Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

It seems to me that many residents are just not aware of what might
happen if the pump failed and was not replaced. Now, I don't know the
details, but what if this did happen, what would the Environment
Agency do? Obviously, at first there'd be some kind of warning
(verbal, then letter) to the estate management, but thereafter? What
powers does the Environment Agency have if sewage is backing up and
overflowing because some residents are too stubborn to pay?

I should think the EA has maximum powers, including sending in the
local water company to pump out the sewage at some considerable cost
to be borne by the residents. Can the EA declare the estate unfit for
human habitation or some such?

I am only a resident and am not on the management board, but I'm fed
up with the constant argy-bargy that has been going on since I moved
here in late 2004. I want to bring this up at the next annual meeting
with some kind of impressive sounding message, of what the authorities
could or would do in the event of an emergency, to try and put the
fear of God into these late/non-payers. They all knew (they signed on
the dotted line) what they would be responsible for when they moved to
the estate, so there's no excuse. Also, many residents have new or
nearly new cars so they are not exactly poor.

A new plant for 40 houses would cost around £35k at today's prices.In
20 years from now it could be double or treble that, so building up
the contingency fund is vital.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

Tell them that the people who paid money, instead of it buying a new pump
due to the ****s who wouldent pay, had non return valves fitted to their
sewer lines instead,
and when the pump fails their sewage will flow into the main system, where
it will back up into the houses of those who didnt get a non return valve

On 15/10/2011 09:29, MM wrote:
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.
....
A new plant for 40 houses would cost around £35k at today's prices.In
20 years from now it could be double or treble that, so building up
the contingency fund is vital.

Does rhis imply the householders don't pay a sewage charge to the water
companies?

I'd not treat the money as a contingency fund for a new plant. There
should be an annual charge, payable by all (possibly based on ratable
value), which will cover all costs related to the sewage system. This
includes maintenance costs and capital costs, ie building up reserves if
necessary. You'd need something to administer this - whether it's an
existing company or a new one. They'd need to be able to take out loans
to pay for significant capital expenditure if their reserves were
insufficient, or to insure for the same costs.

When people balk at setting up such a thing, work out how much they'd
pay for the sewage charge to a water company.

Or of course get a utility to take on the whole thing for a one-off cost.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 9:29 am, MM wrote:
I should think the EA has maximum powers, including sending in the
local water company to pump out the sewage at some considerable cost
to be borne by the residents. Can the EA declare the estate unfit for
human habitation or some such?


I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners. A
charge (mortgage) would be taken on the houses until the money was
repaid to the council. Repossession would not be impossible.

Owain


It's probably not Building Control but the Environmental Health department.
Pumping station, generally, are a nightmare for maintenance issues

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:29*am, MM wrote:
I should think the EA has maximum powers, including sending in the
local water company to pump out the sewage at *some considerable cost
to be borne by the residents. Can the EA declare the estate unfit for
human habitation or some such?


I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners. A
charge (mortgage) would be taken on the houses until the money was
repaid to the council. Repossession would not be impossible.

Ah, the big "R" (reposession) might do the trick, because some of the
residents must have a screw loose, thinking it'll be someone else's
problem to sort out.

MM

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:37:08 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 15/10/2011 09:29, MM wrote:
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.
...
A new plant for 40 houses would cost around £35k at today's prices.In
20 years from now it could be double or treble that, so building up
the contingency fund is vital.

Does rhis imply the householders don't pay a sewage charge to the water
companies?

Correct. My water bill (singleton household) is around £90 a year.

I'd not treat the money as a contingency fund for a new plant. There
should be an annual charge, payable by all (possibly based on ratable
value), which will cover all costs related to the sewage system.

Oh, we do pay £375 each per year mainly to cover the emptying three
times a year, plus electricity for the pumps and for the plant
maintenance engineers to do their checks every so often, plus
electricity for street lighting. What is left over goes into the
contigency fund intended to fund the cost of replacement when the
plant is due to be scrapped, not to fund emergency repairs that can
fall due at any time. "Contingency" is perhaps not the right word to
describe this fund, but everyone now knows it as such. This is the
arrangement set out in legal documents that all residents sign when
they agree to purchase a property so they haven't got a leg to stand
on when they refuse to pay, or pay late.

I'm told that the annual service charge will have to rise considerably
for 2012 because of this latest reluctance by some to pay, and I
expect that announcement will again be greeted by blank refusal by
several residents. At least one person had to be taken to court before
they paid the service charge, claiming they weren't liable because
they had sub-let the property.

This
includes maintenance costs and capital costs, ie building up reserves if
necessary. You'd need something to administer this - whether it's an
existing company or a new one. They'd need to be able to take out loans
to pay for significant capital expenditure if their reserves were
insufficient, or to insure for the same costs.

When people balk at setting up such a thing, work out how much they'd
pay for the sewage charge to a water company.

Last time I checked it would add around another 100 quid to my bill,
and a lot more for families. But many people don't see beyond their
noses. Mind you, I'd rather pay Anglian Water a 100 quid, plus say
only 50 quid to the estate management, but we're miles from any mains
drainage, so it's not an option.

Or of course get a utility to take on the whole thing for a one-off cost.

We already went down that road once, using a professional management
company, and it was a shambles. People moving home couldn't get the
right documents out of them in timely fashion for their solicitors to
look at and so on. We were paying 20% VAT on electricity instead of 5%
which is what we're now paying, and lots more besides.

But it's just a few residents who ruin it for everybody else, sadly.

One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

MM

MM wrote:

Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

And therein lies the truth. Given any random bunch of neighbours, a non
trivial percentage will be tightwads.

The only way I would entertain such a "system" is that everyone pays a tiny
monthy fee into a fund in a legally watertight way that means non payers can
quickly be dealt with.

If there's ever a significant operational surplus, pay everyone back a
"bonus".

--
Tim Watts

On Oct 15, 2:05*pm, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:37:08 +0100, Clive George





wrote:
On 15/10/2011 09:29, MM wrote:
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.
...
A new plant for 40 houses would cost around 35k at today's prices.In
20 years from now it could be double or treble that, so building up
the contingency fund is vital.

Does rhis imply the householders don't pay a sewage charge to the water
companies?

Correct. My water bill (singleton household) is around 90 a year.

I'd not treat the money as a contingency fund for a new plant. There
should be an annual charge, payable by all (possibly based on ratable
value), which will cover all costs related to the sewage system.

Oh, we do pay 375 each per year mainly to cover the emptying three
times a year, plus electricity for the pumps and for the plant
maintenance engineers to do their checks every so often, plus
electricity for street lighting. What is left over goes into the
contigency fund intended to fund the cost of replacement when the
plant is due to be scrapped, not to fund emergency repairs that can
fall due at any time. "Contingency" is perhaps not the right word to
describe this fund, but everyone now knows it as such. This is the
arrangement set out in legal documents that all residents sign when
they agree to purchase a property so they haven't got a leg to stand
on when they refuse to pay, or pay late.

I'm told that the annual service charge will have to rise considerably
for 2012 because of this latest reluctance by some to pay, and I
expect that announcement will again be greeted by blank refusal by
several residents. At least one person had to be taken to court before
they paid the service charge, claiming they weren't liable because
they had sub-let the property.

This
includes maintenance costs and capital costs, ie building up reserves if
necessary. You'd need something to administer this - whether it's an
existing company or a new one. They'd need to be able to take out loans
to pay for significant capital expenditure if their reserves were
insufficient, or to insure for the same costs.

When people balk at setting up such a thing, work out how much they'd
pay for the sewage charge to a water company.

Last time I checked it would add around another 100 quid to my bill,
and a lot more for families. But many people don't see beyond their
noses. Mind you, I'd rather pay Anglian Water a 100 quid, plus say
only 50 quid to the estate management, but we're miles from any mains
drainage, so it's not an option.

Or of course get a utility to take on the whole thing for a one-off cost..

We already went down that road once, using a professional management
company, and it was a shambles. People moving home couldn't get the
right documents out of them in timely fashion for their solicitors to
look at and so on. We were paying 20% VAT on electricity instead of 5%
which is what we're now paying, and lots more besides.

But it's just a few residents who ruin it for everybody else, sadly.

One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

MM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have my own septic tank. Needs MTing once every five years or so.
There is no pump. You could always install one of these and withdraw
from the commune.

I am thinking about my own water system (Rainwater)

On 15/10/11 13:50, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:29 am, MM wrote:
I should think the EA has maximum powers, including sending in the
local water company to pump out the sewage at some considerable cost
to be borne by the residents. Can the EA declare the estate unfit for
human habitation or some such?


I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners. A
charge (mortgage) would be taken on the houses until the money was
repaid to the council. Repossession would not be impossible.

Ah, the big "R" (reposession) might do the trick, because some of the
residents must have a screw loose, thinking it'll be someone else's
problem to sort out.

I assume there is a management co involved and some agreement between
owners/leasholders and the mgmt co. Check the deeds and covenants on the
property, you may find that failure to do maintenance will will breach
such covenants which will have consequences for anyone with a mortgage.

I run the mgmt co for a small block, the most effective way to deal with
owners who don't pay their service charge is to inform their mortgage co.


--
djc

On 15/10/11 14:05, MM wrote:


One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

+1 I've managed a small block of leasehold flats for over 25 years. If I
succeed in moving before I'm carried out in a box, it won't be into
anything that depend on such co-operative management structure.

--
djc

Tim Watts wrote:
MM wrote:

Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and
needed a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small
sum of money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund
which is really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years'
time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

And therein lies the truth. Given any random bunch of neighbours, a
non trivial percentage will be tightwads.

Well the OP will not give you the steam off his ****. Does that make him a
tightwad?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
MM wrote:

Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and
needed a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small
sum of money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund
which is really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years'
time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

And therein lies the truth. Given any random bunch of neighbours, a
non trivial percentage will be tightwads.

Well the OP will not give you the steam off his ****. Does that make him a
tightwad?


No, it makes me grateful ;-



--
Tim Watts

MM wrote:
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.

I suggest that you start a campain to make everyone weigh their own ****s.
That way the bills can be divided in a more acurate way according to the
mass of the turds.

You of course will then have to pay nothing as you a are full of ****.

--
Adam

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:18:58 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/10/11 13:50, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:29 am, MM wrote:
I should think the EA has maximum powers, including sending in the
local water company to pump out the sewage at some considerable cost
to be borne by the residents. Can the EA declare the estate unfit for
human habitation or some such?


I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners. A
charge (mortgage) would be taken on the houses until the money was
repaid to the council. Repossession would not be impossible.

Ah, the big "R" (reposession) might do the trick, because some of the
residents must have a screw loose, thinking it'll be someone else's
problem to sort out.

I assume there is a management co involved and some agreement between
owners/leasholders and the mgmt co. Check the deeds and covenants on the
property, you may find that failure to do maintenance will will breach
such covenants which will have consequences for anyone with a mortgage.

Absolutely there is all that. But some residents just think the legal
documents somehow don't really apply to them. They must think, when
they signed, that it was just another piece of paper their solicitor
thrust at them. If they were too thick to read it, that's their
problem. Ultimately, the management company has to threaten them with
the county court (and actually go through with it in one case) before
they come to their senses.

It is no different from when a plumber or other tradesman does some
work and then the householder refuses to pay on spurious grounds, or
just because he doesn't feel like it. The tradesman then has a battle
on his hands that could tie him up for weeks, months even, yet it
happens every day of the week across the country because there is a
certain category of human that thinks it can just go its own merry way
and not be held to its legal responsibilities.

I run the mgmt co for a small block, the most effective way to deal with
owners who don't pay their service charge is to inform their mortgage co.

I believe that's what our management board did in one particularly
egregious case and the mortgage company stepped up to the plate and
the outstanding bill was paid.

Of course, not all the properties are on a mortgage, mine for
instance. I reckon at least half are owned outright.

MM

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:15:34 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 15, 2:05*pm, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:37:08 +0100, Clive George





wrote:
On 15/10/2011 09:29, MM wrote:
Where I live the sewage treatment plant recently broke down and needed
a new pump. Householders each had to pay a relatively small sum of
money in order to avoid tapping into the contingency fund which is
really there for replacing the entire plant in 20 years' time.

And then a number of residents refused to pay, for whatever reason I
don't know. Those who had paid got their money back and the bill for
the new pump plus labour etc was paid from the contingency fund
instead.
...
A new plant for 40 houses would cost around 35k at today's prices.In
20 years from now it could be double or treble that, so building up
the contingency fund is vital.

Does rhis imply the householders don't pay a sewage charge to the water
companies?

Correct. My water bill (singleton household) is around 90 a year.

I'd not treat the money as a contingency fund for a new plant. There
should be an annual charge, payable by all (possibly based on ratable
value), which will cover all costs related to the sewage system.

Oh, we do pay 375 each per year mainly to cover the emptying three
times a year, plus electricity for the pumps and for the plant
maintenance engineers to do their checks every so often, plus
electricity for street lighting. What is left over goes into the
contigency fund intended to fund the cost of replacement when the
plant is due to be scrapped, not to fund emergency repairs that can
fall due at any time. "Contingency" is perhaps not the right word to
describe this fund, but everyone now knows it as such. This is the
arrangement set out in legal documents that all residents sign when
they agree to purchase a property so they haven't got a leg to stand
on when they refuse to pay, or pay late.

I'm told that the annual service charge will have to rise considerably
for 2012 because of this latest reluctance by some to pay, and I
expect that announcement will again be greeted by blank refusal by
several residents. At least one person had to be taken to court before
they paid the service charge, claiming they weren't liable because
they had sub-let the property.

This
includes maintenance costs and capital costs, ie building up reserves if
necessary. You'd need something to administer this - whether it's an
existing company or a new one. They'd need to be able to take out loans
to pay for significant capital expenditure if their reserves were
insufficient, or to insure for the same costs.

When people balk at setting up such a thing, work out how much they'd
pay for the sewage charge to a water company.

Last time I checked it would add around another 100 quid to my bill,
and a lot more for families. But many people don't see beyond their
noses. Mind you, I'd rather pay Anglian Water a 100 quid, plus say
only 50 quid to the estate management, but we're miles from any mains
drainage, so it's not an option.

Or of course get a utility to take on the whole thing for a one-off cost.

We already went down that road once, using a professional management
company, and it was a shambles. People moving home couldn't get the
right documents out of them in timely fashion for their solicitors to
look at and so on. We were paying 20% VAT on electricity instead of 5%
which is what we're now paying, and lots more besides.

But it's just a few residents who ruin it for everybody else, sadly.

One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

MM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have my own septic tank. Needs MTing once every five years or so.
There is no pump. You could always install one of these and withdraw
from the commune.

I don't think the original planning permission allowed for that.
Several people have enquired, but got a big N O from the local
authorities.

MM

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:23:34 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/10/11 14:05, MM wrote:


One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

+1 I've managed a small block of leasehold flats for over 25 years. If I
succeed in moving before I'm carried out in a box, it won't be into
anything that depend on such co-operative management structure.

Yes, well, originally I bought the property as a stop gap because I'd
sold my house and this one seemed fine. I had only intended to be here
for a few years after which I'd downsize to a 2-bed bungalow. That was
the plan. I made extensive enquiries about the private sewage
treatment plant, including in this newsgroup, and didn't get any
serious warnings off, so I went ahead, thinking ah well, the plant is
subject to legal agreements between residents so what can go wrong?
That's before I (re-)discovered human nature!

And then the recession and world market crash happened and now the
house is worth less than I paid for it and hardly any houses are
selling anyway, not just on this estate, but in rural Lincolnshire
generally. Plus, bungalows, because they are sought after, are holding
their price whereas houses are not, so the differential is nothing
like as significant as it would have been if the housing market had
carried on like it had been doing for two decades.

So I'm pretty much resigned to staying put for at least another couple
of years. This is partly why I'm so ****ed off with the few residents
who keep ****ing INTO the tent, because if they'd only pay up when
asked, as per the legal agreements they signed, then life would be
sweet. The estate itself is excellent. Good quality builds and very
tranquil place to retire to. After seven years much greenery has been
established so that in spring and summer the estate looks really nice.

MM

On Oct 16, 6:13*am, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:23:34 +0100, djc wrote:
On 15/10/11 14:05, MM wrote:

One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

+1 I've managed a small block of leasehold flats for over 25 years. If I
succeed in moving before I'm carried out in a box, it won't be into
anything that depend on such co-operative management structure.

Yes, well, originally I bought the property as a stop gap because I'd
sold my house and this one seemed fine. I had only intended to be here
for a few years after which I'd downsize to a 2-bed bungalow. That was
the plan. I made extensive enquiries about the private sewage
treatment plant, including in this newsgroup, and didn't get any
serious warnings off, so I went ahead, thinking ah well, the plant is
subject to legal agreements between residents so what can go wrong?
That's before I (re-)discovered human nature!

And then the recession and world market crash happened and now the
house is worth less than I paid for it and hardly any houses are
selling anyway, not just on this estate, but in rural Lincolnshire
generally. Plus, bungalows, because they are sought after, are holding
their price whereas houses are not, so the differential is nothing
like as significant as it would have been if the housing market had
carried on like it had been doing for two decades.

So I'm pretty much resigned to staying put for at least another couple
of years. This is partly why I'm so ****ed off with the few residents
who keep ****ing INTO the tent, because if they'd only pay up when
asked, as per the legal agreements they signed, then life would be
sweet. The estate itself is excellent. Good quality builds and very
tranquil place to retire to. After seven years much greenery has been
established so that in spring and summer the estate looks really nice.

MM


I once lived in a house with a communal driveway/road. Never again.

[Default] On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Owain , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners.

Building Control can't. Building Control would regulate the
installation of or alterations to a drainage system, but have no
continuing powers over existing ones.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

In article ,
Hugo Nebula wrote:
[Default] On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Owain , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners.

Building Control can't. Building Control would regulate the
installation of or alterations to a drainage system, but have no
continuing powers over existing ones.

But, with the Planning Department is a unit called Planning Enforcement.
They'd be the ones to take action.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Oct 16, 2:25*pm, charles wrote:
In article ,
* *Hugo Nebula wrote:

[Default] On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Owain , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:
I don't know if EA can, but Building Control can certainly issue
enforcement notices to that effect, and to require remedial work to be
done and be charged back (at council contract rates) to the owners.
Building Control can't. Building Control would regulate the
installation of or alterations to a drainage system, but have no
continuing powers over existing ones.

But, with the Planning Department is a unit called Planning Enforcement.
They'd be the ones to take action


I don't see that it's planning issue. It's a legal/contractural
issue.
There could be health issues if the was sewage running down the road
or backing up into your house.

On 16/10/11 06:13, MM wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:23:34 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/10/11 14:05, MM wrote:


One last thing: If ANYone is contemplating moving to an estate which
depends on a private sewage treatment plant, my advice is to STAY
AWAY! Just drive on, even if the house is fine in all other respects.
It's not worth the continual hassle which has plagued this estate
since 2004.

+1 I've managed a small block of leasehold flats for over 25 years. If I
succeed in moving before I'm carried out in a box, it won't be into
anything that depend on such co-operative management structure.

Yes, well, originally I bought the property as a stop gap because I'd
sold my house and this one seemed fine. I had only intended to be here
for a few years after which I'd downsize to a 2-bed bungalow. That was
the plan. I made extensive enquiries about the private sewage
treatment plant, including in this newsgroup, and didn't get any
serious warnings off, so I went ahead, thinking ah well, the plant is
subject to legal agreements between residents so what can go wrong?
That's before I (re-)discovered human nature!

And then the recession and world market crash happened and now the
house is worth less than I paid for it and hardly any houses are
selling anyway, not just on this estate, but in rural Lincolnshire
generally. Plus, bungalows, because they are sought after, are holding
their price whereas houses are not, so the differential is nothing
like as significant as it would have been if the housing market had
carried on like it had been doing for two decades.

On the one hand if the manic desire of everybody to move house every few
years is tamed by the recession more people will be around long enough
to care about the long term consequences of not maintaining the property.
OTOH not moving means people wont be forced to pay up because they need
the paperwork in order before the sale can be completed.






So I'm pretty much resigned to staying put for at least another couple
of years. This is partly why I'm so ****ed off with the few residents
who keep ****ing INTO the tent, because if they'd only pay up when
asked, as per the legal agreements they signed, then life would be
sweet. The estate itself is excellent. Good quality builds and very
tranquil place to retire to. After seven years much greenery has been
established so that in spring and summer the estate looks really nice.

MM


--
djc