Would you buy a house with public sewer within boundary of the house and running under it

Section62

Catman2025 said:

....The water company has confirmed that no BOA was/is required for the extension that was built about 10 years' ago (over the sewer pipe). The water company consented to the extension without a BOA.....

Catman2025 said:

So the seller has come back to say that they will not pay for a indemnity policy as build over agreements were not in force at the time of the original extension built.

There's some mixed messaging going on here.

There is an urban myth that buildover agreements didn't exist before 2011.  It sounds like that is what the seller is talking about - but if the extension was built around 10 years ago (~2015) then that isn't a valid reason for not paying for an indemnity.

The myth is due to the mass adoption of private shared drains in 2011.  This massively increased the total length of public sewer in people's back gardens and made it more likely that someone doing building work would need a buildover agreement.  The truth is that public sewers could be found in people's back gardens before 2011, and those were subject to buildover agreements at the time.  If you wanted to build over a private shared drain before they were adopted in 2011 then you didn't need a buildover agreement - it is this latter point which has led to the mistaken belief that buildover agreements didn't exist before 2011.

So the seller's latest response would concern me.  Because i) it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the law and ii) the timescales are wrong.  So does this mean the extension is older than 2011?

If the water company are saying - in writing - that they were happy no buildover agreement was needed and consented to this extension without a buildover agreement then you don't have too much to worry about.  However, I emphasise 'this', because it isn't unknown for people to get consent for one thing and then build another, or for properties to have multiple extensions done at different times.

If everything is clear and accurately recorded the above applies.  But if the extension really is only 10 years old then the seller's comment "build over agreements were not in force at the time of the original extension built" is nonsense, and is probably worthy of some further digging and clarification.

WIAWSNB

Yup - don't listen to the vendor, get it from the WB's mouth, in writing. 

Catman2025

Section62 said:

Catman2025 said:

....The water company has confirmed that no BOA was/is required for the extension that was built about 10 years' ago (over the sewer pipe). The water company consented to the extension without a BOA.....

Catman2025 said:

So the seller has come back to say that they will not pay for a indemnity policy as build over agreements were not in force at the time of the original extension built.

There's some mixed messaging going on here.

There is an urban myth that buildover agreements didn't exist before 2011.  It sounds like that is what the seller is talking about - but if the extension was built around 10 years ago (~2015) then that isn't a valid reason for not paying for an indemnity.

The myth is due to the mass adoption of private shared drains in 2011.  This massively increased the total length of public sewer in people's back gardens and made it more likely that someone doing building work would need a buildover agreement.  The truth is that public sewers could be found in people's back gardens before 2011, and those were subject to buildover agreements at the time.  If you wanted to build over a private shared drain before they were adopted in 2011 then you didn't need a buildover agreement - it is this latter point which has led to the mistaken belief that buildover agreements didn't exist before 2011.

So the seller's latest response would concern me.  Because i) it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the law and ii) the timescales are wrong.  So does this mean the extension is older than 2011?

If the water company are saying - in writing - that they were happy no buildover agreement was needed and consented to this extension without a buildover agreement then you don't have too much to worry about.  However, I emphasise 'this', because it isn't unknown for people to get consent for one thing and then build another, or for properties to have multiple extensions done at different times.

If everything is clear and accurately recorded the above applies.  But if the extension really is only 10 years old then the seller's comment "build over agreements were not in force at the time of the original extension built" is nonsense, and is probably worthy of some further digging and clarification.

Thank you for your response. I don't think that the seller has been transparent me with about the dates of the extension and have had a few conflicting messaging on the topic of the extension building date. I am slightly confused on the matter.

I've been doing more checks and this is my understanding so far. They have provided a letter from the water company dated 2011 saying that they are satisfied with the drawings supplied to them and they consent to the extension building within 3 meters of the public sewer - no mention of any BOA.

When I spoke with the sellers' they couldnt tell me when the extension was built and gave me the wrong years told me it was 2009 (not sure intentionally or unintentionally). This conflicts with the planning/extension approvals paper submitted so far , one was for 2009 and the other for 2011 - but for the same extension. It is the 2011 version which the water company has no issues with - so it seems from the paper work provided.

To further add to the confusion now, their solicitor (who happens to be a family member) is claiming via my conveyancer that apparently the foul sewer pipe was built over prior to the sellers' ownership and at that time build over agreements were not in force. 

 I just want to bottom out the issue so that there are no issues in the future when I come to sell the house etc and/or any potential impact/damage to the property resulting from the sewer pipe etc. 

WIAWSNB

Assuming the current footprint of the house is as shown in the WB-provided plan, it surely demonstrates that the WB is/were aware their public sewer passes under 'your' house, and that this isn't an issue? 

I think, in your shoes, that's what I would be focusing on - go back to the WB, and ask. If they say, "Yes - that public sewer runs under your property as shown, and we are ok with its compliance", then jobbie jobbed?