Illegal to wash your car?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Am I reading this correctly?
It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go down the street drain:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf

[tim.....]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x29o4...@red.lan...

you missed

"It doesn't cover household activities"

[Tim Watts]

Quote:

at all sites including:

• retail premises
• business and industrial premises
• public and private car parks
• former petrol filling stations



I think it is squarely aimed at commercial operations. Which is
reasonable as the run off would be that from 50 cars a day, not one car
a week (as if, in our household!).


The interesting part is "what if you get a mobile valet to do your car"?

To the latter I would argue: "It's the same as you doing it yourself".
One car, once in a while.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

But the mobile valet is doing loads per day.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:18:20 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Am I reading this correctly?
>It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go down the street drain:
>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf

No, you're reading it incorrectly. That's guidance for business operating
car washes, either automated or hand wash. Such organisations do have to
ensure that they deal with their own waste water and don't let it run onto
the highway.

There is, however, no such restriction on a householder washing his or her
own car at his or her own home.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[Tim Watts]

Not in the same place!

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 21:09:25 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
> The interesting part is "what if you get a mobile valet to do your car"?

I don't know about mobile car valeting, but many wheelie bin cleaners use a van mounted system that collects and recycles the washing water. The disposal at the end of the day must be in accordance with waste transfer and disposal law.

I think in Scotland this is usually a condition of being awarded a Wheelie Bin Cleaning Licence from the local council

Owain

[Tim Watts]

That's practical with a wheelie bin.

It's practical with a car wash site as you can have the drains collect
into a sump.

It's not practical with a mobile valet.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:29:08 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:18:20 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Am I reading this correctly?
>> It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go down the street drain:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf
>
> No, you're reading it incorrectly. That's guidance for business operating
> car washes, either automated or hand wash. Such organisations do have to
> ensure that they deal with their own waste water and don't let it run onto
> the highway.
>
> There is, however, no such restriction on a householder washing his or her
> own car at his or her own home.

I guess the treehuggers haven't got that far, yet.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 22:19:34 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:

> On 12/08/15 21:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:09:05 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/08/15 19:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>> Am I reading this correctly?
>>>> It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go
>>>> down the street drain:
>>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> at all sites including:
>>>

>>> ⤢ retail premises
>>> ⤢ business and industrial premises
>>> ⤢ public and private car parks
>>> ⤢ former petrol filling stations

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is squarely aimed at commercial operations. Which is
>>> reasonable as the run off would be that from 50 cars a day, not one car
>>> a week (as if, in our household!).
>>>
>>>
>>> The interesting part is "what if you get a mobile valet to do your car"?
>>>
>>> To the latter I would argue: "It's the same as you doing it yourself".
>>> One car, once in a while.
>>
>> But the mobile valet is doing loads per day.
>>
>
> Not in the same place!

So this "damage" only matters if a lot happens at once to one area?

[Tim Watts]

On 12/08/15 22:29, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> Not in the same place!
>
> So this "damage" only matters if a lot happens at once to one area?
>

No.

I am saying there is no "damage" because the dilution of a few people in
a village washing a car where the waste goes into a storm drain that
drains into a ditch is such that the environmental impact is negligible.

There's a lot of "ifs" there too.

However, if one guy sets up a dodgy car wash on his drive and handles 50
cars a day, there's going to be a very large amount of effluent hitting
one bit of ditch - a level which will now likely have an impact.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:rpqt9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...

Incidents like this and old engine oil and "misconnections", where
householders plumb washing machines, dishwashers, etc, into the wrong drain,
are in some areas a significant (indeed, the biggest) cause of chronic
pollution of watercourses.

You'd have to analyse where each discharge went and the nature of the
receiving watercourse before you could conclude "no impact".

Don't under-estimate "ditches". Some of them are important streams, used by
trout and salmon for spawning, etc.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Saxman]

On 12-Aug-15 8:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:18:20 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Am I reading this correctly?
>> It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go down the street drain:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf
>
> No, you're reading it incorrectly. That's guidance for business operating
> car washes, either automated or hand wash. Such organisations do have to
> ensure that they deal with their own waste water and don't let it run onto
> the highway.
>
> There is, however, no such restriction on a householder washing his or her
> own car at his or her own home.
>
> Mark
>

Not outside one's home in the street though?

[Tim Watts]

Those cases are not remotely comparable.

1) A washing machine will be discharging up to several times a week,

2) Oil is bad in small amounts.

3) A mobile valet is no different to you washing your own car. In fact
it may be better as they are likely to be more efficient or use a
pressure washer rather than buckets of over strong detergent and gallons
of hose water.


The government doc already discounts domestic washing of cars and as
point 3 is a matter of logic rather than law, I conclude that noone sees
a problem with it.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message

news:mu4u9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...

It all adds up.

I suspect that mobile commercial valets are more likely to use harmful
chemicals than private individuals. And pressure washing dislodges more
harmful stuff than a hand wash with a sponge.

>
> The government doc already discounts domestic washing of cars and as point
> 3 is a matter of logic rather than law, I conclude that noone sees a
> problem with it.

I disagree with your conclusion and suggest that you re-read the preamble
and paragraph 1.

The document doesn't "discount" domestic washing of cars, if by discount you
mean dismiss as insignificant. The document is about the discharge of trade
effluent by commercial operators, for which discharge consent is required.
But the preamble says:

"Following this good practice guidance doesn’t remove your responsibility to
comply with the law and prevent pollution from your activities. Causing or
allowing pollution is a criminal offence; compliance with this or any
guidance isn’t a defence."

and

"This guidance also applies to washing and cleaning plant, machinery,
equipment and boats as the principles are generally the same. It doesn’t
cover household activities but our good practice advice would be to use a
commercial facility (car wash) that re-uses water, or hand wash with a
bucketful of water and a sponge without using detergent, traffic film
removers, degreasants or other proprietary cleaners. We discourage the use
of hose-pipes or high pressure cleaners for car washing at home."

The message I get from that is that domestic car washing can also cause
pollution, even if not covered by trade effluent legislation, so you are
advised to use a properly controlled commercial operator.

--
Nogood Boyo
(fish-hugger)

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Where the water goes wouldn't change.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:30:24 +0100, Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
> news:rpqt9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...
>> On 12/08/15 22:29, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>> Not in the same place!
>>>
>>> So this "damage" only matters if a lot happens at once to one area?
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I am saying there is no "damage" because the dilution of a few people in a
>> village washing a car where the waste goes into a storm drain that drains
>> into a ditch is such that the environmental impact is negligible.
>>
>> There's a lot of "ifs" there too.
>>
>> However, if one guy sets up a dodgy car wash on his drive and handles 50
>> cars a day, there's going to be a very large amount of effluent hitting
>> one bit of ditch - a level which will now likely have an impact.
>
> Incidents like this and old engine oil and "misconnections", where
> householders plumb washing machines, dishwashers, etc, into the wrong drain,
> are in some areas a significant (indeed, the biggest) cause of chronic
> pollution of watercourses.

I didn't even know I had two drains until I had to open the manhole cover to unblock it. I'd never heard of this dual drain system, it's no wonder people use the "wrong drain".

[Nogood Boyo]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h7nsa9t2qa7v9sdv...@news.markshouse.net...

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:18:20 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>Am I reading this correctly?
>>It's actually illegal to wash your car in your drive if the soap suds go
>>down the street drain:
>>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290144/pmho0307bmdx-e-e.pdf
>
> No, you're reading it incorrectly. That's guidance for business operating
> car washes, either automated or hand wash. Such organisations do have to
> ensure that they deal with their own waste water and don't let it run onto
> the highway.
>
> There is, however, no such restriction on a householder washing his or her
> own car at his or her own home.
>

There are restrictions, if not the same restrictions. A householder washing
a car in a way which leads to pollution of a watercourse is potentially
committing an offence, even if not the same offence as a commercial operator
failing to deal properly with trade effluent.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Tim Watts]

On 13/08/15 11:11, Nogood Boyo wrote:

>
> It all adds up.
>
> I suspect that mobile commercial valets are more likely to use harmful
> chemicals than private individuals. And pressure washing dislodges more
> harmful stuff than a hand wash with a sponge.

The latter is not true unless pressure washing the engine bay[1] or
underside. A sponge is a more effective cleaner on flat surfaces. But it
is slower and does not get into nooks and crannies.

[1] That's rather less common than in olden days due to the sheer amount
of electronics.

> "This guidance also applies to washing and cleaning plant, machinery,
> equipment and boats as the principles are generally the same. It doesn’t
> cover household activities but our good practice advice would be to use a
> commercial facility (car wash) that re-uses water, or hand wash with a
> bucketful of water and a sponge without using detergent, traffic film
> removers, degreasants or other proprietary cleaners. We discourage the use
> of hose-pipes or high pressure cleaners for car washing at home."
>
> The message I get from that is that domestic car washing can also cause
> pollution, even if not covered by trade effluent legislation, so you are
> advised to use a properly controlled commercial operator.
>

I claim de minimis - unless a chemical is used that is patently harmful
to fish in small dilution and the run off happens to be directed into a
river.

Washing a car without detergent of any sort is the most rediculous I
have ever heard. Why is stuff being published without any oversight of
common sense .

I see no evidence cited in that document that shows that domestic
cleaning activities outside are causing a pollution problem.

In fact most of the document seems to be based on the axiom of
"pollution is bad, mm'kay..." with no regards to the density, type of
chemical, and actual impact (if any).

[Tim Watts]

On 13/08/15 13:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> I didn't even know I had two drains until I had to open the manhole
> cover to unblock it. I'd never heard of this dual drain system, it's no
> wonder people use the "wrong drain".

I have never lived at a private property that even had dual drainage.

Perhaps it's more common in some areas, but I've never seen it.

[Clive George]

On 13/08/2015 15:18, Tim Watts wrote:

> The latter is not true unless pressure washing the engine bay[1] or
> underside. A sponge is a more effective cleaner on flat surfaces. But it
> is slower and does not get into nooks and crannies.
>
> [1] That's rather less common than in olden days due to the sheer amount
> of electronics.

And because of engine covers. My car has a cover underneath the engine,
so the main thing is quite clean, even after 14+ years.

(And probably because of fewer oil leaks too)

[Clive George]

We've got the bathrooms going into the sewer system, but I think the
kitchen drains into the river (kitchen goes into a hole in the yard, not
entirely sure where the hole in the yard goes but when it gets wet it's
cleanish water rather than sewage backing up).

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x3a4u...@red.lan...

If you have separate systems, you should be able to get a reduction in your
water rates. But you have to claim it. My water authority wouldn't allow a
retrospective claim, when I realised. I think I posted about it here and
didn't get much support for my interpretation of "effective date of claim".

--
Nogood Boyo

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

That's what I thought until I had to unblock it.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Like what? Dirt? It uses less soap surely.

>> The government doc already discounts domestic washing of cars and as point
>> 3 is a matter of logic rather than law, I conclude that noone sees a
>> problem with it.
>
> I disagree with your conclusion and suggest that you re-read the preamble
> and paragraph 1.
>
> The document doesn't "discount" domestic washing of cars, if by discount you
> mean dismiss as insignificant. The document is about the discharge of trade
> effluent by commercial operators, for which discharge consent is required.
> But the preamble says:
>
> "Following this good practice guidance doesn’t remove your responsibility to
> comply with the law and prevent pollution from your activities. Causing or
> allowing pollution is a criminal offence; compliance with this or any
> guidance isn’t a defence."
>
> and
>
> "This guidance also applies to washing and cleaning plant, machinery,
> equipment and boats as the principles are generally the same. It doesn’t
> cover household activities but our good practice advice would be to use a
> commercial facility (car wash) that re-uses water, or hand wash with a
> bucketful of water and a sponge without using detergent, traffic film
> removers, degreasants or other proprietary cleaners. We discourage the use
> of hose-pipes or high pressure cleaners for car washing at home."
>
> The message I get from that is that domestic car washing can also cause
> pollution, even if not covered by trade effluent legislation, so you are
> advised to use a properly controlled commercial operator.

Advised, but not forced.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Kitchens use lots of soap.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message

news:5jlu9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...

> On 13/08/15 11:11, Nogood Boyo wrote:
>
>>
>> It all adds up.
>>
>> I suspect that mobile commercial valets are more likely to use harmful
>> chemicals than private individuals. And pressure washing dislodges more
>> harmful stuff than a hand wash with a sponge.
>
> The latter is not true unless pressure washing the engine bay[1] or
> underside. A sponge is a more effective cleaner on flat surfaces. But it
> is slower and does not get into nooks and crannies.
>
> [1] That's rather less common than in olden days due to the sheer amount
> of electronics.
>
>
>> "This guidance also applies to washing and cleaning plant, machinery,
>> equipment and boats as the principles are generally the same. It doesn't
>> cover household activities but our good practice advice would be to use a
>> commercial facility (car wash) that re-uses water, or hand wash with a
>> bucketful of water and a sponge without using detergent, traffic film
>> removers, degreasants or other proprietary cleaners. We discourage the
>> use
>> of hose-pipes or high pressure cleaners for car washing at home."
>>
>> The message I get from that is that domestic car washing can also cause
>> pollution, even if not covered by trade effluent legislation, so you are
>> advised to use a properly controlled commercial operator.
>>
>
> I claim de minimis - unless a chemical is used that is patently harmful
> to fish in small dilution and the run off happens to be directed into a
> river.
>

Which means researching the chemicals used, researching the route and
destination of the drain and researching the ability of the receptors in
that environment to cope with your discharge. And you aren't the only one.
Better if you adopted the more responsible "precautionary principle"...

> Washing a car without detergent of any sort is the most rediculous I
> have ever heard. Why is stuff being published without any oversight of
> common sense .
>
> I see no evidence cited in that document that shows that domestic
> cleaning activities outside are causing a pollution problem.
>

Why would it? That's not the purpose of the document.

> In fact most of the document seems to be based on the axiom of
> "pollution is bad, mm'kay..." with no regards to the density, type of
> chemical, and actual impact (if any).
>

The document makes it clear that the onus is on potential polluters to
ensure that they don't pollute. They've advised you how to avoid problems.
Seems a reasonable approach to me.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message

news:bllu9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...

http://www.connectright.org.uk/misconnections/1-was-your-house-or-property-built-before-the-1920s

"About half of all properties in Britain have separate systems."

[Roland Perry]

In message <d33oq4...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:44:29 on Thu, 13
Aug 2015, Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> remarked:

>If you have separate systems,

Or foul + soakaways

>you should be able to get a reduction in your
>water rates. But you have to claim it. My water authority wouldn't allow a
>retrospective claim, when I realised.

Ours did, when we pointed out that the development was built with
soakaways from new, and they should have known that (on account of not
having to connect up a surface water sewer).

There are some developments with all three: I lived on one built in the
mid-90's and the rainwater from roofs went into soakaways, the rain
water from the roads had a surface water sewer, plus of course the foul
sewer.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Watts]

Without an ounce of common sense?

a) Nothing particularly evil is going to be in any commonly available
product.

b) The amounts are small within a given area in the case I am concern
with. Note I fully agree with commercial single site operators having
collection and water recycling systems because it is both practical and
the volumes of effluent is high.

>> Washing a car without detergent of any sort is the most rediculous I
>> have ever heard. Why is stuff being published without any oversight of
>> common sense .
>>
>> I see no evidence cited in that document that shows that domestic
>> cleaning activities outside are causing a pollution problem.
>>
> Why would it? That's not the purpose of the document.

Then it's making a vacuous argument, quite possibly solving a non problem.

>> In fact most of the document seems to be based on the axiom of
>> "pollution is bad, mm'kay..." with no regards to the density, type of
>> chemical, and actual impact (if any).
>>
> The document makes it clear that the onus is on potential polluters to
> ensure that they don't pollute. They've advised you how to avoid problems.
> Seems a reasonable approach to me.
>

I have no evidence that my car washing activities cause any problems
using Autoglym products. It certainly causes no problems for the flora
in the vicinity and my run off goes into the ground on top of clay so
will be well processed and filtered before it gets anywhere near
groundwater or a stream.


I am very much against the current fad for inventing problems where none
exist. It is a pointless waster of time and resources that would be
better spent solving well known serious problems, eg runoff from
farmer's fields involving pesticides and nitrates - or the criminal over
use of antibiotics in farming, or even road deaths.

So if anyone can show that domestic washing of cars causes an actual
problem whether DIY or contracted out to the local scouts, mobile
cleaner or next door's kid, I'm not terribly interested in arguing about it.

[Roger Hayter]

Even in older properties where the surface water goes into the same
drain as everything else, the road drains are likely to be on separate
surface water system.

--
Roger Hayter

[tim.....]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x29wp...@red.lan...

only in Germany

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Are you sure about that? I thought the reduction was if you had your own soakaway.

[Roger Hayter]

snip

I do not know how much of a practical problem it is, but I do know that
common detergents (eg in washing up liquid) are very harmful even in low
concentration to aquatic invertebrates. The latter are not only worth
having in their own right (eg dragonflies, mayflies) but are a vital
part of the ecology supporting fish and aquatic mammals. So iit is at
least potentially possible that domestic car washings could be very
harmful if they go into surface water drains rather than the sewers.


--
Roger Hayter

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

The linked pdf appears to be guidance and nothing to do with the law, typical helpful government....

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Would you run a pipe a long way just to get it right, when there's a wrong one right next to where you want to place the washing machine?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:51:08 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:19:55 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> On 13/08/15 13:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't even know I had two drains until I had to open the manhole
>>> cover to unblock it. I'd never heard of this dual drain system, it's
>>> no wonder people use the "wrong drain".
>>
>> I have never lived at a private property that even had dual drainage.
>

> AFAIK we only have one drain into the sewer.

>>
>> Perhaps it's more common in some areas, but I've never seen it.
>

> Not in the UK. Don't some countries have a "grey water" infrastructure ?

Well my house was built in 1979 (by Bett Homes). In the front garden a metre from the front wall of the house, there is a manhole. Under there are two channels, one is sewage, one is from the gutters. They continue to two more manholes a metre apart at the bottom of the front garden. Pretty stupid, as when the sewage one gets blocked, it overflows into the gutter one inside the first manhole for quite some time before I know it's backed up.

--
Do you know how to get an 88 year old woman to say "BITCH!"?
You get a 72 year old woman to yell "BINGO!"

[Roger Hayter]

Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:44:45 +0100, Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
> > news:bllu9c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...
> >> On 13/08/15 13:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >>
> >>> I didn't even know I had two drains until I had to open the manhole
> >>> cover to unblock it. I'd never heard of this dual drain system, it's no
> >>> wonder people use the "wrong drain".
> >>
> >> I have never lived at a private property that even had dual drainage.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's more common in some areas, but I've never seen it.
> >
> >
> >http://www.connectright.org.uk/misconnections/1-was-your-house-or-propert

> >y-bsuilt-before-the-1920s

> >
> > "About half of all properties in Britain have separate systems."
>
> Would you run a pipe a long way just to get it right, when there's a wrong
> one right next to where you want to place the washing machine?

Personally, I installed a Saniflo pump and 6m of wastepipe for precisely
this reason. YMMV. But the alternative was to discharge the washing
machine into a trout stream 2m away.

--
Roger Hayter

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Well if you're a fisherman I can understand your point.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x3bob...@red.lan...

Of course. When I realised (25 years ago) that I had plumbed the washing
machine into the surface water drains, I was mortified and went to
considerable trouble and expense to put things right. But I fish and
therefore see the effects of misconnections - streams which are milky grey,
not fit for aquatic life, entering and discolouring sizeable rivers. Natural
Resources Wales (Welsh version of Environment Agency) and local authorities
round here are having to put huge resources into finding and eliminating
these misconnections.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x3bk0...@red.lan...

Pretty sure, without researching it again. The point is that surface water
isn't going into the sewer and the sewerage part of the water rates needs to
reflect that.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x3boe...@red.lan...

It might not quote the law but it explains the legal position. Any pollution
is an offence. Commercial operators discharging trade effluent require
discharge consents. Failure to get them / abide by them involves other
offences.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Nogood Boyo]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gz+OGXbH...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <d33oq4...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:44:29 on Thu, 13 Aug
> 2015, Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> remarked:
>

>>you should be able to get a reduction in your
>>water rates. But you have to claim it. My water authority wouldn't allow a
>>retrospective claim, when I realised.
>
> Ours did, when we pointed out that the development was built with
> soakaways from new, and they should have known that (on account of not
> having to connect up a surface water sewer).
>

That argument got me nowhere. I escalated it to water company director level
and then gave up. Their charging scheme used the words "effective date of
claim" and they took that as meaning that retrospective claims weren't
allowable.

[Tim Watts]

On 13/08/15 20:54, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> Well my house was built in 1979 (by Bett Homes). In the front garden a
> metre from the front wall of the house, there is a manhole. Under there
> are two channels, one is sewage, one is from the gutters. They continue
> to two more manholes a metre apart at the bottom of the front garden.
> Pretty stupid, as when the sewage one gets blocked, it overflows into
> the gutter one inside the first manhole for quite some time before I
> know it's backed up.
>

Modelled on the victorian London sewers by the sound of it.

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:52:46 +0100
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:

> aquatic invertebrates. The latter are not only worth
> having in their own right (eg dragonflies, mayflies)

You forgot mosquitoes.

[Roger Hayter]

It is quite hard to kill mosquitoes. It seems to be a law of nature
that it is always the pretty ones which die first.


--
Roger Hayter

[Nogood Boyo]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x3bu0...@red.lan...

Can't speak for Roger but personal benefit doesn't come into it. Being a
fisherman just brings understanding of the issues. There's more to fishing
than catching fish.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Roger Hayter]

Given that none of my adjacent trout are longer than about 12cm, I don't
catch them, I just admire them. But if the little ones in the
tributaries didn't survive there would be none to catch. And our rivers
would still be the stinking open sewers they were a few generations ago,
if we didn't make considerable effort to reduce pollution.[1]


[1] Is it law or just custom that makes farmers immune from any
controls over their domestic discharges into surface water, let alone
their industrial ones? Serious question.





--
Roger Hayter

[Nogood Boyo]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1m9533z.1wuqc53nw9hgnN%ro...@hayter.org...

[...]

>
> [1] Is it law or just custom that makes farmers immune from any
> controls over their domestic discharges into surface water, let alone
> their industrial ones? Serious question.

Discharges into the stinking ponds to be found on many dairy farms might not
be caught by the law. But escape of the contents into a stream certainly
would be.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Norman Wells]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1m9533z.1wuqc53nw9hgnN%ro...@hayter.org...

> [1] Is it law or just custom that makes farmers immune from any
> controls over their domestic discharges into surface water, let alone
> their industrial ones? Serious question.

There are masses of laws and controls in place, and it's highly regulated.

As a start:

https://www.gov.uk/manage-water-on-land-guidance-for-land-managers

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Well you can't have every house polluting, no. But if you were building your house from scratch, you might aswell put the pipes in the right places. But the odd add-on, why bother?

> [1] Is it law or just custom that makes farmers immune from any
> controls over their domestic discharges into surface water, let alone
> their industrial ones? Serious question.

Farmers seem to get all sorts of good deals. Like the government paying them not to grow crops, or buying surplus crops, etc, etc. If the farm can't make money, it should close down.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

I doubt your one misconnection made much difference.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

I've found information from some areas of England that you can get a discount. Not sure about Scotland. Anyway, there's a reason I don't want to get them to look into my charges ;-)

[Janet]

In article <op.x3di6...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com says...

> >>> If you have separate systems, you should be able to get a reduction in
> >>> your
> >>> water rates. But you have to claim it. My water authority wouldn't allow
> >>> a
> >>> retrospective claim, when I realised. I think I posted about it here and
> >>> didn't get much support for my interpretation of "effective date of
> >>> claim".
> >>
> >> Are you sure about that? I thought the reduction was if you had your own
> >> soakaway.
> >
> > Pretty sure, without researching it again. The point is that surface water
> > isn't going into the sewer and the sewerage part of the water rates needs to
> > reflect that.
>
> I've found information from some areas of England that you can get a discount. Not sure about Scotland.
Anyway, there's a reason I don't want to get them to look into my
charges ;-)

In Scotland if the property has a septic tank/ is not connected to
mains sewage, you don't get charged the Waste Water Collection component
in the water bill.
Saves me over £300 per year.

Janet.

[Jimbo /p]

"Janet" <nob...@home.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.3038aae...@news.individual.net...

But does it ever need to be emptied or does it work properly ? ...

[Janet]

In article <mqmpf0$47s$1...@dont-email.me>, james.st...@ntlworld.com
says...

It works absolutely perfectly. I get it desludged every 3 or 4 years
(costs about £160), sensible maintenance.

Janet

[Jimbo /p]

"Janet" <nob...@home.org> wrote in message

news:MPG.303923c...@news.individual.net...

very nice a lot of septic tanks don't function and are just cess pools
.....with a stinking herring bone .......

[Janet]

In article <mqn9cm$pf0$1...@dont-email.me>, james.st...@ntlworld.com
says...

> >
> very nice a lot of septic tanks don't function and are just cess pools
> .....with a stinking herring bone .......
>

> I've lived with three septic tanks (all different models) over a
period of 33 years and never had a problem. IME people who do have
problems with their septic tank have usually caused it themselves, by
putting stuff down the system which either blocked it or killed off the
digesting bacteria.

The outflow from ours is like clean water, and absolutely odourless.


Janet.

[Jimbo /p]

"Janet" <nob...@home.org> wrote in message

news:MPG.3039502...@news.individual.net...

> In article <mqn9cm$pf0$1...@dont-email.me>, james.st...@ntlworld.com
> says...
>> >
>> very nice a lot of septic tanks don't function and are just cess pools
>> .....with a stinking herring bone .......
>>
>> I've lived with three septic tanks (all different models) over a
> period of 33 years and never had a problem. IME people who do have
> problems with their septic tank have usually caused it themselves, by
> putting stuff down the system which either blocked it or killed off the
> digesting bacteria.

very true...very true...

>
> The outflow from ours is like clean water, and absolutely odourless.
>
>
> Janet.
>
>

just as it should be ...

[Norman Wells]

"Janet" <nob...@home.org> wrote in message

news:MPG.3039502...@news.individual.net...

Have you tried drinking it? That's the real test.

[Janet]

In article <d39dfj...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

I drank what comes out of the tank, before it went in.

Janet

[Curious]

After serious thinking Tim Watts wrote :

> On 13/08/15 13:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>
>> I didn't even know I had two drains until I had to open the manhole
>> cover to unblock it. I'd never heard of this dual drain system, it's no
>> wonder people use the "wrong drain".
>

> I have never lived at a private property that even had dual drainage.
>
> Perhaps it's more common in some areas, but I've never seen it.

We have both a rain water system and a foul water/sewage drain here,
but rumour has it they both eventually end up in the same pipe as they
exit the village.

--
I. Curious

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

That's forward compatibility.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Curious" <I.cu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mn.8b5b7df869...@aol.com...

That's quite common apparently - they probably both go into the sewer and,
when the sewer is overloaded (times of heavy rain), it probably discharges
both sewage and rainwater into a watercourse. But when the time comes to put
things right (sewer kept for sewage and clean rainwater discharged to
watercourse), it will be much more successful than if there had been no
separation at property level.

--
Nogood Boyo