Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News1 min ago
Neighbour Dispute Ransom
10 Answers
I live in a Victorian terrace next to a supermarket and want to relocate a manhole (24 hour access) that is in my garden, to the access way that runs beside my property. I need to move it for my extension at the back of the house. The supermarket own the land but I have access rights. The manhole is for a sewer that serves the four houses adjoining mine and runs under the supermarket land because the supermarket knocked the houses adjacent to mine in the 1960s. Also the area where I want to put it is 'sterile' as it is delineated by some hefty mental stanchions.
They are holding me to ransom for £10,000(Stokes payment) I have argued that stokes vs Cambridge is not relevant here as I there is no question about access and even if it were the amount they are asking does not represent the added value. I have had some 'blind' valuations done by local agents for completion the rear extension with and without building around the area. Basically I need their permission and they will not give it.
I have tried pretty much everything to get around the problem. To pre empt the questions. Yes this is the only place it can be moved to. No Anglian water will not help me. I am not knowledgeable enough of public utility law. I think they could have moved it but kept quiet about the change in the law regarding sewers in Oct 2011. Too late. I cannot build over it. Without going into too much detail their are too many ramifications of not moving it to list here. My insurance company are useless. (see below) I have spent many an unhappy hour trawling the internet for a case where utilities are held to ransom.
The question I have is. Is there anything I can do without it costing 000s? Is there an mediation service that could help? How do I assert that the other party is being totally unreasonable? What are my rights when it comes to utilities/enjoyment of property type issues?
The reason I embarked on an extension was that the current rear horrid, 1970s, cold, one containing the bathroom/washing machine etc has severe subsidence caused by the excess run off from the supermarket's warehouse and car park. They were both built without planning permission so rain water from both flows straight into my garden. I have a video if you are interested.
I employed two engineers who came to the same conclusion with regard the causes.
I do not want to cloud the issue here but thought it worth mentioning as I heard through a go between during previous negotiations that suing them for the damage would then provide me with the funds that I could pay them back for the stokes payment. I think this illustrates their attitude. Small change for them.
The whole thing is morally abhorrent. Can anyone suggest anything? Thanks for reading.
They are holding me to ransom for £10,000(Stokes payment) I have argued that stokes vs Cambridge is not relevant here as I there is no question about access and even if it were the amount they are asking does not represent the added value. I have had some 'blind' valuations done by local agents for completion the rear extension with and without building around the area. Basically I need their permission and they will not give it.
I have tried pretty much everything to get around the problem. To pre empt the questions. Yes this is the only place it can be moved to. No Anglian water will not help me. I am not knowledgeable enough of public utility law. I think they could have moved it but kept quiet about the change in the law regarding sewers in Oct 2011. Too late. I cannot build over it. Without going into too much detail their are too many ramifications of not moving it to list here. My insurance company are useless. (see below) I have spent many an unhappy hour trawling the internet for a case where utilities are held to ransom.
The question I have is. Is there anything I can do without it costing 000s? Is there an mediation service that could help? How do I assert that the other party is being totally unreasonable? What are my rights when it comes to utilities/enjoyment of property type issues?
The reason I embarked on an extension was that the current rear horrid, 1970s, cold, one containing the bathroom/washing machine etc has severe subsidence caused by the excess run off from the supermarket's warehouse and car park. They were both built without planning permission so rain water from both flows straight into my garden. I have a video if you are interested.
I employed two engineers who came to the same conclusion with regard the causes.
I do not want to cloud the issue here but thought it worth mentioning as I heard through a go between during previous negotiations that suing them for the damage would then provide me with the funds that I could pay them back for the stokes payment. I think this illustrates their attitude. Small change for them.
The whole thing is morally abhorrent. Can anyone suggest anything? Thanks for reading.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by concreteartist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if you know they built without planning permission, i would 'suggest' that to them... 'suggest' that you could make things very difficult for them by kicking up a fuss about it, about the trouble its caused you and they would likely have to tear the building down... as well as pay you a fee in damages to fix your property .... if they know you know this you may find theyre a bit more 'open' to negotiations ...
no threats of course, just a mutual 'scratching of backs' ... although to be honest, in your circumstances, if their building was causign mine to subside i would be causing a fuss anyway to get it rectified
no threats of course, just a mutual 'scratching of backs' ... although to be honest, in your circumstances, if their building was causign mine to subside i would be causing a fuss anyway to get it rectified
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Your question far exceeds the extent of my knowledge. I didn't realise that Stokes payments could extend to situations that release a restrictive convenent, though I then found by searching that you are right.
I doubt that there is anyone on here who can comment usefully on here. If you haven't already used this website, I recommend it.
http://swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=3
Being a specialist legal site, it is answered by better-qualified people. You will have to register first, and there is a land law section.
It's the place I go when I want to ask a legal question.
I doubt that there is anyone on here who can comment usefully on here. If you haven't already used this website, I recommend it.
http://swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=3
Being a specialist legal site, it is answered by better-qualified people. You will have to register first, and there is a land law section.
It's the place I go when I want to ask a legal question.
Is the re-positioning of the manhole in this area your *only* option?
What depth is the invert in this position?
Do your terraced neighbours have manholes in their garden?
It may be that with a little lateral thinking you could come up with a satisfactory solution which doesn't involve having to deal with the supermarket.
What depth is the invert in this position?
Do your terraced neighbours have manholes in their garden?
It may be that with a little lateral thinking you could come up with a satisfactory solution which doesn't involve having to deal with the supermarket.
I'm afraid I can't help with the legalities either. First off, I'd take Jack's approach and see if you can't come up with a "creative" solution to siting the extension. Easier said than done, I know.
Also, with something as "high profile" as a supermarket, I'm very surprised that they have added a warehouse and car park without PP. Perhaps it was in their original consent, and they added it later. Either way, I'm guessing that the 8 year period for enforcement has long past.
Trying to take a pragmatic approach, the excessive water discharge/runoff from the supermarket should interest Local Building Control (Building Inspectors - it's part of Planning, but quite separate). It's not usually acceptable to disharge water to another's property.
Even Environmental Health "may" take an interest.
One thing I don't understand is that you mention your garden, then say the Supermarket own the land - your garden?
Also, with something as "high profile" as a supermarket, I'm very surprised that they have added a warehouse and car park without PP. Perhaps it was in their original consent, and they added it later. Either way, I'm guessing that the 8 year period for enforcement has long past.
Trying to take a pragmatic approach, the excessive water discharge/runoff from the supermarket should interest Local Building Control (Building Inspectors - it's part of Planning, but quite separate). It's not usually acceptable to disharge water to another's property.
Even Environmental Health "may" take an interest.
One thing I don't understand is that you mention your garden, then say the Supermarket own the land - your garden?
My earlier comment related to the legal aspects of land law (and where this is posted).
JtH may have a point; I assume this is a private sewer running the length of the row of terraces and parallel to them, in the rear garden. This is quite a common arrangment. The supermarket, having built over some of the row in the terrace, has extinguished the existing sewer access points in those former gardens but nevertheless retains responsibility (and hence liability) for your and your neighbours' safe passage of passage through their land.
If you were proposing to eliminate the existing access point in your garden through building over it and move access to a point further downstream (on supermarket land), it would in any event NOT be at the point of joining of your sewage into the private sewer. A point is required for rodding, in the event of blockage.
Assuming your proposed rear extension will not occupy the whole of the plot width, can you not propose a new access manhole within the existing line of the private sewer but still within your land? Strikes me it is the same level of access that you are proposing (but closer to the existing access point that you wish to extinguish.
JtH may have a point; I assume this is a private sewer running the length of the row of terraces and parallel to them, in the rear garden. This is quite a common arrangment. The supermarket, having built over some of the row in the terrace, has extinguished the existing sewer access points in those former gardens but nevertheless retains responsibility (and hence liability) for your and your neighbours' safe passage of passage through their land.
If you were proposing to eliminate the existing access point in your garden through building over it and move access to a point further downstream (on supermarket land), it would in any event NOT be at the point of joining of your sewage into the private sewer. A point is required for rodding, in the event of blockage.
Assuming your proposed rear extension will not occupy the whole of the plot width, can you not propose a new access manhole within the existing line of the private sewer but still within your land? Strikes me it is the same level of access that you are proposing (but closer to the existing access point that you wish to extinguish.
Thanks again for your answers. I have covered all the possibilities that you mention in my three years living with this problem. There are no other solutions. I have tried all the approaches council/councillors/planning/environment ag/compulsory purchase/other manhole on run/rodding point/serving notice for nuisance/local Mp/writing to CO/every level of management of super market/consumer rights at Anglian W/pleading with Anglian water to allow me to move it or reduce it etc/ hip and thigh diet/yoga...........you name it I've tried it. Believe me I have done all the 'lateral/creative thinking' that it is possible to do.
My problem is a legal one namely that the supermarket are ransoming me citing a legal case that I have been told by legal experts has no relevance in my case. I need their permission and they could ask me for magic beans if they wanted to. Even if I accepted that their stokes payment was relevant I would by my calculation owe them £1500 maximum based on the original case. Looking a recent case £490.87. I have offered them £2000. I cannot believe there isn't some kind of arbitratory (is that a word?) body that could assist me without spending £000s on a court case to disprove their assumptions. I am hoping that suing them for the damage might focus minds a bit more but given their attitude so far I am not that hopeful. I did not want to combine the two issues as I have already had a go at trying to get them rectify the drainage problem, their measures are still ineffectual and extremely amateur!
Magic bullet please anyone? I tried the other forum thanks buildersmate. No joy there yet. Thanks again! Cheers!
My problem is a legal one namely that the supermarket are ransoming me citing a legal case that I have been told by legal experts has no relevance in my case. I need their permission and they could ask me for magic beans if they wanted to. Even if I accepted that their stokes payment was relevant I would by my calculation owe them £1500 maximum based on the original case. Looking a recent case £490.87. I have offered them £2000. I cannot believe there isn't some kind of arbitratory (is that a word?) body that could assist me without spending £000s on a court case to disprove their assumptions. I am hoping that suing them for the damage might focus minds a bit more but given their attitude so far I am not that hopeful. I did not want to combine the two issues as I have already had a go at trying to get them rectify the drainage problem, their measures are still ineffectual and extremely amateur!
Magic bullet please anyone? I tried the other forum thanks buildersmate. No joy there yet. Thanks again! Cheers!
Wow.... that's some story. I guess your legal opinion holds that Stokes is not relevant here, since it was over a ransom strip originally. Your case isn't quite the same, but it does involve "unlocking" the potential use of a piece of ground.
As you say, there are two issues here. They clearly have the last say as to whether they "allow" you to go ahead with the extension. I would certainly tackle the other issue instead.
There is unacceptable water run-off.
There is clear damage to your property.
You have Engineers' opinion to support your case.
I'd be inclined to pursue a claim from their insurers through the normal channels. If nothing, then you could start to play dirty. Have the local press print photos of the damage. You know the sort of thing .... you with a grim face pointing at a hole in the ground ........ David v Supermarket Goliath. Their PR people will hate it. To date, you've only been dealing with a prat in an office (despite writing to every level). Bad publicity would concentrate their minds wonderfully.
As you say, there are two issues here. They clearly have the last say as to whether they "allow" you to go ahead with the extension. I would certainly tackle the other issue instead.
There is unacceptable water run-off.
There is clear damage to your property.
You have Engineers' opinion to support your case.
I'd be inclined to pursue a claim from their insurers through the normal channels. If nothing, then you could start to play dirty. Have the local press print photos of the damage. You know the sort of thing .... you with a grim face pointing at a hole in the ground ........ David v Supermarket Goliath. Their PR people will hate it. To date, you've only been dealing with a prat in an office (despite writing to every level). Bad publicity would concentrate their minds wonderfully.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.