s when the house was built) that is built over a sewer. There is a manhole in the garage where the water company can access the sewer. The buyers solicitors have insisted we get a lack of build over indemnity insurance in place.

We have been quoted £450 to get this indemnity insurance. Is this necessary? It seems like an awful lot. This is not a problem we have encountered before.

It would be a bit unusual for builders to build a new house and garage and design the main drainage system so that it runs under any part of the buildings - you'd normally route the drainage around, unless the pipes are only connections to appliances in the house.

Are the neighbouring properties the same age and are they detached, link-detached or terrace?

Is the garage attached to the house and if so, is there a kitchen, toilet or bathroom along the wall between the garage and the house?

It sounds as if this manhole might just be one on a private connection, not a sewer.  But if it is a public sewer and was at the time the property was built, then the buyer would be wise to take a very cautious approach.  The issue may not be a lack of buildover agreement, but rather one of having a larger than typical sewer running under the building.

Thanks for your comment. The house we are selling and all neighbouring properties were built at the same time by a large housing developer (still operating today) and the sewer runs underneath all garages on the street. The house is semi detached but the garage is detached and away from the house. Neighbouring houses are detached.

Section62

sunshineli said:

Section62 said:

sunshineli said:

We are selling our house and have a garage (built in the 1970s when the house was built) that is built over a sewer. There is a manhole in the garage where the water company can access the sewer. The buyers solicitors have insisted we get a lack of build over indemnity insurance in place.

We have been quoted £450 to get this indemnity insurance. Is this necessary? It seems like an awful lot. This is not a problem we have encountered before.

It would be a bit unusual for builders to build a new house and garage and design the main drainage system so that it runs under any part of the buildings - you'd normally route the drainage around, unless the pipes are only connections to appliances in the house.

Are the neighbouring properties the same age and are they detached, link-detached or terrace?

Is the garage attached to the house and if so, is there a kitchen, toilet or bathroom along the wall between the garage and the house?

It sounds as if this manhole might just be one on a private connection, not a sewer.  But if it is a public sewer and was at the time the property was built, then the buyer would be wise to take a very cautious approach.  The issue may not be a lack of buildover agreement, but rather one of having a larger than typical sewer running under the building.

Thanks for your comment. The house we are selling and all neighbouring properties were built at the same time by a large housing developer (still operating today) and the sewer runs underneath all garages on the street. The house is semi detached but the garage is detached and away from the house. Neighbouring houses are detached.

That sounds a really odd way of doing things. Any chance you can do a simple sketch plan to confirm the relative positions of the houses, garages and where the sewer is.

Usually if there is a shared connecting sewer (since 2011 now usually public) serving multipole properties before having one connection to the main public sewer then this would be laid some distance behind or in front of the buildings, not under them.  E.g. many Victorian terraces have a shared drain/sewer running along the backs of the houses, typically 2m or so away from the building. This is a common cause of people needing to get buildover agreements when they do a rear extension.  Running a shared connecting sewer under new build properties is problematic, so if the position of the buildings and land boundaries means there is no room to run the connecting sewer in land which isn't being built on then the preferable alternative is for each property to have its own connection to the main sewer ('lateral drain').

housebuyer143

sunshineli said:

housebuyer143 said:

Were your drains privately owned prior to 2011? This is when the water company took them over and if so, then no build over agreement is needed because it wasn't a thing then, because you didn't need permission to build over private drains. The water company took these on in the condition they were in 2011. 
You wouldn't need retrospective build over either because it wasn't something you failed to get when it was built, it literally wasn't a requirement for private drains.
I would say a 1970a house it's quite likely the drains were private tbh. If you are sure if this then you should be able to argue your case with the solicitor. Same thing happened to me and I managed to get out of paying for the indemnity.

Thanks for your reply that’s helpful. I am pretty sure that the sewer will have been privately owned at the time the house / garage was built too but I will need to confirm this. Do you know the best way I can confirm this? Would I need to contact the water company directly? 

If you contact the water company with your address then you invalidate any indemnity you might have to get so don't do that. 
You can call and ask for generic advice but don't give them the property address, or did you live there in 2011? If so, you would have got a letter about the change over and if you remember getting that (as I did) that will have been confirmation. 

Falling that, do you have a water search when you bought it showing the plans of the drains? 

Section62

housebuyer143 said:

...or did you live there in 2011? If so, you would have got a letter about the change over and if you remember getting that (as I did) that will have been confirmation. 

The water companies had next to no information about private drains in 2011, and even the existing non-main public sewers were (and still are) largely unmapped.

Any letter sent in 2011 is more likely to be generic information about the mass adoption rather than a confirmation, although in some cases there may have been specific correspondence (e.g. drains connected to private pumping stations that were already recorded)

Doozergirl

The adoption happened everywhere in 2011, you don't need written confirmation, it's just a fact.  If the building where the build over occurs pre-dates 2011 (and postdates 1936). then it would have been private at the time of the build and does not need a retrospective agreement.