Septic tank (shared) upgrade - what would you do?

ThisIsWeird

I agree that maintenance contributions should be in proportion to home size. Reviewable should any extend further.
Yes, they appear to be unpleasant folk, and their methods have certainly been bullish and unacceptable, but still weigh up the best overall solution carefully - no nose-cutting spite. Try as best as possible to remove their personalities from the equation.

AJC211

ThisIsWeird said:

I agree that maintenance contributions should be in proportion to home size. Reviewable should any extend further.
Yes, they appear to be unpleasant folk, and their methods have certainly been bullish and unacceptable, but still weigh up the best overall solution carefully - no nose-cutting spite. Try as best as possible to remove their personalities from the equation.

I’ve tried everything I can but they’re standing firm that they will only share with me if drainage is via my land (and other caveats above). I’ve bent over backwards to find other solutions but they will absolutely not entertain them. The fact that there’s other downsides to sharing beyond the drainage via my land makes it much harder to choose that option (personalities aside).

AJC211

Final letter from neighbours confirms their position:
- The only compromise they're willing to make is the type of system; I am 'allowed' to get quotes for other systems so long as they're not more expensive, don't include a pump, and still use an outflow via my land
- I will still pay 1/3rd
- They refuse formal legal new easement; instead a formal signed and witnessed letter; if I want to do things using a solicitor and updating my deeds, I will pay full legal costs, they are not willing to share this cost
- The only system they are willing to share is one that has the outflow via my land

So, I'd pay £9k +£1k legal fees, 1/3rd maintenance ongoing (despite my house having 3 bedrooms and the other two having 5), and have the outflow via my land.

I'm getting legal advice and will keep this post updated!

BarelySentientAI

Keep the updates coming - your neighbours are making this more interesting than most Netflix series. 

ian1246

Would love to know why the neighbours simultaneously think they can unilaterally alter the existing easement (outflow on your land) yet keep you liable for 1/3 costs.

Either it stays the same - I.e. replacement system in the current position, or a new agreement is needed with a new easement.

Frankly my stance would be if they want to rip up the old easement (by insisting a new system on your land) then the whole easement will be null & void - including their rights to run pipes across your land. You then go it alone with your own system. They can't pick & choose - either the easement is still in effect or its not at all.

A judge looking at this would probably hold a similar view in terms of amending the existing easement - on what basis & rationale is there for the easement to be amended to have the outflow on your land? Answer: so your garden gets dug up rather than the neighbours (despite the existing easement putting the obligation on the neighbour).

Get legal advise - screw them. Your not liable for any of their legal costs.

AJC211

Not much to update so far. Legal protection on my home insurance approaches things as 'why/who are you bringing a claim against' so I am hoping to establish whether any of these 5 positions that neighbours are taking are legal, before anything is taken further (by this point I will hopefully have my survey done for my own system and know how feasible/costly that is):

1 - Refusing to replace the current system (thus enforcing an end to the existing easement)

2 - Enforcing a new easement in place of the old one; this new easement involves putting outflow pipes on my property which I am not willing to do

3 - Forcing an end to the existing easement (by decommissioning and not replacing the existing system), while simultaneously insisting on some aspects of the old easement being retained (a right for Cottage 1 to use pipes crossing my property)

4 - Refusal to share legal costs associated with any new easements 

5 - Threat to hold me solely responsible for any damage caused by ongoing pollution from the existing system, based on their opinion that I am the cause of delays to the current system being replaced (by my refusal to put the outflow on my property).

AJC211

Oof, irritating update.

Legal aid via home insurance is a dead-end on several fronts:

-  neighbours haven’t yet caused a nuisance, they’d have to actually prevent me exerting my existing easement rights

- my policy renewed in April; my neighbours told me before this that the system needed renewing and we agreed to look into it, but because I didn’t immediately tell my insurer they can refuse to cover it in this new annual  policy. !!!!!! 

- if neighbours can prove that they cannot reasonably replace the existing system (not enough space/not practical) and that it is therefore necessary for some/all of it to be moved to my property, then I will have to comply (if I want to go shared route).

I absolutely believe my neighbours will do the latter.

Next: levels survey to assess feasibility of an individual system for me bearing in mind the layout of land and having to go under existing crossing pipes.

No obvious answer from legal assessment as to whether cottage 1 has a right to use the existing pipes crossing my property to access a new system. Said “could see no evidence either way”, so if those pipes are in the way and I want to go solo, I’d need to pay for legal advice. 

In the meantime I’ve built a compost toilet in my field. Not even kidding. (Although it’s been on my list of things to do since I moved in so this has just spurred me on 😂)

ThisIsWeird

AJC211 said:

Oof, irritating update.

Legal aid via home insurance is a dead-end on several fronts:

-  neighbours haven’t yet caused a nuisance, they’d have to actually prevent me exerting my existing easement rights

- my policy renewed in April; my neighbours told me before this that the system needed renewing and we agreed to look into it, but because I didn’t immediately tell my insurer they can refuse to cover it in this new annual  policy. !!!!!! 

- if neighbours can prove that they cannot reasonably replace the existing system (not enough space/not practical) and that it is therefore necessary for some/all of it to be moved to my property, then I will have to comply (if I want to go shared route).

I absolutely believe my neighbours will do the latter.

Next: levels survey to assess feasibility of an individual system for me bearing in mind the layout of land and having to go under existing crossing pipes.

No obvious answer from legal assessment as to whether cottage 1 has a right to use the existing pipes crossing my property to access a new system. Said “could see no evidence either way”, so if those pipes are in the way and I want to go solo, I’d need to pay for legal advice. 

In the meantime I’ve built a compost toilet in my field. Not even kidding. (Although it’s been on my list of things to do since I moved in so this has just spurred me on 😂)

I can see it's a complicated issue.
On the LegProt matter, you can simply let things rumble on until such time as your sewage system is compromised by their refusal to upgrade the existing system - ergo, the required 'nuisance'.
Also, when you took out your policy, there wasn't this issue, or any suggestion it could develop into one; you were simply made aware that it would need sorting. Nothing unusual there.
Read your policy carefully. Some/most/all will actually allow you to find your own specialist solicitor should the LP team not be fully versed in the area; they will pay for this solicitor on the same basis as their own. Of course, there's still the issue of presumably having to wait until something happens to 'trigger' the policy.
How much money is your neighbour spending on these surveys?! If they are to 'prove' it's impractical to use their own land, it would have to be stated very clearly in a report by a credible and independent surveyor. 
I'd still caution about going it alone, due to the unknowns; not only that C1 might remain entitled to cross your land, possibly even with a new pipe, but also you'd need to have removed from all three deeds your requirement to contribute to their shared system, whilst also running your own.
I don't have an answer, but consider this whole case if your neighb's were reasonable folk, and all three of you needed to fully replace your system; you wouldn't be concerned about C1's new pipe then. 
So always take a step back now and then, to view the whole issue to make sure you aren't shooting yourself in t'foot. And are always coming across as the reasonable party.
And wait for the 'nuisance', and their ground report. 
And also give some consideration to the compromises you may conclude are not unreasonable. 

AJC211

Sorry I wasn’t clear the levels survey is on my property to assess feasibility of an individual system for my property. C1 will not put in a new pipe across my land, they will want to use the existing one to access a new system at C3 (independent of whether I join this or go solo).

Thanks for the heads up about the legal protection. I feel unable to make clear headed decisions without a legal mindset, as it’s such a complicated situation. 

Ultimately it is possible to site a new shared system in the existing property, but they might well be willing to argue that it is not reasonable (due to upheaval or lack of space, although two forms have quoted to site a new tank next to the old one). In which case they keep digging their heels in, and I either accept their ultimatum or dig my heels in, or go individual. Doesn’t feel like much progress!

ThisIsWeird

AJC211 said:

Sorry I wasn’t clear the levels survey is on my property to assess feasibility of an individual system for my property. C1 will not put in a new pipe across my land, they will want to use the existing one to access a new system at C3 (independent of whether I join this or go solo).

Thanks for the heads up about the legal protection. I feel unable to make clear headed decisions without a legal mindset, as it’s such a complicated situation.

Ultimately it is possible to site a new shared system in the existing property, but they might well be willing to argue that it is not reasonable (due to upheaval or lack of space, although two firms have quoted to site a new tank next to the old one). In which case they keep digging their heels in, and I either accept their ultimatum or dig my heels in, or go individual. Doesn’t feel like much progress!

I reckon these two points are the clinchers. This neighbour - along with their relative (so hardly impartial) - want to completely alter the status quo that's been in operation for X years, and written in to the deeds, and with little justification. From what you say, there is no credible reason for them to have to change the location - they just want to.

Yes, your garden is nearer the road for emptying, but (a) with a new TP, 'emptying' should now be a very rare event, and (b) isn't C1's garden even closer to the road?!

In any event, to alter the location would surely introduce all sorts of additional complications and costs; the deeds would need modifying, and new pipes would need running from all three properties to your new tank - no existing pipe could be reused. 

Keep the reasoning simple - stick to such key points as these. And just wait for the situation to come to a head - a big smelly brown sludgy head.

Then they will be forced to act, and there will only be one logical option; any delay will be on their heads.

Jobbie literally jobbied.