Sharing septic costs 'fairly', and impact on house value

[George Miles]

We have a shared septic tank we must renew.

Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'

We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.

To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.

But now the bigger cost of thousands is coming up they are claiming that its fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.

Is this usual or unusual?
What can I do?

There is the cost of the new tank, then maintenance and emptying in the future.

And as this is a future cost presumably it would lower the value of my house, and raise theirs. What is the legal wordage to describe this?

Help please

George

[Roger Hayter]

It should perhaps depend on the number of residents rather then the size of
the house?
--
Roger Hayter

[notya...@gmail.com]

Do the same as the water companies - base the sewage charge on the amount of water consumed.

[George Miles]

Roger,
so if i am alone in a 4 bedroom house, there are 3 in the 2 bedroom house,
they should pay more?

But they say there could then be more people moving in here.

There is the one off tens of thousands cost of a new septic system,
and then the annual emptying and maintenance
(which could be proportional to water usage?)

for the last decades every house has paid an equal share for the emptying,
but thats hundreds of pounds not tens of thousands !

I wonder how most shared properties do this?

george

[SH]

or even what was known as the rateable value of the house or the current
market value or councl tax band even on the annual water consumption
(via water meters?)

[Norman Wells]

On 23/06/2022 11:06, George Miles wrote:
> We have a shared septic tank we must renew.
>
> Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'
>
> We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.
>
> To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.

It's not bedrooms that fill a septic tank but the number of people
living in the respective properties.

But the present numbers are not necessarily what they will be in future.
So, I can see their point that you should be paying the greater share
because your house has the greater capacity.

In the past, sewage charges were based on the rateable values of
properties. Maybe a reversion to that sort of arrangement would be the
fairest in the circumstances, but you need of course to come to an
amicable agreement with your neighbours on that. So, I'd suggest you
look up what you currently pay in Council tax and what they do, and
propose to split the cost in that proportion.

> But now the bigger cost of thousands is coming up they are claiming that its fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.
>
> Is this usual or unusual?
> What can I do?

Look at it fairly, and discuss it.

Maybe they've been generous in the past by paying as much as half the
cost of emptying it.

> There is the cost of the new tank, then maintenance and emptying in the future.
>
> And as this is a future cost presumably it would lower the value of my house, and raise theirs. What is the legal wordage to describe this?
>
> Help please

The proportions in which you share the costs are not set in stone, and
so are a matter of negotiation between whoever are the owners of the
respective properties at the time. I don't see why coming to an
amicable agreement should affect the value of either property.

[Harry Bloomfield Esq]

George Miles brought next idea :

> Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'
>
> We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.
>
> To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.
>
> But now the bigger cost of thousands is coming up they are claiming that its
> fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.

I would suggest the fairest way, if you each have water meters, is the
split the cost based on water consumption. Read monthly and the cost
should be paid monthly, it should cover the eventual replacment cost
and annual emptying cost.

That way, if the number in the house changes, they will contribute more
within the month. It also means that if one house owner sells to
someone else, their contribution will have been paid - no shock bills
for the new owner.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Harry Bloomfield Esq <a...@harrym1byt.plus.com> posted

>George Miles brought next idea :
>> Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'
>>
>> We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.
>>
>> To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.
>>
>> But now the bigger cost of thousands is coming up they are claiming
>>that its fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.
>
>I would suggest the fairest way, if you each have water meters, is the
>split the cost based on water consumption. Read monthly and the cost
>should be paid monthly, it should cover the eventual replacment cost
>and annual emptying cost.

But some of the mains water won't go into the septic tank, especially in
summer when a lot might be used for watering the garden.

There isn't a uniquely fair way of apportioning the cost. But
fifty-fifty would seem reasonable, considering that's what's been done
in the past, and that both houses have an equal need for a septic tank
whatever their output.

--
Algernon

[David McNeish]

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 13:19:23 UTC+1, diceg...@gmail.com wrote:

> And as this is a future cost presumably it would lower the value of my house, and raise theirs.

No, it's not likely to make any difference to the market value of a property whether it's paying 50% or 67% of what is on average a fairly trivial annual cost.

[Harry Bloomfield Esq]

on 24/06/2022, Algernon Goss-Custard supposed :

> But some of the mains water won't go into the septic tank, especially in
> summer when a lot might be used for watering the garden.

Water consumption will be a good guide to the number of people in the
property, using the facilities - it is after all what the water
suppliers also base their calculations on, for sewage and drainage.

[Theo]

Harry Bloomfield Esq <a...@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
> George Miles brought next idea :
> > Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'
> >
> > We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.
> >
> > To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.
> >
> > But now the bigger cost of thousands is coming up they are claiming that its
> > fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.

Another way might be to apportion based on relative property values, ie you are
both paying 1% (or whatever) of your house equity. That gives some measure
of how much value the tank would add to each property. (assuming
non-working drains would reduce the value by X% in each case) It also gives
some measure of affordability - if you don't have the cash, each side might
be equally able to raise a 1% mortgage against their value, even if the
values are different.

> I would suggest the fairest way, if you each have water meters, is the
> split the cost based on water consumption. Read monthly and the cost
> should be paid monthly, it should cover the eventual replacment cost
> and annual emptying cost.

I think the issue is the OP now needs to replace it, and they haven't been
saving up like this. Hence each party needs to pay for the
replacement upfront.

> That way, if the number in the house changes, they will contribute more
> within the month. It also means that if one house owner sells to
> someone else, their contribution will have been paid - no shock bills
> for the new owner.

How do you propose to arrange that? Unlike leasehold, there isn't a
management company to hold such a 'sinking fund', and there isn't a
leasehold obligation to pay into it. What if next door sells the house and
takes their share of the kitty with them?

You could form such a body, but there would be legal and accounting costs
involved. It might also be difficult if there are only two parties as
directors (any vote is likely to be deadlocked 50/50).

Although such a vehicle might have advantages in terms of billing: a regular
monthly charge, and occasional costs such as emptying are taken out of the
fee. Basing it on water meter charges might be difficult though, since you
may not be able to inspect the others' meter (if inside or on their
property). Possibly requiring annual submission of water bills might be an
option, but problematic if one side isn't cooperating.

Theo

[steve robinson]

Fine if they all have water meters , gets messy though if some do some
don't or if some use well / recycled water from guttering.

[RustyHinge]

If a septic tank is working properly it shouldn't *need* emptying. I've
got a septic tank and it hasn't been emptied all the time I've lived
here: around fifteen years.

Only exceptions AFAICS are those with a very high water-table and those
serving large families with lots of young children generating loads of
washing.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Norman Wells]

On 13/07/2022 19:32, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 18:24, steve robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:28:22 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>> <a...@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> George Miles brought next idea :
>>>> Neighbours deeds say 'share the costs fairly.'
>>>>
>>>> We have been sharing the cost of emptying it half each.
>>>>
>>>> To simplify, assume I have 4 bedrooms, they have 2.
>>>>
>>>> But now the bigger cost of thousands  is coming up they are claiming
>>>> that its
>>>> fairer if they pay a third, and i pay two thirds.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the fairest way, if you each have water meters, is the
>>> split the cost based on water consumption. Read monthly and the cost
>>> should be paid monthly, it should cover the eventual replacment cost
>>> and annual emptying cost.
>>>
>>> That way, if the number in the house changes, they will contribute more
>>> within the month. It also means that if one house owner sells to
>>> someone else, their contribution will have been paid - no shock bills
>>> for the new owner.
>>
>> Fine if they all have water meters , gets messy though if some do some
>> don't or if some use well / recycled water from guttering.
>
> If a septic tank is working properly it shouldn't *need* emptying. I've
> got a septic tank and it hasn't been emptied all the time I've lived
> here: around fifteen years.

It's an immutable law of nature that matter can be neither created nor
destroyed, at least at the sewage level.

So where are you suggesting it has gone?

[RustyHinge]

A septic tank isn't the same thing as a cesspool. Waste goes into it and
the organic matter is digested, usually in two chambers, and results in
a *very* smmall amount of precipitate, while the other products, mainly
carbon dioxide and methane are vented to the atmosphere. The fluid
output is almost pure water and is run into a bed of sand, where
bacteria purify it further, when it should be (if you are adventurous)
safely potable.

[SH]

On 14/07/2022 00:06, Norman Wells wrote:

Anaerobic and aerobic baterial digestion into methane and carbon dioxide

Thats how biodigesters work to produce methane and CO2 from human waste
for heating fuel (once the CO2 has be seperated from the methane.

you are right that matter cannot be destroyed or created but it can be
exdhanged for energy via E = mc2 but there are 4 states of matter,
solid, liquid, gas and plasma so solid waste can decompose into liquids
and/or gases and liquid waste can decompose to gases given teh right
conditions.

PLus in seage systems there is a leach field to leach liquid into the
surrounding grounds