Is a 9-week delay on a drainage & water search normal?

Echo101

I’m buying a chain-free leasehold house Mortgage is already approved and the management pack was available at the start, so there were no usual bottlenecks.

We were told in late October that the only thing left before we could complete the process was for the seller's solicitor to answer their enquiries. Once this was done I asked if we could proceed to exchange when I was told we're still waiting on the water search (this hadn't been mentioned before)

All searches were “requested” on 23 September. The full search pack came back on 15 October… except the drainage & water (CON29DW) search.

As of today (25 November), that single search is still outstanding and the only thing preventing exchange and completion.

My solicitor says the water company rejected the seller’s bill as illegible and needed a clearer copy, but this is only being dealt with now - two months after the search was raised. They told me they had sent a “clearer” bill to the search provider and were expecting a response last Friday. I chased for a few days after being told by my solicitor in no uncertain terms that a new bill had been sent, they were awaiting confirmation it was acceptable and also when to expect the search results. 

I asked for a call today, my caseworker is out of the office so a colleague called, who explained the situation, would not tell me the dates the new bill was requested and who is at fault for the delay and then told me that a new bill has not in fact, been sen,t and there has never been a second bill. 

Questions I’m hoping others can answer:

• Is a CON29DW ever supposed to take this long? • Would a rejected bill really hold up a search for nearly 9 weeks? • Should my solicitor have caught this earlier? • Is this a normal delay, or is it a sign of poor handling? • Has anyone had a similar experience with a single search lagging this far behind the rest?

• Do I have any recourse for the false information given? Initially, I was told the search had come back, and it was my solicitors expecting the bill as an additional enquiry to the water search, only to be taken round the houses and lied to several times afterwards. 

At this point, I'm not sure if we will be in by Christmas.  Despite being chain-free and mortgage-ready, I want to know if this is considered normal or if something has clearly gone wrong.

This is as much a rant as anything. I know things take time, but it helps when the people I'm paying to help are honest. 

Any insight appreciated.

EssexHebridean

You don't normally need a bill for a Water & drainage search - as a rule the search providers ask for you to fill in a bill payer name and account number but usually we don't bother and they go through just fine. they also usually come back pretty much same day. 

Echo101

That's really interesting! I wonder why this is taking so long, then, we hear a completely different story every time we call, though, so I genuinely have no idea what's happening. 

We're in contact with the seller frequently who said our solicitors spoke today and their solicitor was told we're just waiting on United utilities for the search to come in. 

I was told that the search isn't even in process yet as the bill still hasn't been sent in the correct format and they have no way of getting the correct bill, I asked about an indemnity and it was just waved away. 

God knows, I've given up 😂

user1977

Is the search actually essential? Given the vast majority of properties are urban and are obviously connected to public water/sewerage, it's hardly worthwhile delaying the transaction by months for this sort of thing.

EssexHebridean

user1977 said:

Is the search actually essential? Given the vast majority of properties are urban and are obviously connected to public water/sewerage, it's hardly worthwhile delaying the transaction by months for this sort of thing.

OP says they have a mortgage - it's a non-negotiable with almost all lenders AFAIK

HobgoblinBT

My cousin is in the process of buying a new build home and she is temporarily in rented accomodation.  The hold up is that although the builders have it in writing from the Water Company that the drains are for sewerage that upon inspection they are actually for surface water only so the exchange has been delayed for months as new planning permission is needed and a 300 meter sewer needs to be dug and installed.

Although your case seems like a paperwork issue your solicitor is right to be cautious as you could have any sort of problem.

Echo101

For anyone in the know with these things, is there any reason that my solicitor could, or would lie about this process? Something just doesn't seem right to me but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be honest if the search was missed or there is some other problem? 

EssexHebridean

Echo101 said:

For anyone in the know with these things, is there any reason that my solicitor could, or would lie about this process? Something just doesn't seem right to me but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be honest if the search was missed or there is some other problem? 

Not any logical reason, because aside from anything else it would be easy for you to ask for documentary proof of what they're saying. I wonder whether whoever instructed the search originally has muddied the waters by deciding to include a bill, and now that there has been one (even if not good enough quality for use) it's proving challenging to rewind to a situation as though one had never been provided in the first place. 

If a bill genuinely WAS required from the start, this suggests that there is something non-standard about the property though - that could be an unclear address (So perhaps a plot number > postal address not having been processed correctly when the property was first built) or something else. (And no - I have zero thoughts on what the something else could be)

Edit to add: If there is something non standard about the property, better by far that you find out at this stage than further down the line! 

Echo101

EssexHebridean said:

Echo101 said:

For anyone in the know with these things, is there any reason that my solicitor could, or would lie about this process? Something just doesn't seem right to me but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be honest if the search was missed or there is some other problem? 

Not any logical reason, because aside from anything else it would be easy for you to ask for documentary proof of what they're saying. I wonder whether whoever instructed the search originally has muddied the waters by deciding to include a bill, and now that there has been one (even if not good enough quality for use) it's proving challenging to rewind to a situation as though one had never been provided in the first place. 

If a bill genuinely WAS required from the start, this suggests that there is something non-standard about the property though - that could be an unclear address (So perhaps a plot number > postal address not having been processed correctly when the property was first built) or something else. (And no - I have zero thoughts on what the something else could be)

Edit to add: If there is something non standard about the property, better by far that you find out at this stage than further down the line! 

Thank you, it's definitely a strange one. There's been nothing out of the ordinary with the property so far, it's just a bog standard semi-detached leasehold. Everything else has gone through really quickly, but you're definitely right, we would rather know now. 

My main gripe is the story being changed and the feeling I'm not being told the truth but I will see what they come back with. Thanks again!

EssexHebridean

If I were in your shoes, the question I would be asking would be along the lines of "allowing that my understanding is that Drainage & Water searches usually don't require a bill to be submitted at all, why has that become necessary in this matter?" If they try to tell you that bills ARE usually required, you might politely tell them that someone who routinely instructs searches has informed you that in probably 99% of cases in their experience, this is not the case... 

Chief_of_Staffy

Utility bills aren't required for searches. They are irrelevant to the process. The water company is the body that would have sent out the bill in the first place, so there's no reason for them to require that bill be sent back to them to check what's on it.

"My solicitor says the water company rejected the seller’s bill as illegible and needed a clearer copy." This sounds like something out of Fargo. What does it even mean? I'd get onto your solicitor and instruct them to explain exactly what they're attempting to do.