Farmer has cut my mains supply pipe!!!

[Andy4444]

so, "what a fuss about nothing" FFS.

Your final piece of advice is "only a professional legal advisor will be able to look at your situation and help you determine the best way forward"

So why give the "either options"......

I know belt and braces call in the lawyers.....!!!

 

[bengasman]

...Only a professional legal advisor will be able to look at your situation and help you determine the best way forward.

Wonderful advice. The legal fees for a minefield like this with half a dozen parties involved will rise quicker than the deficit under Brown.
And the lawyers will probably end up suggesting that the best thing to do is pay a fortune to have the road officially dug up to reroute the pipe so neither the farmer, not the landowner gets upset, as that is the safest legal copout.

 

[Goldberg]

so, "what a fuss about nothing" FFS.

I see that you're embarking down the path of shooting the messenger.

Your final piece of advice is "only a professional legal advisor will be able to look at your situation and help you determine the best way forward"

You are correct.

So why give the "either options"......

They aren't "options" - I was clearly setting out the two alternative scenarios. Which of those applies to you at the moment can't be determined by anyone here without knowing more about the things that you seem to be unable to convey, hence the observation that only a professional legal advisor can help you.

I know belt and braces call in the lawyers.....!!!

It isn't belt, or braces. Nor is it "calling in" the lawyers. You just need to talk to the conveyancing solicitor who you engaged when you bought the freehold. If he/she can't provide an answer, then they might recommend consulting counsel, but you are in control of the cost of all of those consultations.

Whomever you consult, they will concentrate on gaining an understanding of your rights, and those of the farmer, and help you decide whether it's worth you attempting to uphold your rights or whether it would be cheaper/better/quicker just to pay to have the main re-routed.

If you want to start cheap, then the CAB has some people who are legally skilled. You might also find that your house/car/travel insurance policy includes an element of 'free' legal advice.

Legal advice is the only sensible way forward, but there are plenty of non-sensible ones if you prefer one of those.

 

[Andy4444]

bottom line is...

Farmer lays original pipe cos he has a vested interest in doing so. Farmer sells ex-farm labourer's cottages at a profit. EE tractor driver ploughs too deep (it's potatoes this year) and prangs pipe laid by his boss. Farmer issues legal notice to protect his ar@se.

I pick up tab........

 

[Goldberg]

I pick up tab........

If you have a way of showing that the farmer has lied, e.g. when answering the enquiries before exchange of contracts, then uncovering the lie has resulted in a decrease in the value of your property, so you might be able to claim compensation for that reduction.

 

[Andy4444]

For goodness sake....I am going to give my grandmother a tutorial on how to suck eggs...how on earth would you quantify a loss in property value at the ar#se end of one of the worst recessions since 1928.....

 

[Andy4444]

sorry 1929 before I am corrected....

 

[bengasman]

And that is IF this is the arris end , I fear the worst is yet to come.
The current shortfall is somewhere around a trillion, and we have 2.5 million officially unemployed, a similar number qualified as disabled and a similar number again of completely pointlessly hired civics, bringing the real total of people that are not economically active somewhere around 7 million, costing the coffers somewhere around 100 billion per annum.

 

[Andy4444]

don't worry your declared "hard earned" will under-pin the economic deficit for the next 10 years.....

 

[Goldberg]

For goodness sake.

I see that you've swung wildly from "f***" to "goodness".

I am going to give my grandmother a tutorial on how to suck eggs.

Good luck with that - I hope your egg-sucking is more advanced than your sarcasm.

how on earth would you quantify a loss in property value at the ar#se end of one of the worst recessions since 1928.....

Well, this time you do have two options:

1. Care about it enough to make an attempt, in which case you would probably compare the price you paid with the actual value taking into account the need to re-route the water supply pipe.

2. Not care about it, in which case you have the luxury of being able to satisfy yourself by doing absolutely nothing at all, except of course whinging about your life on an Internet forum.

 

[doitall]

Fact, the landowner has sold the cottages with all mod cons including water, he cannot legally take that away.

If the farmer has damaged the pipe then the farmer must repair it.

 

[Agile]

I have skimmed through all the "advice" and found the most correct is ( unusually ) Goldberg's.

I had practical experience of these kind of problems when I worked for the BBC dealing with the land management of transmitting stations.

The reality is that the landowner installed the pipe over HIS land to ( then ) HIS cottages. He did not bury them at the Water regulation depth of 750 mm ( because the Water Regs had not been written then ) BUT 3' was still the "normal' depth then.

The cottages were later sold and the conveyancing solicitor failed to determine the water supply derivation or obtain a wayleave for it.

The tenant farmer did not know about the pipe and when ploughing at normal ploughing depth (???) dug it up as it was only at a lesser depth. At the BBC we usually had to put cables and pipes at 1.2m depth as "deep ploughing" could be down to 750mm. Regardless the farmer has done nothing wrong!

The freehold landowner installed the pipes and should have warned the tenant farmer when granting the tenancy. He failed to do that!

My conclusion is that the Freeholder and the first conveyancing solicitor were at fault.

Since all this happened over six years ago the Statute of Limitation is likely to be used as an excuse for nobody to accept any liability.

If I was your solicitor, or better still your Surveyor, I would aim to negotiate a settlement on the basis of the landowner granting a formal wayleave and the farmer/you burying the pipe at an adequate depth so that no further damage would occur in the future.

I appreciate that you may feel that you have done nothing wrong. That may be so, but to protect your own interest you should have wondered how the water got to your taps. An astute buyer would have ensured his solicitor sorted out the water supply before the purchase was completed.

If I had failed to sort out the services properly when buying land for the BBC then I would have been sacked from my job as a senior site acquisition engineer! No water, no toilets. No electricity, no transmitter!

Tony

 

[Goldberg]

I had practical experience of these kind of problems when I worked for the BBC dealing with the land management of transmitting stations.

And yet you still managed to give cock-eyed advice.

Since all this happened over six years ago the Statute of Limitation is likely to be used as an excuse for nobody to accept any liability.

If you're referring to The Limitations Act 1980, and if by "an excuse" you mean a defence, then you're wrong. All facts must be known to the claimant before the limitation period is deemed to have started.

I appreciate that you may feel that you have done nothing wrong. That may be so, but to protect your own interest you should have wondered how the water got to your taps. An astute buyer would have ensured his solicitor sorted out the water supply before the purchase was completed.

There is no requirement in law to be astute when buying property and relying on the advice of a solicitor.

If I had failed to sort out the services properly when buying land for the BBC then I would have been sacked from my job as a senior site acquisition engineer!

Scraping the bullshit off that sentence reveals that you would simply have been sacked for failing to do your job if you'd failed to do your job. Like most people.

Since you've also failed to do it on this topic, does that mean you're sacked from the forum?

 

[doitall]

I have skimmed through all the "advice" and found the most correct is ( unusually ) Goldberg's.


The reality is that the landowner installed the pipe over HIS land to ( then ) HIS cottages. He did not bury them at the Water regulation depth of 750 mm ( because the Water Regs had not been written then ) BUT 3' was still the "normal' depth then.

The water regs have been around longer than you Tony


The cottages were later sold and the conveyancing solicitor failed to determine the water supply derivation or obtain a wayleave for it.

How do you know that until the OP checks the Deeds, I would expect it all to be there in black and white

The tenant farmer did not know about the pipe and when ploughing at normal ploughing depth (???) dug it up as it was only at a lesser depth. At the BBC we usually had to put cables and pipes at 1.2m depth as "deep ploughing" could be down to 750mm. Regardless the farmer has done nothing wrong!

The Farmer has busted the water main, and lashed up a surface repair, that will freeze given the first frost

The freehold landowner installed the pipes and should have warned the tenant farmer when granting the tenancy. He failed to do that!

That's a BIG assumption

My conclusion is that the Freeholder and the first conveyancing solicitor were at fault.

How do you work that out when you don't know

Since all this happened over six years ago the Statute of Limitation is likely to be used as an excuse for nobody to accept any liability.

If I was your solicitor, or better still your Surveyor, I would aim to negotiate a settlement on the basis of the landowner granting a formal wayleave and the farmer/you burying the pipe at an adequate depth so that no further damage would occur in the future.

If you was my Solicitor or Surveyor, I would expect you have get the correct information, and then telling the farmer to get his arse in gear or you have his guts for garters

I appreciate that you may feel that you have done nothing wrong. That may be so, but to protect your own interest you should have wondered how the water got to your taps. An astute buyer would have ensured his solicitor sorted out the water supply before the purchase was completed.

Thats is Boll---ks and you know it.


If I had failed to sort out the services properly when buying land for the BBC then I would have been sacked from my job as a senior site acquisition engineer! No water, no toilets. No electricity, no transmitter!

Tony

 

[Agile]

Both of you have made somewhat negative comments about what I said and the conclusions I reached based on the VERY limited information provided by the owner of the cottage but not ofered any positive suggestion of what he can do.

DIA ( but not Goldberg ) takes the view that the farmer is "guilty" of something.

The farmer has a tenancy on the land that allows him to plough and carry out all the normal activities expected of a farmer. Ploughing is one of those activities!

I would contend that the farmer was carrying out his lawful business in accordance with the rights granted within his tenancy. He had not been warned by the landlord of the presence of water pipes or been given any maximum depth to plough to. He cannot be liable for damage to the pipes installed by the landlord.

The Landlord is guilty of both not installing the pipe to the water regulations depth ( if any, or to a good practice depth ) and of not including a clause in the agricultural tenancy warning the farmer of the presence of the water pipe.

So the cottage owner can consider action against the landlord and/or against the solicitor. It will be more difficult to prove negligence against the solicitor as he only has to take a reasonable duty of care but at least he will have profesional liability insurance.

Tony