# Any legal eagles on here?



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

About twenty years ago a neighbour from up the road drilled an artesian well in their back garden for the purposes of watering their garden. It leaked from day one. They paid us a visit and we looked at the water flowing into our ditch and pond together. They apologised and we said it was not much water and that we were sure it would be all right flowing down out ditch and into our natural pond.

Over the years since then the flow from this leaking bore hole has gradually increased until it is now a torrent rushing along our ditch, through our pond and out into the roadside ditch outside until it runs in to the river further down the road.

Any official that sees the amount of water gushing through is astounded. No one, however, wants to do anything about it!

We will need to sell our property in order to finish building our bungalow behind it. An estate agent has told us that people will not want the "stream" and pond as it amounts to an "unknown" in terms of the future and that puts people off when viewing properties. This, of course, means that the house could be worthless giving us a real headache as we need to sell to realise some money to finish the bungalow.

We have been told that the water flow could, in law, be considered a statutory nuisance. 

Up until now we have not bothered to tell the neighbours how concerned we are about the issue. Recently, however, the opportunity arose and I told Judith about our concerns re selling our house. She was very dismissive of the problem saying that she was not prepared to pay to cap the well. More recently still both Chris and I broached to subject with her and the whole thing turned into a shouting match. She will not accept that she has any responsibility to pay to have the well capped so that the water stops rushing down to our property. All she kept saying was that it was all our fault because we had not told her about the increase in flow before now. She has had a water feature made out of the torrent as it rises out of the ground in her garden! She even accused us of gaining "enjoyment" from the water all these years.

Our street is subject to flooding and several neighbours came close to having their houses flooded. Investigations of their rear ditches found all the water coming from her well and they had dealings with her over how to resolve the matter. She was extremely obstructive but did cough up a few hundred pounds towards a digger and driver to divert the water away from their gardens. Needless to say she was a nightmare to deal with.

I do not want to go to law because it all comes into the public domain and will have a different effect on the value of our property because it is a "neighbour dispute".

Any ideas???


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Not a legal eagle in any way, but very sad that you have found yourself in this position.

My unlegal thoughts would be twofold ;

1. The flow of water IS a nuisance and if she drilled the well, it is her responsibility to cap it and control it,

2. If she has already paid out "a few hundred pounds" for a digger, that is an admission of responsibility and she cannot step back from that admission,

As regards what to do now, I could only suggest the solicitor's letter as a start, yes it will count as a neighbour dispute, but it already does, as both you and others have expressed verbal concerns about the flow of water.

*BUT I STRESS I HAVE NO LEGAL TRAINING AT ALL,* I am just basing these thoughts on what I have read, or heard before.

Good luck, such things are never easy to sort.....


----------



## bilbaoman (Jun 17, 2016)

If the flow is more than 4000 gallons a day from a bore hole they need an abstraction licence so if its greater have a word with the E.A. they may then decide the cost is not worth it and cap the bore hole


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

If all else fails we could make an offer for the house. How about starting at 30/- opening gambit Pat? You did say it was worthless.

Ray.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

bilbaoman said:


> If the flow is more than 4000 gallons a day from a bore hole they need an abstraction licence so if its greater have a word with the E.A. they may then decide the cost is not worth it and cap the bore hole


Anglian Water were on site for a different reason and the guy saw the water coming out of the ditch. He said "blimey that must be at least 2 litres per second"! He then walked away. 
The developers who built the houses between us and the bore hole tried their best to get her to cap it and called in Environment Agency. They inspected it but did not, to my knowledge, measure the flow. They decided that it could be piped away from the development (and into our property) and so the developer just piped it under the gardens of the new properties. Rumour has it that EA actually quite like leaking bore holes because they flow down to the rivers and keep them clean! That might be why they walked away.

Our farmer neighbour pays £700 per year to draw water from a bore hole.

The problem bore hole is not registered. During our "discussion" I mentioned this and the owner said it was not needed. We informed her that it might not have been needed when the it was first drilled but it almost certainly does now.

So, our first option might be to inform her that she needs a licence. Not sure if they come and measure the flow or whether they just issue a licence because she is offering to pay? I would hope that they would come out and measure and decide to charge her per litre.

The person in question has history. We sold her some land, along with her neighbours, and she consulted with them to find out if her piece was the same price as theirs. Then when it came time to fence her piece off from those either side of her she refused to pay for either fence and insisted that both fences be marked on deeds as "not her responsibility". She is an intelligent woman - both she and her husband are doctors long since retired.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Any mathematicians? 

The AW guys looked at the flow and said "Blimey - that must be 2 litres per second"! 

Their charges are £27.50 per 1000 cubic litres per annum.


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

365 x 24 x 3 600 = 31 536 000 seconds

2 litres per second gives 63 072 000 litres

As there is no such thing as a cubic litre, perhaps you mean a cubic metre?
1000 litre = 1 cu m.

Also, the per annum is irrelevent as it would not matter how long you take to consume the water: it is the volume which is important.

so 63 072 x £27.50 = £1 734 480 per annum.

IF your figures are correct, she is facing one hell of a bill! :nerd:

Gordon


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

We came up with telephone numbers too! I must stress that the flow has not been measured. It was just an Anglian Water engineer giving his guestimate. You can, apparently measure it by timing how long it takes to fill a container and then doing the maths.


----------



## EJB (Aug 25, 2007)

63,000 cubic meters per year!
Presumably the cost is per cubic* meter* (not cubic Liter)

PS. I'll try and be quicker next time!


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

patp said:


> We came up with telephone numbers too! I must stress that the flow has not been measured. It was just an Anglian Water engineer giving his guestimate. You can, apparently measure it by timing how long it takes to fill a container and then doing the maths.


But even attempting to measure means that you must ensure that you capture ALL of the outflow as only catching a part of it would give a very false figure. It would be no use holding a bucket in the stream and seeing how long it takes to fill it eg a 10l bucket fills in 10 seconds.....

But if you are only catching 10% of the outflow, then the true figure would be 1 second for 10 litres, if only 1% of the outflow........ and do on.

Anglian Water would seem a very sensible starting point and simply drop a note through the door warning them that you are invoking that procedure to get the flow managed/stopped.

If the flow is greater now than when it started, it could mean the hole has eroded internally from say 6" diameter to 9" or even larger, that may not be visible through the hole.

You started by saying it was an "artesian well" - is it in a dip/valley ? From my knowledge of artesian wells, this was how the Trafalgar Squate fountains were first originally operated as London has a clay basin underneath it and the pressure forced the water up. Nowadays, the artesian flow has virtually stopped as so much water is abstracted for household use that Trafalgar Square is now a closed, pumped system. So your flow will not reduce if it IS artesian, until the basin underneath has been drained...

Has the water been tested to ensure that it is not from a fractured main pipe ? That would be VERY expensive and I suspect AW would be required to sort it at tgeir expense......


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Penquin said:


> But even attempting to measure means that you must ensure that you capture ALL of the outflow as only catching a part of it would give a very false figure. It would be no use holding a bucket in the stream and seeing how long it takes to fill it eg a 10l bucket fills in 10 seconds.....
> 
> But if you are only catching 10% of the outflow, then the true figure would be 1 second for 10 litres, if only 1% of the outflow........ and do on.
> 
> ...


It is definitely an artesian well. It is powered, as you say, by pressure. We have one too. Ours was drilled in 1948. 
Just pulled up the old certificate, on line, of our bore hole and the bore was 120 ft in all. 80 ft to Clay and 40 ft to chalk. It was a 4 inch bore. The rest level of water was 30 feet in the air before they fitted the tap to control it. It never ever stops or even slows down. The neighbours will, I assume, be virtually identical. We were told that the aquifer (?sp) reaches as far as Scandinavia. The water contains iron oxide and so is not considered pure to drink.


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

H1-GBV said:


> so 63 072 x £27.50 = £1 734 480 per annum.
> 
> IF your figures are correct, she is facing one hell of a bill! :nerd:
> 
> Gordon


I went out for a late afternoon walk in our fresh Norfolk air and it dawned on me that, of course, it should be £27.50 per 1 000cu m.
[After all, we buy 100litres for €1 when abroad so £10 per cu m.]

That knocks the price down to ONLY £1 734 per annum :wink2:

Gordon


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I am a lawyer but no expert on property law and stautory control of bore holes.


However, there was an old case (Rylands v. Fletcher) which established in Common Law that if anyone accumulated anything on their land which then escaped and caused damage that they as landholders were liable. The principle has been modified but the basic premise still holds, I believe.


You need a Solicitor well-versed in property law. It sounds like time for letters and/or writs not just talking.


But as another thought, cannot the flow be harnessed for the community. If it is tapped outside her property I would assume she could not charge, so if you tapped it maybe you could sell it, although I think only water companies can do that. Maybe sell it to AW.



Geoff


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Sounds like a job for Red Adair:laugh:. Opps I'll get my coat! Best of luck though


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I like cubic litres, they are like knots per hour.


----------



## bilbaoman (Jun 17, 2016)

You say it as been piped under nearby properties where does that pipe end and what would happen if it became accidently blocked


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

patp said:


> It is definitely an artesian well. It is powered, as you say, by pressure. We have one too. Ours was drilled in 1948.
> Just pulled up the old certificate, on line, of our bore hole and the bore was 120 ft in all. 80 ft to Clay and 40 ft to chalk. It was a 4 inch bore. The rest level of water was 30 feet in the air before they fitted the tap to control it. It never ever stops or even slows down. The neighbours will, I assume, be virtually identical. We were told that the aquifer (?sp) reaches as far as Scandinavia. The water contains iron oxide and so is not considered pure to drink.


Thanks, that's some good detailed info., there is no way that aquifer (correct spelling - it means water bearing rock) is going to be drained in a hurry...... say a few thousand years...

If it contains iron oxide (ferric oxide), do you have a rust coloured deposit at the edges and perhaps the bottom of the run off stream ? That could be considered as her water contaminating your land I suspect..... Maybe she'd like the bill for cleaning any deposits away ? That would add considerably to a claim against her for damage or "pollution" by her Eiffel discharge....

But, as I stress, I have no legal knowledge, just a keen interest in odd facts which my "brain" retains......

Sorry...


----------



## bilbaoman (Jun 17, 2016)

Penquin said:


> Thanks, that's some good detailed info., there is no way that aquifer (correct spelling - it means water bearing rock) is going to be drained in a hurry...... say a few thousand years...
> 
> If it contains iron oxide (ferric oxide), do you have a rust coloured deposit at the edges and perhaps the bottom of the run off stream ? That could be considered as her water contaminating your land I suspect..... Maybe she'd like the bill for cleaning any deposits away ? That would add considerably to a claim against her for damage or "pollution" by her Eiffel discharge....
> 
> ...


But would the Ferric oxide be consided an asset because of its use in steel industry and its use as a cutting compound so the neighbour may claim part of any bene:frown2::frown2::frown2:fit


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

No way, it must be one of the cheapest minerals around and the amount needed in order to make steel is massive, so it is considered a pollutant I suspect. Only the Environment Agency can comment on that (I have a daughter in law who works for them but in climate change so no point asking her !).

Besides, collecting and purifying would cost a fortune even for use as a cutting agent if that is a big use....


----------



## bilbaoman (Jun 17, 2016)

Penquin said:


> No way, it must be one of the cheapest minerals around and the amount needed in order to make steel is massive, so it is considered a pollutant I suspect. Only the Environment Agency can comment on that (I have a daughter in law who works for them but in climate change so no point asking her !).
> 
> Besides, collecting and purifying would cost a fortune even for use as a cutting agent if that is a big use....


So that means Jim Ratcliffe will not be making an offer for Pats property:crying::crying:


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

bilbaoman said:


> So that means Jim Ratcliffe will not be making an offer for Pats property:crying::crying:


What, have I got a rival. Have to up my bid then.

Ray.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Thanks for clarifying the maths Gordon  She was unwilling to pay the local farmer a couple of hundred quid to sort out some of the flooding to gardens she helped to create so that will scare her.

Geoff I had heard of the that law. It comes under "Statutory Nuisance" I believe. During our heated argument I did mention it. She then accused us of "enjoying the benefit of her water"! 
We are reluctant to go to law because of the expense and the negative impact on our property value. We will if we have to though.

The ferrous oxide does leave a brown deposit and it is unsightly. The water is also so cold that nothing lives in the pond now 

Our farmer neighbour, at the height of his dispute with her, did ask if he could come and dump twenty tons of clay soil at the pipe end so that it all backed up into her property  When some properties were built between us and the lady in question the developers failed to persuade her to cap the well and so they decided to pipe the flow under ground and that now results in it entering our property and flowing into our pond before flowing out and off down the roadside ditches. If one of those ditches were to become blocked disaster would ensue I am sure.

Any improvement on 30/- ?

Talking of which we have had an agent round to value our house as we do have to sell to finish building the bungalow. He advised us not to leave the pond and "stream" but take it with the bungalow. People it seems do not like the "unknown" that a fast flowing stream would bring.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

How about 21 Guinea's.? 

Ray.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Her instransigence would suggest to me that you will have to raise a dispute, perhaps involving Anglian Water AND the Environment Agency as regards the nuisance and pollution that outflow is causing.

If it is not sorted and you do sell, would not the buyers so,icitor have serious grounds to take action against you for failing to reveal important details ?

Heads you lose, tails she wins on that scenario.

If you do have to take action to compel ger to cap it, as I said in conjunction with the two bodies, then any costs should be covered by the result. Do you have legal cover as part of your house insurance? Your insurance company might a,so have an interest since the flow of water could potentially undermine your property and erode it's support if she does not control it's outflow.


----------



## EJB (Aug 25, 2007)

Can I just qualify one point:-
2 Ltrs per second = 63.000.000 *Ltrs* per year....that equals 63.000 cubic *meters* per year.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Any buyers would be in no doubt about what they are buying. You can even hear the water from the bedroom on a nice calm day. The developers next door thought, at one stage, they would leave the ditch open because some people might be attracted by a house with its own, every flowing, stream. I must admit if we were not moving I would not be bothering to get it sorted.

Stop press - Farmer Mark, next door, has told me that the lady in question has asked for the number of his bore hole drilling engineer friend! She told Mark that she has one coming today  I assume she is getting quotes and, of course, it could all grind to a halt if it is expensive. Her husband is fairly sensible but she usually takes over any negotiations.

My first thoughts are that I will still write them a letter setting out our complaints. I will point out that the well, while it did not need a licence when it was first drilled, now needs a licence and we will be pursuing that. Then I will set out the facts around the nuisance and inform them of the law around statutory nuisance. We have the volume of water, the fact that the water washes debris and dirt onto our property and it leaves the iron oxide deposits. I will mention the loss of habitat for all the creatures that used to use the pond and our loss of enjoyment when watching them.

Any other ideas?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

You didn't used to have Great Crested Newts in the pond did you ?

I'm sure that you mentioned that you thought you had seen a couple a few years ago...... 🤔

Destruction of their habitat is a criminal offence AFAIK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981).

It is a Priority Species under the UK post-2010 Framework, protected by European Law (does that still apply ?), a 1991 Amendment makes it an offence to knowingly cause * or PERMIT* the destruction of a habitat under Sections 5 and 11 which covers the GCN.

Don't worry, they won't be there in the winter so impossible to prove now..... 😜


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Funnily enough we had Norfolk Wildlife survey our pond when AW were wanting to lay main sewers down the street. We warned them that the water was far too cold to support Great Crested Newts but, of course, they insisted on coming. Not once, not twice but several times! One time it was after 10pm and we had gone to bed only to be woken my them arriving in our driveway! Chris had words with them, the next day, to tell them not to bother any more.

I am sad that the moorhens no longer live here. They struggled on for quite a few years raising at least two broods of tiny little dots each year. Now that we have a spaniel and the water is so cold they have called it a day.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

ah so there IS a history......

Every little helps....


----------



## kabundi (Feb 14, 2011)

If I understand correctly the outflow from the well is piped through intervening properties up to your boundary where it then flows on the surface through your property until it reaches a field drain on the other side of your property.

Have you considered piping the flow through your property and discharging it into the drain?


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

kabundi said:


> If I understand correctly the outflow from the well is piped through intervening properties up to your boundary where it then flows on the surface through your property until it reaches a field drain on the other side of your property.
> 
> Have you considered piping the flow through your property and discharging it into the drain?


We have considered this but before it leaves our property it enters a natural pond. It would be possible to fill the pond in and pipe the whole thing out to the road. It just seems like a lot of work and expense for something that is not of our doing. The other consideration is that the natural pond is beautiful and a wildlife habitat when not contaminated by the cold underground water.


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

patp said:


> It would be possible to fill the pond in and pipe the whole thing out to the road.


Would this even be legal? It sounds a recipe for disaster - possibly water on the road freezing, causing accidents. And since you did the piping, you'd be responsible, I'm thinking....


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

Our pond began to leak on a neighbours property

They informed us, we emptied 4500 gallons, found the leak and fixed it

A smaller problem but big to us at the time, fish to sort 

It was our problem and ours to fix

Surely it’s your it’s your neighbours problem and theirs to fix

Sandra


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Jean, it would, if we did it, be piped into a roadside ditch. It is where it ends up now after it has passed through our property. This brings its own problems in that the roadside ditches become overwhelmed at times because the well water fills the ditch and prevents rainfall flowing off the road so that it enters peoples gardens and threatens to flood their houses. We are all on tenterhooks because we are, today, on an amber warning from the Met Office for flooding 

Sandra you are a kind and caring neighbour. We would do the same thing in your position. The lady in question, a doctor no less, is not so accommodating. She has fallen out with all of her direct neighbours by being completely selfish and intransigent. When we sold her some land a while back it needed fencing off from her neighbours' plots either side of her. She completely refused to do it and insisted that when they put a fence up she was not going to be responsible for any maintenance of said fence.


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

She sounds a bit weird and eccentric Pat

Sandra


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

patp said:


> Jean, it would, if we did it, be piped into a roadside ditch. It is where it ends up now after it has passed through our property.* This brings its own problems in that the roadside ditches become overwhelmed at times because the well water fills the ditch and prevents rainfall flowing off the road so that it enters peoples gardens and threatens to flood their houses.* We are all on tenterhooks because we are, today, on an amber warning from the Met Office for flooding


That's my point Pat. At the moment any problem is being caused by her water flowing through your pond. If you got involved in piping that water (even if along the original course) you might be held responsible for what happens at the end of that piping?

I've no legal training at all but I just feel you'd be opening yourself up to being part of the problem.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Good point Jean. 

I was very surprised that the developers did not take her on. They owned the land, by then, that the water was running through to get to our property. They just enclosed it in a pipe and laid the gardens over it. There have been rumblings, from the new residents of these houses that they bought for over three quarters of a million pounds, about what might be below ground. One has built a shed and asked us, as long term residents, if we knew. Luckily the shed misses the site of the underground pipe. It does just run underneath gardens but they might hit if they decide to dig a pond or, god forbid, a swimming pool. I know that the developers talked one new house owner out of building a swimming pool.

Sandra, she appears to have the sort of personality that deflects blame on to everyone else. During our discussion about the problem she kept repeating that it was all our fault because we had not told her before. We would reply that we tried to be good neighbours and in true Norfolk fashion were content to live and let live. Now we were worried and so we were telling her of our worries. Her reply was that she was not at fault because we had not told her before!


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Time to seek professional legal advice.


.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Time to seek professional legal advice.
> 
> .


Agree, but if Anglian Water or the Environment Agency are prepared to take the lead to enforce correct capping, the cost will be met by the public purse, as IMO, it should be.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Unfortunately, Dave, neither want to know. We have had lots of dealings with utility companies and in particular Anglian Water and they just do not want to know about their customers. I have reported my lack of progress with my dispute with them to both Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water. I just got a standard response that there was nothing they can do. So frustrating.

Environment Agency were called out to do a site visit by the developers next door and they got no joy either. I can now understand why so many people use the media to resolve their issues. It seems we are turning into America where we have to go to law for every little dispute.

I have just delivered a letter to the people concerned as I want the husband involved. The lady fires off emails to neighbours about their complaints so I am trying to avoid giving her any opportunity to do that to us. 
In it I have pointed out all the problems their water is causing us from leaving mud and debris, iron oxide deposits, loss of habitat for wildlife, risk of flooding and the effect on the value of our house.

If nothing transpires from that approach I will take legal advice. As someone said above our house insurance might help but I am rather reluctant for them to suspect that we might be subject to flooding.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Well (sorry! ) I drafted a letter outlining, as reasonably as I could, all the facts around the problem. I mentioned that it was a statutory nuisance to allow material to leave your property and enter someone else's. I also told them that they, at the rate the water was now flowing, probably owed Anglian Water somewhere in the region of £1700 pa for the last umpteen years. I reminded them of our worry about the value of our house being affected and the risk of flooding. Alongside these, main, facts I pointed out the other nuisance factors of the iron oxide deposits, the loss of natural pond wildlife.

I managed all that on one and a bit A4 sheets. The reply I got covered two and bit A4 sheets. Suffice to say that she, again, tried to lay most of the blame at our door. Her main reasons were that we had been sitting quietly saying nothing and so it was, once again, all our fault. The last paragraph, however, came up trumps with the information that they were gathering quotes to cap the bore hole!! Her acquiescence is not, I am sure, for our benefit but much more to do with the extraction fees she has been racking up all the years it has been gushing water. 

Unbelievably she wants engineers to visit our property to make sure that our borehole is not leaking!!! She did not even know we had one until I pointed out that her borehole is not registered with the EA and so she checked and could only, of course, find ours as being registered.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Just be aware if she instructs an engineer to check your property and you’re happy with that, no charges for his services hit you.

She appears to be in a very awkward spot of her own doing, that can raise a wry smile.

Terry


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Thanks, I might ask for a disclaimer if it ever happens. I think she is bluffing. She seems to have a personality trait where she blames everyone else for everything. Who else would think that the water that she can see gushing from her property, and which she has turned into a water feature, is not the source of the water entering ours. She watched as the developers piped it to go underground across their land to emerge into our ditch before flowing through the pond. She even said that they should have sent it down another ditch so that it flowed along our end ditch further away from our house! At no point did she ever say that the developers and us should not have to deal with it at all!


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Your borehole is not under complaint discussion, hers is, end of IMO.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Patp


Would you be able to persuade the first property in the flow out of her property to block the flow sufficiently on their side of the fenceline that it floods the miscreant''s property, but only her property? 

Only in self-defence of course.>

Geoff (Evil S*d)


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Believe me it has been discussed! Our farmer neighbour, who has had dealings with said neighbour himself, offered to dump 20 tons of clay at the pipe opening on to our land. It would then back right up to her land. The flow is so fast, though, that it would quickly swamp her garden and then flow into her neighbours'. In fact the farmer's involvement with her was when a small blockage occurred and the neighbours quickly had water lapping at their houses and their gardens under water. Ditches were quickly cleared by him and the cost shared around all these neighbours including her. She had the cheek to complain about his bill for digging out and piping the said ditches so that her water would flow away from her immediate neighbours.
It is Karma because not long afterwards she gets hit with a much higher bill to cap the borehole!


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Just an update on this saga, sorry if you are bored 

A water engineer came and it seems there is something else is going on. I was out with the dog and said neighbour was making her way towards our house with the engineer. She turned off into the small cul de sac and called back to me that they would be about twenty minutes. So, she was taking the water engineer to another property between her and us!

When they duly arrived he peered the flow of water coming out of the pipe that takes the water from her garden, through several new properties, to ours and said to her "there is less coming out here than going in at your end". This seems to imply that the pipe is leaking into someone else's property!

The engineer was ridiculous. He stated that they were not responsible if anyone flooded as it is the riparian owners of ditches and water courses that must maintain them so that no one floods. Yes, I can understand that with natural rainfall but not with a deliberately drilled artesian well!

Several ridiculous emails later we get one to state that a letter is coming from their solicitor! It duly arrived and laid out all the denials of responsibility again but the last paragraph of the four page letter stated that they were prepared to pay for the outflow to be piped underground through our property. 
There is no way that she would ever pay for that unless her solicitor had warned her that she is liable in some way.
It is not the best solution but we think we may accept it. The artesian well water still gushes out of her property, through underground pipes (huge ones), to the other side of ours and away down the roadside ditches to the river.

Not looking forward to negotiating with them over the solution. She has previous form for kicking up a stink when paying for remedial work caused by the leaking well. Just wondering if we ought to seek legal advice? If we do it could end up as a negative against our property if we come to sell it. You are required to declare neighbour disputes when selling.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yes, could be a big issue later Pat.

Ray.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I would go for legal advice just to be sure that you are not being bamboozled. 

In addition I would insist on some form of contract with your neighbour, and “For the avoidance of doubt” with a copy of this engineers report embedded within it to cover exactly who is responsible for paying the full cost of the works to install the pipes, exactly how your property will be reinstated after the works (back to its original state, take photographs before any works start) AND who is responsible for its maintenance and repair should it ever fail. 

The letter you have had from her solicitor is concerned with her rights etc, you need to ensure yours are protected.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

But since that letter exists it already IS a neighbourhood problem,so you now need to ensure that your rights are similarly protected.

Surely, it would be cheaper in the long run for her to actually fit a valve on the outfall, to contain the pressure and yet allow her to take water off if she wants and is permitted. I know it might require more work but would give better control - think back to various oil disasters where caps have to be fitted to control the outflow.

That might be a direction your solicitor might need to follow - longer to agree and possibly more expensive initially, but much more effective over a longer period (which probably won’t bother her).


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Yes might need to investigate solicitors  We do have the option of changing the address of the complaint to our new address next door. We have decided to "take" the pond with us to avoid complications when selling the old property. We are unlikely to sell in the next ten years or so. I wonder if the complaint would be expired by then?

Dave, the developers tried their hardest to get it capped. We have tried, too, and quoted the law of nuisance but she is a very annoying person in that she directs all complaints back at you with silly comments like "we did not know". You point out that she knows now and she just repeats that she did not know. Very intelligent (both are doctors) but she has a history of being a nightmare to deal with. They investigated getting it capped but no one will guarantee that it will not leak. This is what happened twenty odd years ago when it was first drilled. It leaked a tiny bit which was no bother to anyone really. Since then the leak has grown into a fully blown torrent (2litres per second for anyone technical). I imagine there was small print somewhere that told them the risk of leakage. The original company that drilled it is not interested in rectifying it so I imagine that is the case. No, I think we are stuck with it and need to pipe it underground in the grounds of the new bungalow.


----------

