Calling all legal minds for help please – Bullied by Council and Water Co.

Guest Author

13:07 PM, 4th January 2018, About 7 years ago 13

Text Size

I have been embroiled in a 3 year campaign waged against me by the local authority being Enfield Council, along with Thames Water. This is a classic case of large institutions, abusing their position and adopting bullying tactics – To date it has cost me £8000 plus an award by the court of a further £7000 for Enfield Council costs this element yet to be settled.

This matter seems to be somewhat unique, as there is no other test case ruling similar, which is why I feel it should be highlighted.

To summarise, Enfield Council served me with NOTICE section 59 of the building Act back in December 2014. It relates to a cross connection of foul to surface water drainage from the building I own.

Without any indication there was an issue of any kind, I am now forced into a position to rectify & connect existing and historical pipework directly to infrastructure drainage belonging to Thames Water – This being after 27yrs of my personal ownership

My defence team which includes Chartered surveyor Anthony Mogridge, feel this to be incorrect on a number of levels and an abuse of the law.

Essentially we believe drainage below ground and on a private service Road, should make provision to carry waste from the original Soil stack fixed to the curtilage of the building I own,and that responsibility for alteration to it lies solely with Thames Water.

The irony is the developer at point of construction 1900c, would have paid a large fee to the local Council and Water Company for the final connection.

However, nearly 100 years on it is the same two authorities, that seek to hold me responsible for the Cross drainage issue?

There does seem to be a contradiction in law with the building Act being applied, and the Water Act 2011 ignored by both Enfield Council and Thames Water.

The ruling of the Water Act 2011 clearly states, lateral drainage MUST be adopted by Thames Water – Refer to item 11 below with illustration .

After Enfield Council adjourned the case several times, it was eventually heard by Judge Julie Newton at Holloway Magistrates Court 3rd October.

Not technically minded or in any way familiar with building regulation Judge Newton was cleverly steered by Barrister acting for Enfield Council to rule in their favour. The district Judge conceded it was a complicated matter, and on the day implied she may not be able to reach a verdict.

How I ask did she some 2 hours later manage to do this, it would have not been possible to have read through all the evidence painstakingly put together over many weeks. My own interpretation is she had Me a Landlord on one hand, with Enfileld Council and Thames Water on the other. They must be right? The judge would have found it extremely difficult go against these authorities, and as their Counsel stated that I am a landlord collecting rent on the properties. Implying I am unscrupulous and can afford it?

We now have no option, but to appeal to the High Court to over rule the judgement, an application being submitted Tuesday of last week

It is a great injustice both on a legal and moral footing causing much stress and anxiety in turn affecting day to day business operations.

Turhan

Share This Article

Comments

Turhan Mustafa

13:07 PM, 5th January 2018, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by at 05/01/2018 - 10:10
Absolutely Thanks ...

Report Comment Reply

Turhan Mustafa

14:00 PM, 5th January 2018, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mike at 05/01/2018 - 11:32
Hi Mike ,
Thanks for the comments and advice given....you have picked up on a few valid points. I have a full dossier on this drainage issue which would make a whole lot more sense if it were made available, however this is simply not practical
Apart from giving very careful consideration to undertaking the work myself, it became a little more complicated once I met with a main drainage contractor on site
Basics works were to be in the region of £5000 ..Okay I thought perhaps I will just go with it ?
Then I was told the Council would have to oversee the works.. in his experience further storm drainage works could well be required.. Plus a deposit held over for upto 10 years ?
A potential cost of £10,000, but it could be any amount if that were agreed the private service road must be blocked for up to one week

The road serves approximately 200 - 300 shop keepers & residents perhaps a lot more.

My Chartered Surveyor Anthony Mogridge now retired, worked in the City for many years worked on thousands of projects before running his own successful business had been the main driving force.behind me.
He can not accept this to be right in any way at all

Some boring facts :
Edited Version
1. Chartered Surveyor Anthony Mogridge over 40yrs experience design & construction supports Owner
2. Building purchased freehold 1990 apartments leased
3. Soil stack 4” cast with adjacent vent pipe deemed to be original
4. Evidence : Brick work recessed to protect / original Cast iron brackets & collars intact
5. Upper parts over shop right side of building originally single dwelling bought 1 yr after
6. The single dwelling over 3 floors original bathroom proximity positioned to flank wall
7. Planning approval for 3 units issued to previous owner Chartered Surveyor Tony Good
8. Thames Water Expert States Cast iron 4” stack may have been rain water
9. Cast iron 4” stack rises above roof line This being unable to accommodate rainwater
10. Cast iron 4” stack too large for small roof
11. Flank wall roof line no box gutter nor guttering - Also not possible with building design
12. Rainwater provision catered front & rear of building 4” soil stack to flank wall must be foul
13. Surface Manhole in service road outside curtilage of the building
14. Misconnection ONLY became evident 2011 this being 25yrs after property acquisition?
15. Thames water excavation T Junction of service Road with last 5yr – what did it involve
16. Strong Suspicion misconnection occurred around the same time as works to T Junction
17. WERM sub contractor Simon King aware of works approx. 4 – 5 years prior
18. Despite requests for Thames Water drainage works plans – Not forthcoming
19. Thames Water manhole within proximity all surrounding properties included but not 343a GL
20. 1900c common practise to have combined sewers
21. Logical argument points to the fact it may have been accepted drainage policy or oversight
22. LA and appointed contractor’s possible construction error 1900c or subsequently
23. Service Road privately owned no sanction Trespass?
24. Service Road used by hundreds of people Shops & private residents
25. Lateral drains & Private sewers adopted by Thames Water - Refer to Water ACT 2011

You can imagine what intrusion on my work this has been...
By the way while I ponder on this I have been at my desk since 7.30am, one 3 year old boiler down Tenants want it repaired yesterday.. Waiting on Vailant engineer .. customer service not helpful
Bathroom leak at another
WC not working on a 3rd...........
Well I did sign up for it?

Thanks for everyone's comments will get around to answering what I can in due course

Report Comment Reply

terry sullivan

14:48 PM, 5th January 2018, About 7 years ago

I THOUGHT OLD DRAINS WERE THAMES WATERS RESPONSIBOLITY? FRIEND HAD SEVERE SUBSIDENCE FROM LEAKING FOUL WASTE--AS THE PROPERTY WAS PRE-30S tw HAD TO PAY FOR REPAIRS

Report Comment Reply

Previous 1 2

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

Continue with Facebook

Continue with Twitter

Username/Email Address

Password

Remember Me

Forgotten your password?

Don't have an account? Sign Up

“Account”	means an account required to access and/or use certain areas and features of Our Site;
“Cookie”	means a small text file placed on your computer or device by Our Site when you visit certain parts of Our Site and/or when you use certain features of Our Site. Details of the Cookies used by Our Site are set out in section 13, below;
“Cookie Law”	means the relevant parts of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003;
“personal data”	means any and all data that relates to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified from that data. In this case, it means personal data that you give to Us via Our Site. This definition shall, where applicable, incorporate the definitions provided in the EU Regulation 2016/679 – the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”); and
“We/Us/Our”	Means Property118 Ltd , a limited company registered in England under company number 10295964, whose registered address is 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.

Name of Cookie	Purpose	Strictly Necessary
JSESSIONID	Used only to collect performance data, with any identifiable data obfuscated	No
__cfduid	This cookie is strictly necessary for Cloudflare's security features and cannot be turned off.	Yes

Name of Cookie	First / Third Party	Provider	Purpose
__utma, __utmb, __utmc, __utmt, __utmz	First	Google	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website
_fbp	First	Facebook	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website