13:07 PM, 4th January 2018, About 4 years ago 13
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.
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.
Previous ArticleSocial Landlord not prosecuted despite mass gas safety breaches!
Next ArticleHMRC confusion - Is BTL a commercial mortgage?