Farmer has cut my mains supply pipe!!!

[doitall]

The reality is that the landowner installed the pipe over HIS land to ( then ) HIS cottages

And then he sold them for gain, complete with running water and whatever else that's irrelevant.

That is a contract Tony, it cannot be altered or taken away, by some thick farmer who doesn't like the pipe in his field.

And you can say or assume what you like.

 

[Agile]

Thats quite true that he sold the cottages!

They probably had running water when he sold them too!

However, unfortunately, rights to take water across the adjoining field IF ANY would have been contained in the conveyance or transfer or on a seperate agreement. No rights to water can be inferred if they are not documented.

Only by examination of the documents can any conclusion be reached.

In many of these cases there is nothing about the water supply.

Tony

 

[Goldberg]

No rights to water can be inferred if they are not documented.

You're wrong.

Only by examination of the documents can any conclusion be reached.

You're wrong.

In many of these cases there is nothing about the water supply.

That might not be irrelevant. But then again, you might not be relevant.

Your advice on this topic is too little, too misguided, and too late. It's not surprising that you're not in the job of "senior site acquisition engineer" any more.

 

[Agile]

As usual Goldberg, all your comments are negative!

You seem to imagine a property owner has automatic rights to connect to water over adjoining land not in his ownership. You need to go back to law school.

I left my BBC job ( on my own accord ! ) shortly after they sold the Transmission Department to a private US firm. Its subsequently been sold four times! The latest owner is NTL who originally did the transmission for the independent channels. They are OK though !

Tony

 

[Goldberg]

As usual Goldberg, all your comments are negative!

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that my comments are negative. My advice to you is to stop being wrong, then people won't have to point it out.

Your advice is riddled with assumptions and hasn't added anything to the topic.

You seem to imagine a property owner has automatic rights to connect to water over adjoining land not in his ownership.

I neither imagine, nor seem to imagine, any such thing. So you're wrong. Yet again.

And just so that you don't take this as being negative, I'm positive that you're wrong.

 

[Agile]

It is the homeowner you should be advising! I dont need or want any advice from you!

As usual you are only posting rubbish!

Tony

 

[ajstoneservices]

We bought a field that surrounds the house we built. There was a "condition" placed on the purchase that said we had to fence it in with stock proof fencing.

So the fencing company turns up with a tractor mounted auger. The very first hole(300+)they drill they pull up a screened cable it is chopped through and cuts off the phones in the lane.

Soon the world and it's wife is stopping to say we've cut them off

and that it keeps happening because BT had laid the cable too shallow at 300mm and tractors catch it and over the years it has been pulled into the field.

This cable was, a too shallow and now in the wrong place having been pulled into our field between 600 and 1200mm. Who was at fault? we were And we had to pay to get it repaired.

 

[doitall]

Thats quite true that he sold the cottages!

They probably had running water when he sold them too!

However, unfortunately, rights to take water across the adjoining field IF ANY would have been contained in the conveyance or transfer or on a seperate agreement. No rights to water can be inferred if they are not documented.

Only by examination of the documents can any conclusion be reached.

In many of these cases there is nothing about the water supply.

Tony

He didn't run the water across the field, the landowner did. He then sold the houses with mod cons, including the existing water supply.

He cannot legally change his mind after he has the cash in his pocket and cut the properties off. If he want to move the mains he has to provide an alternative, and pay up.

There is no argument or doubt about it.

 

[bogstandardagain]

due to the passage of time rights of passage will have been established- common law

 

[Nige F]

If this pipe was through my land (Im a land owner btw)

Got any footpaths I know some Hairy Arsed Ramblers that would like to ramble your plot

 

[Nige F]

due to the passage of time rights of passage will have been established- common law

You don`t want to know what Rites of Passage they get up to down yere in Sussex

 

[Nige F]

Give us a postcode so we can get it up on Google Earth and get a rough idea how much pipe would be needed and the cost of a trenching machine . divided by the number of cottages supplied.

 

[Norcon]

however it is my responsibility to permanently relocate the pipe.

Correct!

 

[Goldberg]

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

As usual you are only posting rubbish!

Well at least it's accurate rubbish.

 

[doitall]

however it is my responsibility to permanently relocate the pipe.

Correct!

Wrong with a capital W.