A few months ago there was a thread started by someone with a manhole in his
garden which neither served his property nor was part of the public sewer
system. A discussion took place about responsibility for clearing and
maintaining this sewer.

[What follows isn't strictly d-i-y but it might nevertheless be of interest
to d-i-y-ers.]

I have recently become acutely aware of this problem as a result of a
manhole flooding in a neighbour's garden. I live on the corner of an estate,
in the last house in a row of 4 detached houses - all built in the 1960's.
There are houses on the other side of the road opposite us, and also further
up the road on the same side - but with a gap of 100 metres or so. Our 4
houses are served by a private sewer with starts at the first house, and
flows beneath our front gardens - where it joins into the public sewer on
the extreme edge of my property. So far, so good . . .

The first house in the row also has a manhole in the *back* garden. A couple
of weeks ago, this manhole overflowed due to a blockage downstream. The
owner lives in USA, and the house is let via an agency. The tenant notified
the agent who assumed that the manhole served the property in question, and
called in a private contractor who tried but failed to clear it. The
contractor subsequently stated that it was probably a public sewer - and
that Severn Trent would need to be called to clear it.

Severn Trent duly arrived, said it wasn't one of theirs, and refused to
touch it unless someone undertook to pay them - which the tenant wasn't
willing to do. Severn Trent recommended that the tenant should contact the
Environmental Health Department from the local council - on the basis that
effluent swilling round the back garden was a health risk to his young
children.

The Environmental Health Inspector duly arrived, and declared that it was
part of a private sewer which served 13 properties further up the road. The
owners of these 13 properties were jointly responsible for getting it
cleared. The council thus served notice on these 13 owners, requiring them
to clear the blockage within 48 hours - failing which, the council would
arrange for it to be cleared and pass on the cost to the 13 owners. Needless
to say, the 13 owners didn't clear it - and the council subsequently
employed a contractor who did clear it. Immediately following the clearing
exercise, the contractor put a camera into the sewer and discovered that the
bottom of the pipe had collapsed, about 13 metres downstream from the
manhole - which is just in the garden of the adjoining house. No-one seemed
to know exactly where this sewer went - except that it must join into the
public sewer somewhere in the vicinity. I have a manhole at the far end of
my back garden which is part of the public sewer system. [The public sewer
actually flows under my garden, just beyond my house, from front to back and
onwards across a field at the back]. Whilst the blockage was being cleared,
I lifted the lid of my rear manhole - and all the cleared effluent was
flowing through it - indicating that this private sewer must connect into
the public sewer somewhere under my garden - even though I knew nothing
about it.

As a result of discovering the collapsed sewer, the council has now served
notice on the owners of the 13 properties at the top of the road - requiring
them to get it repaired. This opens up a whole can of worms! In order to
repair it, they will potentially have to dig up the garden of someone who is
definitely not served by this sewer, but who is just unfortunate enough to
have it going under his garden. For all I know, they may even wish to dig up
*my* garden. Once they have repaired the known problem, they may find
others - they could only survey it as far as the collapsed bit, whereupon
the camera fell down the hole. If they *did* want to dig up my garden, this
would cause me a major problem because it has only recently had a total
refurb - including re-building and extending the fish pond. For all I know,
this private sewer - which I didn't know existed until a short while ago -
might pass right under my pond!

If they do want to dig up my garden, it could give rise to some interesting
legal arguments. According to my deeds, I am obliged to provide access to
permit the repair and maintenance of any services (cables, water pipes, gas
pipes, sewers, etc.) which are shared with adjoining properties. However,
this particular service doesn't serve my property, so *I* don't share it
with anybody. Nor does it serve any of the *adjoining* properties - there
being a gap of at least 100 metres between our row and the first house which
it *does* serve. I shall thus vigorously resist any attempt to disturb my
garden, and will insist that they re-route the private sewer to join into
the public sewer in the field at the back rather than under my garden. Watch
this space!

Sorry to have gone on for so long - but I just wanted to illustrate the fact
that it is not impossible to have manholes in your garden belonging to a
private sewer which *doesn't* serve your property - and that all sorts of
complications can result from this!

Roger

[What follows isn't strictly d-i-y but it might nevertheless be of
interest
to d-i-y-ers.]

It's an excellent post and facinating too boot.

Thank you - I look forward to reading subsequent posts.

Mary

Subject: Private Sewers [Long and boring post!]
From: "Roger Mills"
Date: 10/07/03 22:42 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

A few months ago there was a thread started by someone with a manhole in his
garden which neither served his property nor was part of the public sewer
system. A discussion took place about responsibility for clearing and
maintaining this sewer.

[What follows isn't strictly d-i-y but it might nevertheless be of interest
to d-i-y-ers.]

I have recently become acutely aware of this problem as a result of a
manhole flooding in a neighbour's garden. I live on the corner of an estate,
in the last house in a row of 4 detached houses - all built in the 1960's.
There are houses on the other side of the road opposite us, and also further
up the road on the same side - but with a gap of 100 metres or so. Our 4
houses are served by a private sewer with starts at the first house, and
flows beneath our front gardens - where it joins into the public sewer on
the extreme edge of my property. So far, so good . . .

The first house in the row also has a manhole in the *back* garden. A couple
of weeks ago, this manhole overflowed due to a blockage downstream. The
owner lives in USA, and the house is let via an agency. The tenant notified
the agent who assumed that the manhole served the property in question, and
called in a private contractor who tried but failed to clear it. The
contractor subsequently stated that it was probably a public sewer - and
that Severn Trent would need to be called to clear it.

Severn Trent duly arrived, said it wasn't one of theirs, and refused to
touch it unless someone undertook to pay them - which the tenant wasn't
willing to do. Severn Trent recommended that the tenant should contact the
Environmental Health Department from the local council - on the basis that
effluent swilling round the back garden was a health risk to his young
children.

The Environmental Health Inspector duly arrived, and declared that it was
part of a private sewer which served 13 properties further up the road. The
owners of these 13 properties were jointly responsible for getting it
cleared. The council thus served notice on these 13 owners, requiring them
to clear the blockage within 48 hours - failing which, the council would
arrange for it to be cleared and pass on the cost to the 13 owners. Needless
to say, the 13 owners didn't clear it - and the council subsequently
employed a contractor who did clear it. Immediately following the clearing
exercise, the contractor put a camera into the sewer and discovered that the
bottom of the pipe had collapsed, about 13 metres downstream from the
manhole - which is just in the garden of the adjoining house. No-one seemed
to know exactly where this sewer went - except that it must join into the
public sewer somewhere in the vicinity. I have a manhole at the far end of
my back garden which is part of the public sewer system. [The public sewer
actually flows under my garden, just beyond my house, from front to back and
onwards across a field at the back]. Whilst the blockage was being cleared,
I lifted the lid of my rear manhole - and all the cleared effluent was
flowing through it - indicating that this private sewer must connect into
the public sewer somewhere under my garden - even though I knew nothing
about it.

As a result of discovering the collapsed sewer, the council has now served
notice on the owners of the 13 properties at the top of the road - requiring
them to get it repaired. This opens up a whole can of worms! In order to
repair it, they will potentially have to dig up the garden of someone who is
definitely not served by this sewer, but who is just unfortunate enough to
have it going under his garden. For all I know, they may even wish to dig up
*my* garden. Once they have repaired the known problem, they may find
others - they could only survey it as far as the collapsed bit, whereupon
the camera fell down the hole. If they *did* want to dig up my garden, this
would cause me a major problem because it has only recently had a total
refurb - including re-building and extending the fish pond. For all I know,
this private sewer - which I didn't know existed until a short while ago -
might pass right under my pond!

If they do want to dig up my garden, it could give rise to some interesting
legal arguments. According to my deeds, I am obliged to provide access to
permit the repair and maintenance of any services (cables, water pipes, gas
pipes, sewers, etc.) which are shared with adjoining properties. However,
this particular service doesn't serve my property, so *I* don't share it
with anybody. Nor does it serve any of the *adjoining* properties - there
being a gap of at least 100 metres between our row and the first house which
it *does* serve.

Any property that was served by something also serving your own would be
adjoining by virtue of being adjoined by the service in question. The fact that
the properties are detached is not relevant. As the service doesn't serve your
property the argument about "adjoining" is also therefore irrelevant. The
previous sentence covers everything in question. The final sentence adds
nothing further.

I shall thus vigorously resist any attempt to disturb my
garden, and will insist that they re-route the private sewer to join into
the public sewer in the field at the back rather than under my garden. Watch
this space!

Sorry to have gone on for so long - but I just wanted to illustrate the fact
that it is not impossible to have manholes in your garden belonging to a
private sewer which *doesn't* serve your property - and that all sorts of
complications can result from this!

Roger

If a service passes under your land which doesn't serve your property then
there should be a wayleave or an easement (a lump sum payment buying out a
wayleave for a number of years) to cover it and this should be mentioned in the
deeds. It may be that you now need to negotiate a wayleave with the services
provider if this has been overlooked previously.


Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
One's taste in music is the key that fits the lock of each individual person's
psyche.

Dave Baker wrote in message
...

Any property that was served by something also serving your own would be
adjoining by virtue of being adjoined by the service in question. The fact
that
the properties are detached is not relevant. As the service doesn't serve
your
property the argument about "adjoining" is also therefore irrelevant. The
previous sentence covers everything in question. The final sentence adds
nothing further.


I *think* you are agreeing with me in my contention that the clause
requiring me to provide maintenance access for services shared with
adjoining properties doesn't apply in this case?

OK, I might originally have used a few more words than strictly necessary,
to say it.

Roger

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:57:53 UTC, a (Dave Baker)
wrote:

There was a good thread in uk.legal recently about sewers and how their status
in law depended on the date of construction. Prior to the 1920s (if I recall
correctly) or after that changed things considerably.

Shared sewers prior to 1937 are the responsibility of the water company.
Much to my relief one hot summer two or three years ago when the
inspection chamber where the two properties' sewers join, was filled
with sewage. Hot day, full to the brim. I was nearly physically sick and
I hadn't even disturbed the surface. Water company came out within the
hour and cleared it. We were lucky and were upstream; all we'd seen was
a slower emptying downstairs loo; the neighbour flushed the one upstairs
and it shot out of the downstairs one...

However, we recently discovered a hatch under a rockery we just removed
(to make space for concrete shed base; see thread on plastic sheds!). We
were able to modify the base to avoid it, but it strikes me it may give
us a similar problem to the OP...no idea where it comes from or goes. Oh
well, it's the weekend soon...

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

Bob Eager wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:17:34 UTC, "Chris Oates"
wrote:

I've no idea if it's area dependant but where I am

It's the same everywhere. It's the date of some act (Water Act?)

it's pre 1935 for a free repair.

Pre 1937. But only for cleaning; the repair costs may be reclaimed from
the householders concerned.

--
That's all academic as far as I'm concerned - the houses served by the sewer
to which I referred in my original post were built in the 1960's.

Roger

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:08:11 UTC, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

That's all academic as far as I'm concerned - the houses served by the sewer
to which I referred in my original post were built in the 1960's.

Yes, I realise that....we went off at a tangent! Useful to someone I
hope...

But your original post got me thinking about the inspection cover we
found under our rockery. And it was quite useful and thought
provoking...

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..