When Were Build Over Agreement Introduced
This becomes more and more of a problem when they act for a commercial lender. How can you satisfy a commercial lender in which a search for water and drainage shows that a property has been built over a public canal and that there is no evidence of the agreement, that there is no risk regarding a legal undertaker who enters the land, digs up the soil to access public sewers and does not cause any damage? If no construction agreement has been reached, the vendor should have a sewer line review and the records forward to the water company. If the water company is satisfied that the sewers are in good condition, they will give a consolation letter confirming that the sewers are in satisfactory condition. The comfort letter generally satisfies the buyer and its mortgage lender that the Water Company will not take any action to demolish the insulting structure over the public sewers. Sometimes problems arise when owners try to sell their property, which is built in part or entirely through a public channel. Conservatories and extensions are the usual criminals. If a Build Over Agreement was not obtained when the work was done, then the water company has the legal right to enter the land to reach the canal, even if that means demolishing the building above the canal. However, if possible, the water company will avoid the damage and look for other ways to enter the sewers, but the risk remains. If a construction agreement has been reached, the water company has no right to remove or demolish the structure above the sewers. Yes, the building permit for the extension dates back 1992.So when it was built when the new requirements were not yet in effect.
What does this mean, can I say that it has already been defined as a public channel and therefore has been taken into account in the planning rules when they built the extension? It is almost impossible to obtain information from the water service to confirm whether the building permit should have been issued or whether the sewers were previously private and were transferred following the transfer of the private canals regulation in 2011. This makes it difficult to satisfy a commercial lender that was not necessary to reach an agreement. A commercial lender must ensure that, in a situation where a sewer contractor needs access to a sewerage system located under land, the work does not affect the value of the property and the security of the bank, and there must be some certainty as to the liability of a legal minor to repair the damage in the absence of a formal construction agreement. No authorization is required in cases where private sewers were built prior to the transfer of ownership of a sewerage company. Under these conditions, safety is ensured for an owner whose property was built before the transfer of sewers from a private channel to a public channel, in conjunction with the legal undertaker`s obligations to repair the damage suffered. Had it not been adopted at the time of enlargement, there should not have been a build over agreement. Find your energy – cheapest monitors to let you know when you need to change again. We bought a house with sewers and no construction contract. After a lot of back and forth, it seems they didn`t need a construction agreement when the extension was built. I intend to renew it and I have to ask for a new agreement on construction. But this should be granted, because it is a small sewer. That is what the war society told me.
I told our lawyer not to deal with damages, because it`s useless for us! So what happens in these cases? Fortunately for homeowners, Severn Trent Water extends the same general sewer policy they make to those that were public at the time of development.