Re: Shared Water supply?
Blah
> We live in a property that has a shared water supply with the house next
> door to us. The water supply comes from our land from a bore hole that
> was sunk about fifteen years ago now. At the time of the bore hole
> being put into place an arrangement was made between the residents that
> then lived in both properties......the cost of putting the bore hole in
> was shared between the two households but house A (our house) pumps the
> water for house B. House B is supposed to pay house A a yearly fee
> (that is a pittance) for doing so. We also keep the pipes and pump up
> to scratch. This arrangement worked fine for the people who lived here
> at the time they were all elderly , but since then all party's have
> moved on. The situation we now find ourselves in, is that house B
> never pays the money unless prompted by house A and house B draws much
> more water than was ever drawn from the bore hole before as he has
> installed a power shower in his home. At the time of doing this we
> expressed our concerns as we don't think the bore hole would be able to
> keep up with the demand of water required by his shower, especially in
> the summer as water becomes very scarce here. The relationship between
> both parties is a little strained which makes asking for the pumping
> money awkward and we are wondering if there is anything that we can do
> to get house B off of our water supply to preserve it for our household
> only and sever any ties that exist between the two properties.......any
> advice would be most helpful
>
>
>
>
What does the agreement say?
On a slightly less legal note, if the pump 'breaks down' regularly
during their shower sessions, perhaps they will get the message!
Richard Bird
"Blah" <Bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73hc4iF...@mid.individual.net...
HEE HEE HEE ---- especially if you were on holiday for a week or three and
no access could be gained to the pump, Aw shame, tut tut
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> We live in a property that has a shared water supply with the house next
> door to us. The water supply comes from our land from a bore hole that
> was sunk about fifteen years ago now. At the time of the bore hole
> being put into place an arrangement was made between the residents that
> then lived in both properties......the cost of putting the bore hole in
> was shared between the two households but house A (our house) pumps the
> water for house B. House B is supposed to pay house A a yearly fee
> (that is a pittance) for doing so. We also keep the pipes and pump up
> to scratch. This arrangement worked fine for the people who lived here
> at the time they were all elderly , but since then all party's have
> moved on. The situation we now find ourselves in, is that house B
> never pays the money unless prompted by house A and house B draws much
> more water than was ever drawn from the bore hole before as he has
> installed a power shower in his home. At the time of doing this we
> expressed our concerns as we don't think the bore hole would be able to
> keep up with the demand of water required by his shower, especially in
> the summer as water becomes very scarce here. The relationship between
> both parties is a little strained which makes asking for the pumping
> money awkward and we are wondering if there is anything that we can do
> to get house B off of our water supply to preserve it for our household
> only and sever any ties that exist between the two properties.......any
> advice would be most helpful
Cut the bastards off!
Presumably if there is a contract in place, then they must make
payments under that contract. If there is no contract (i.e. because
your contract was specifically with the previous owner), then they
have no obligation to pay but nor do you have any obligation to supply.
Cynic
<llamasevensale...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
>We live in a property that has a shared water supply with the house next
>door to us. The water supply comes from our land from a bore hole that
>was sunk about fifteen years ago now. At the time of the bore hole
>being put into place an arrangement was made between the residents that
>then lived in both properties......the cost of putting the bore hole in
>was shared between the two households but house A (our house) pumps the
>water for house B. House B is supposed to pay house A a yearly fee
>(that is a pittance) for doing so. We also keep the pipes and pump up
>to scratch. This arrangement worked fine for the people who lived here
>at the time they were all elderly , but since then all party's have
>moved on. The situation we now find ourselves in, is that house B
>never pays the money unless prompted by house A and house B draws much
>more water than was ever drawn from the bore hole before as he has
>installed a power shower in his home. At the time of doing this we
>expressed our concerns as we don't think the bore hole would be able to
>keep up with the demand of water required by his shower, especially in
>the summer as water becomes very scarce here. The relationship between
>both parties is a little strained which makes asking for the pumping
>money awkward and we are wondering if there is anything that we can do
>to get house B off of our water supply to preserve it for our household
>only and sever any ties that exist between the two properties.......any
>advice would be most helpful
As others have said - if your neighbours do not recognise that a
contract exists, then you can cut off their water.
A shower (even of the power variety) will usually use less water than
a bath, but may have a higher peak demand (flow). This could cause a
temporary drying of a low-capacity borehole until it is filled by
water seeping from the surrounding water table. It is not an uncommon
problem in places where borehole water is the norm, though I wonder
whether in your case the problem really exists or is it something that
is an *unfounded* fear?
The easiest solution is to erect a water tower (header tank) of
sufficient volume to satisfy the peak demand. Such tanks are a common
sight in places that have no piped mains water, as are windmill pumps.
--
Cynic
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> Ill have to dig out the deeds and have a look to see exactly what it
> says... thanks for the reply btw :-]
>
> oh yeah and the less legal advice, I would be lying if I said it hadn't
> crossed my mind.
To what "less than legal" advice do you refer? As far as I can tell,
everything said here would be quite acceptable at law.
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> Blah;623780 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ArtsApart wrote:-
> > What does the agreement say?
> > On a slightly less legal note, if the pump 'breaks down' regularly
> > during their shower sessions, perhaps they will get the message!
>
> says.......
>
> For the sum of £1000 paid to house A we will grant the full liberty
> and right to lay construct maintain repair and renew a line of pipes in
> the approximate position shown on the map with the right to connect and
> draw water from the bore hole and to forever hereafter repair maintain
> the bore hole and all necessary connections from the bore hole or the
> pipes leading therefrom to the said grantees line of pipes together
> also with the right for the purpose of making repairing and maintaining
> such bore hole and ancillary pipes but not to enter onto our land for
> any other reason making good all damage done in the exercise of such
> rights to hold the said rights and liberty hereby granted unto the
> grantees in fee simple.
>
> house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
> pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
> to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
> time being and will pay A £20.00 per year for pumping the water to be
> increased each year by the percentage increase in the retail prices
> index.
>
> A covenants with B with the intent to bind As land and later title
> holders to protect B that at all times after this date of title deed
> observe and perform stipulations and restrictions in relation to A's
> land not to do anything or suffer anything to be done on A's land that
> might adversely affect the purity or flow of water passing from the
> bore hole through the pipes to B
>
> One thing that concerns us is our water is obviously natural and dosent
> fall within the water boards guidlines due to a high manganees content.
> We our selves have no problem whatsoever with this but we are wondering
> if our neighbour could have an recourse of action against us for not
> supplying industry standard water so to speak.....I know he is supposed
> to bear half the costs to bring it up to standard but to be honest its
> not an expence we would be looking at affring right now or in the
> forseeable future. Really sorry about the typos its been a very long
> day!
At the end of the day this dispute comes down to this: House B have to
pay for their bloody water! I don't see what excuse they have for
failing to do so.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a question of law. It is a
question of enforcing the law. If that means cutting their water
supply off until such time as they do pay, then so be it. If they were
to approach a solicitor about the matter, I expect they would receive
a similar response, which is that they must pay for their water.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>At the end of the day this dispute comes down to this: House B have to
>pay for their bloody water! I don't see what excuse they have for
>failing to do so.
From what the OP said the neighbours are not refusing to pay for their
water but rather waiting for him to remind/bill them before doing so.
From the wording of the covenant it seems that the neighbours could
also insist that a suitable water treatment plant be installed (and
pay half the cost of doing so).
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> Ste;624834 Wrote:
>
> > On 4 Apr, 23:45,
>
> > pay for their bloody water! I don't see what excuse they have for
> > failing to do so.
>
> > As far as I am concerned, this is not a question of law. It is a
> > question of enforcing the law. If that means cutting their water
> > supply off until such time as they do pay, then so be it. If they were
> > to approach a solicitor about the matter, I expect they would receive
> > a similar response, which is that they must pay for their water.
>
> to do then, feel a bit rotten about it though, as it would be far
> simpler for him just to pay up without all this hassle and it obviously
> will not help relations between both parties.
Indeed.
> While we are at it I think we will suggest that he has a meter fitted
> so that we can work out the correct charge for pumping his large water
> usage in his property.
Lol. You can fit a meter, but you cannot apportion the charge based on
usage. The words a clear - you each pay half of the cost of
maintenance. I'm not sure whether the £20 relates to money for
yourself, as it were, or whether it relates to the cost of electricity
for pumping. I'd be very surprised if it was the latter, as it would
amount to only £0.05p per day - which is about 1/2 an hour's running
for a 1kW pump.
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> Ste;624976 Wrote:
>
> > On 5 Apr, 09:59,
> > usage. The words a clear - you each pay half of the cost of
> > maintenance. I'm not sure whether the £20 relates to money for
> > yourself, as it were, or whether it relates to the cost of electricity
> > for pumping. I'd be very surprised if it was the latter, as it would
> > amount to only £0.05p per day - which is about 1/2 an hour's running
> > for a 1kW pump.
>
> why we thought we could fit a water meter to his water supply after it
> has supplied our house so we would be able to work out how much
> electricity we would use to pump his water. this is supposed to be
> index linked and go up with the cost of electricity each year. I cant
> believe that the people who initially had this agreement were that
> stupid to not apportion the charge to the water used, instead of having
> a fixed fee per year, this has left us really open to abuse from his
> water usage....is there really nothing we can do to alter this covenant
> or change it in anyway due to its archaic nature?
I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else for advice in that respect,
as I'm not that familiar with the vagaries of land law.
However, there would probably be some room for maneouver by metering
his supply and limiting it to an amount costing £20.00, unless he pays
for the surplus - I don't see how this is inconsistent with any
commonly held notion of fairness and justice. Or perhaps it would be
worth going halves with your neighbour to sink another borehole, and
you then each have your own.
I suppose the bottom line here is that if you find the current
situation unacceptable, and you and your neighbour have differing
concepts of what is fair, then it's probably going to lead to a feud
and possibly a protracted legal battle. I would certainly consider
consulting a solicitor about this matter.
Blah
> Ste;625075 Wrote:
>> On 5 Apr, 23:31,
>>
>> as I'm not that familiar with the vagaries of land law.
>>
>> However, there would probably be some room for maneouver by metering
>> his supply and limiting it to an amount costing £20.00, unless he pays
>> for the surplus - I don't see how this is inconsistent with any
>> commonly held notion of fairness and justice. Or perhaps it would be
>> worth going halves with your neighbour to sink another borehole, and
>> you then each have your own.
>>
>> I suppose the bottom line here is that if you find the current
>> situation unacceptable, and you and your neighbour have differing
>> concepts of what is fair, then it's probably going to lead to a feud
>> and possibly a protracted legal battle. I would certainly consider
>> consulting a solicitor about this matter.
>
> bore hole on our land to supply him with water. The water meter to
> provide water for the paid amount sounds much more favorable to us, the
> last thing we want to encourage is more access to our land and ties
> between our properties with our neighbor who has already proved to be
> very irresponsible.
>
> Thanks for the reply and the water meter suggestion that's an angle we
> hadn't considered.
>
>
>
>
How many years has it been since the scheme was started?
Ste
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> Ste;625075 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Apr, 23:31,
>
> > as I'm not that familiar with the vagaries of land law.
>
> > However, there would probably be some room for maneouver by metering
> > his supply and limiting it to an amount costing £20.00, unless he pays
> > for the surplus - I don't see how this is inconsistent with any
> > commonly held notion of fairness and justice. Or perhaps it would be
> > worth going halves with your neighbour to sink another borehole, and
> > you then each have your own.
>
> > I suppose the bottom line here is that if you find the current
> > situation unacceptable, and you and your neighbour have differing
> > concepts of what is fair, then it's probably going to lead to a feud
> > and possibly a protracted legal battle. I would certainly consider
> > consulting a solicitor about this matter.
>
> bore hole on our land to supply him with water.
I was thinking more along the lines of sinking a borehole on his land.
> The water meter to
> provide water for the paid amount sounds much more favorable to us,
It certainly seems like the most sensible option in the circumstances.
> the
> last thing we want to encourage is more access to our land and ties
> between our properties with our neighbor who has already proved to be
> very irresponsible.
In any event, you should confine your emotions to the matter at hand,
which is the issue of how much your neighbour ought to pay towards the
communal supply of water. While the borehole is notionally on your
land, you have little rights to it above what your neighbour has, and
presumably the previous owners of each property contributed an equal
amount towards creating a borehole, thus allowing each of them a ready
supply of water. I accept your emotions will be inflamed, but you
should avoid any tendency to respond tit for tat, or allow the matter
to develop into a feud, and instead keep sight of what you want to
achieve, which is that your neighbour pays for his water according to
the cost of producing it. If a feud does develop, each side often ends
up fighting it down to their last penny.
> Thanks for the reply and the water meter suggestion that's an angle we
> hadn't considered.
As I say, this kind of restriction is not necessarily in accordance
with the covenant, but even if for some reason you are later declared
to have broken the covenant, you will not be looked on dimly by a
court of law. If it did go down that road, I think a court of law
would say the covenant was drafted poorly, and it was never the
intention of House A to be bound to supply an infinite amount of water
to House B for the same low fixed cost. Indeed, the fact that the
charge tracks the RPI, instead of tracking the actual price of
electricity, suggests to me very poor drafting indeed.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 5 Apr, 23:31, ArtsApart
>> The £20.00 charge does relate to the cost of pumping the water, this is
>> why we thought we could fit a water meter to his water supply after it
>> has supplied our house so we would be able to work out how much
>> electricity we would use to pump his water.
The £20.00 is a fixed charge and nothing to do with the amount of
water used.
>> I cant
>> believe that the people who initially had this agreement were that
>> stupid to not apportion the charge to the water used, instead of having
>> a fixed fee per year, this has left us really open to abuse from his
>> water usage....is there really nothing we can do to alter this covenant
>> or change it in anyway due to its archaic nature?
How "archaic" is it? You accepted it when you bought the property.
>However, there would probably be some room for maneouver by metering
>his supply and limiting it to an amount costing £20.00, unless he pays
>for the surplus - I don't see how this is inconsistent with any
>commonly held notion of fairness and justice.
You have a touching, if wholly misplaced, faith in "commonly held
notions". The simple fact is there is a covenant which was accepted
when the property was bought. If one party now wants to alter that
covenant they have an uphill struggle unless of course they offer to
buy out the other party. That won't be cheap.
>Or perhaps it would be
>worth going halves with your neighbour to sink another borehole, and
>you then each have your own.
As another borehole close to would share the same limited water source
that isn't terribly sensible. Moreover, why should the neighbour pay
for something they don't need?
Blah
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:57:32 +0100, ArtsApart
> <llamasevensale...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
>
>
>> Hmmm dont think we will be taking the option of sinking yet another
>> provide water for the paid amount sounds much more favorable to us,
>
> agree to it? The covenant existed when you bought the house. You
> accepted it when you bought your house. You can't go and unilaterally
> alter it now.
>
> Which bit of :-
>
> "A covenants with B with the intent to bind As land and later title
> holders to protect B that at all times after this date of title deed
> observe and perform stipulations and restrictions in relation to A's
> land not to do anything or suffer anything to be done on A's land that
> might adversely affect the purity or flow of water passing from the
> bore hole through the pipes to B"
>
>
> You can put a meter in if you want, you can take readings every day
> if you want, you can record the figures if you want. What you can't
> do is make your neighbour pay a penny more than they already do. You
> can't restrict their water if they don't. It is really very simple.
>
>> last thing we want to encourage is more access to our land and ties
>> between our properties with our neighbor who has already proved to be
>> very irresponsible.
>
> fit a few thousand pounds worth of water filtration equipment as long
> as they paid half. Would that suit you?
And YOU have missed the point that says:
"and draw water"
"we will grant the full liberty
and right to lay construct maintain repair and renew a line of pipes in
the approximate position shown on the map with the right to connect and
draw water from the bore hole"
if they want 'draw it' they have to have their own pump to suck it up.
Furthermore:
"
house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
time being and will pay A £20.00 per year for pumping the water to be
increased each year by the percentage increase in the retail prices
index."
Could say that the well provider could insist that the £20 fee is the
charge required to
a)pump up enough water for testing
b)parcel it up in a format suitable for testing (in a sealed marked
container, in a jiffy bag)
Ste
>
> >However, there would probably be some room for maneouver by metering
> >his supply and limiting it to an amount costing £20.00, unless he pays
> >for the surplus - I don't see how this is inconsistent with any
> >commonly held notion of fairness and justice.
>
> You have a touching, if wholly misplaced, faith in "commonly held
> notions". The simple fact is there is a covenant which was accepted
> when the property was bought. If one party now wants to alter that
> covenant they have an uphill struggle unless of course they offer to
> buy out the other party. That won't be cheap.
Indeed. As I've already made clear, I'm no expert when it comes to
land law. However it seems to me that House A is surely not obliged to
supply House B with an unlimited amount of water - to the extent of
both running up large electricity bills, and affecting A's own supply
of water because the borehole runs dry.
I also submit that the "cost of equipment required to produce water"
includes running costs - i.e. electricity.
> >Or perhaps it would be
> >worth going halves with your neighbour to sink another borehole, and
> >you then each have your own.
>
> As another borehole close to would share the same limited water source
> that isn't terribly sensible. Moreover, why should the neighbour pay
> for something they don't need?
It's a suggested resolution. The neighbour doesn't have to pay for
another borehole, no.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 6 Apr, 22:57, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> You have a touching, if wholly misplaced, faith in "commonly held
>> notions". The simple fact is there is a covenant which was accepted
>> when the property was bought. If one party now wants to alter that
>> covenant they have an uphill struggle unless of course they offer to
>> buy out the other party. That won't be cheap.
>Indeed. As I've already made clear, I'm no expert when it comes to
>land law. However it seems to me that House A is surely not obliged to
>supply House B with an unlimited amount of water - to the extent of
>both running up large electricity bills, and affecting A's own supply
>of water because the borehole runs dry.
According to the covenant they are, if they feel that the covenant is
now unfair they can negotiate a mutually acceptable change with their
neighbour or attempt to do so by law. The latter is likely to be far
more expensive than the electricity bill for the next 50 years and
have no significant probability of success. If they want to gather
evidence to show how badly done to they are a power meter on the pump
monitoring electricity use is likely to be far more useful than two
water meters.
As it is, £40 a year (there is no mention of how much that has gone up
from the original covenant figure so I've used that) will power a 750W
pump for about 1-2 hours a day so I doubt if "large electricity bill"
is a realistic description.
>I also submit that the "cost of equipment required to produce water"
>includes running costs - i.e. electricity.
Of course it doesn't. Electricity is not equipment. It refers to the
equipment necessary to pump, filter and deliver the water.
>> As another borehole close to would share the same limited water source
>> that isn't terribly sensible. Moreover, why should the neighbour pay
>> for something they don't need?
>
>It's a suggested resolution. The neighbour doesn't have to pay for
>another borehole, no.
Any negotiated resolution has to be beneficial to both parties. If
the OP approaches it simply from the point of trying to get out of
the obligation they freely accepted when purchasing the house they
won't get anywhere. A separate (but close) second borehole on the
neighbours ground (assuming it is suitable) could leave them vastly
worse off if the neighbour then pumped yet more water leaving them
with a dry well.
Peter Parry
>Peter Parry wrote:
>And YOU have missed the point that says:
>"and draw water"
>
>"we will grant the full liberty
>and right to lay construct maintain repair and renew a line of pipes in
>the approximate position shown on the map with the right to connect and
>draw water from the bore hole"
>
>if they want 'draw it' they have to have their own pump to suck it up.
Except for the fact the covenant separately mentions the joint
responsibility to maintain the pumping equipment you might have had a
point.
>Furthermore:
>"
>house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
>pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
>to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
>time being and will pay A £20.00 per year for pumping the water to be
>increased each year by the percentage increase in the retail prices
>index."
>
>Could say that the well provider could insist that the £20 fee is the
>charge required to
>a)pump up enough water for testing
>b)parcel it up in a format suitable for testing (in a sealed marked
>container, in a jiffy bag)
Only if you had a hugely fertile imagination.
Blah
"for equipment required to produce water to the satisfaction of the
water testing board"
In conjunction with the other phrase about the other user needing to
draw his own water i think you;d have a very good case about the
intention of the covenanant.
Furthermore the OP is ONLY responsible for the pipework around the
borehole, and if you as you insist - pumping it out of the hole - then
they could if they wish pump it into a holding tank on the premises -
the other user would have to pump it from there to their house "As they
are responsible for their pipes and drawing the water from the IP"
Peter Parry
>Peter Parry wrote:
>> Only if you had a hugely fertile imagination.
>>
>Nope, read it again.
>"for equipment required to produce water to the satisfaction of the
>water testing board"
Yes - "To" the satisfaction, not "for" the satisfaction. The
equipment must be maintained so that the water it produces is to the
standard required by the water board (which it isn't but the OP
doesn't want to spend any money on getting it to do so).
>In conjunction with the other phrase about the other user needing to
>draw his own water i think you;d have a very good case about the
>intention of the covenanant.
You really think a court will accept a covenant was made so the
neighbours water, which they are not going to get, could be tested and
for that alone?
>Furthermore the OP is ONLY responsible for the pipework around the
>borehole, and if you as you insist - pumping it out of the hole - then
>they could if they wish pump it into a holding tank on the premises -
>the other user would have to pump it from there to their house "As they
>are responsible for their pipes and drawing the water from the IP"
Nope, the neighbour could simply come onto their land and connect to
the borehole pipe work.
"we will grant the full liberty and right to lay construct maintain
repair and renew a line of pipes in the approximate position shown on
the map with the right to connect and draw water from the bore hole "
The OP has got to face reality which is that the neighbour has the
strongest hand (especially as the OP doesn't want to pay to upgrade
the system) therefore he must negotiate a solution acceptable to both
of them. If he indulges in pointless posturing he will come off far
worse than his neighbour will.
ArtsApart
Blah;625201 Wrote:
> ArtsApart
The deed was drawn up in 1995 so its not that archaic, granted, but it
is out of date as originally it was two old people living next door who
in fairness didnt need to draw that much water they also used to be very
concientious with the use of the water that they drew and always had
three large tanks that they kept filled for any emergency situation if
the water here should dry up.
The first thing that the the new neighbor did when he took over the
property was poured all of this straight down the drain and removed the
emergency tanks. I know that this is showing an emotional response (for
which i have been scolded in here) to the situation, but I am trying to
show the mentality of the neighbor we are dealing with, quite simple he
has no F*****g idea about the delicate water situation involved with
these properties and bore holes and that water that he poured away was
also emergency supply for this house too. The water tanks he moved now
role around in the wind in his messy backgarden that looks like a tip,
when I asked him if we could buy them off of him to use for the
original purpose that they were intended he told me he had a use for
them himself this was five years ago now an they are still just rolling
around in his garden!
I find myself wondering, what would happen if our bore hole dried up
completely, would that change the situation and would that deed then
be null and void or would we still supposedly have to provide him with
water from our land, if we were to independently sink anther bore hole?
This would leave him with the option of connecting to the mains supply
or drawing water from our other neighbor so it dosen't leave him high
and dry (no pun intended.) thanks again for the reply.
--
ArtsApart
Peter Parry
<llamasevensale...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
>The deed was drawn up in 1995 so its not that archaic, granted, but it
>is out of date as originally it was two old people living next door who
>in fairness didnt need to draw that much water they also used to be very
>concientious with the use of the water that they drew and always had
>three large tanks that they kept filled for any emergency situation if
>the water here should dry up.
The deed refers to the properties, not the occupants so who was there
at the time is not really relevant. A document talking about
"successors in title" was plainly written with the view that the
occupants would change before the covenant ran its course. You would
be hard pressed to persuade anyone the covenant should be overturned
because of its age or change of occupants next door.
>I find myself wondering, what would happen if our bore hole dried up
>completely, would that change the situation
In that you would have no water and no real prospect of getting any
from your land - yes.
>and would that deed then
>be null and void or would we still supposedly have to provide him with
>water from our land, if we were to independently sink anther bore hole?
It is unlikely the borehole would dry up yet another a short distance
from it would continue to work. That would indicate the first
borehole was blocked and in need of maintenance rather than
replacement. Your neighbour would be entitled to enter your land to
carry out this maintenance and bill you for half the cost (or all the
cost if he found a hundredweight of cement had "accidentally" fallen
in).
You are perfectly entitled to sink another borehole purely for
yourself but if it affected the first you would be in breach of the
latter part of the covenant not to do anything to interfere with the
water supply. If you put in place your own borehole you would remain
liable for your obligations under the covenant to supply water for
your neighbour and share the costs of maintaining his equipment.
Your only way out of this is to try and reach an agreement with your
neighbour for managing the supply or to buy out the covenant. The
latter almost certainly won't be cheap as it requires your neighbours
agreement.
Blah
> Nope, the neighbour could simply come onto their land and connect to
> the borehole pipe work.
>
> "we will grant the full liberty and right to lay construct maintain
> repair and renew a line of pipes in the approximate position shown on
> the map with the right to connect and draw water from the bore hole "
>
Exactly - they must draw the water themselves - if you share a well with
other villagers, you need to go and draw it yourselves, you don't expect
to have another user pull it up for your convenience.
Therefore they should have their own pump.
Ste
>
> >I also submit that the "cost of equipment required to produce water"
> >includes running costs - i.e. electricity.
>
> Of course it doesn't. Electricity is not equipment. It refers to the
> equipment necessary to pump, filter and deliver the water.
I'm not saying electricity is equipment. I'm saying the running costs
could conceivably be part of the "cost of equipment required to
produce water", and that would certainly seem to give a more equitable
arrangement.
v.me...@i.do.not.believe.it
Is the flow rate specified anywhere ? If the equipment only supplied
a gallon an hour, say, would party B have redress ?
Mike Ross
<huge snip>
>Your only way out of this is to try and reach an agreement with your
>neighbour for managing the supply or to buy out the covenant. The
>latter almost certainly won't be cheap as it requires your neighbours
>agreement.
Surely there's another option; source an alternative supply, tear up the
covenant, and tell the neighbour 'the borehole is all yours - you don't have to
share it any more...'
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Blah
Peter is quite enjoying his own interpretation of the covenant, rather
that what it says - so yes, a flow rate of five billion gallons an hour
on demand at a cost of zero pence per year.
ArtsApart
Blah;625647 Wrote:
>
> Exactly - they must draw the water themselves - if you share a well
> with
> other villagers, you need to go and draw it yourselves, you don't
> expect
> to have another user pull it up for your convenience.
> Therefore they should have their own pump.
The way it is set up at the bore hole it is impossible for our neighbor
to have his own pump as the aperture of the hole dosen't allow for this
and we have been told that the pump can only have one control switch,
which is why it is connected to our property only and isn't able to be
operated by next door.
Bearing this in mind and the fact that our covenant dosen't say
anything about allowing electricity from his property to come across
our land it only mentions pipes, would we be within our right to
suggest that he has to operate his own manual system to draw his water
from the bore hole then?
--
ArtsApart
Ste
I submit B would have redress, because by changing the pump A "did, or
did suffer to be done" an action that "affects" the "flow of the
water". Presumably the current flow rate is grandfathered in as the
default rate which must be maintained.
Ste
I submit my interpretation, as but one interpretation here which
purports to allow you to impose a more equitable arrangement, is
probably the most rocksteady so far. That is, you should argue that
the "cost of the equipment" includes running costs such as
electricity.
As Peter says, the law can sometimes be out of kilter with what is
fair and reasonable by everyday standards (and his interpretation,
which is adverse to you, may well be found to be the correct one), but
I think you'll get the most mileage out of arguing the issue along the
lines I suggest, because it requires the least amount of "stretching"
of the wording of the covenant, and it appeals to everyone's ordinary
sense of fairness.
The benefit of appearing to be fair is that, if your neighbour does go
and see a solicitor, that solicitor is more likely to advise your
neighbour to pay up rather than fight the matter, and also your
neighbour (if he recognises your demands as fundamentally fair and
justified) is more likely to accede to your demands.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>Surely there's another option; source an alternative supply, tear up the
>covenant, and tell the neighbour 'the borehole is all yours - you don't have to
>share it any more...'
The OP is bound by the covenant and cannot simply refuse to follow it
without risk to themselves. If they were to sink another borehole and
leave the other to the neighbour alone it would still not relive them
of any of their existing responsibilities. As boreholes close
together are also usually sharing the common (and apparently limited)
underground supply if their new borehole were to reduce the neighbours
ability to draw water from the old one they would be in breach of the
covenant and could be forced to abandon their new borehole.
Mike Ross
I was thinking more in terms of getting their house connected to the mains. As
long as they *allow* the neighbour to draw water from the original borehole,
they can't be forced to use the borehole themselves. That was my point.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 7 Apr, 23:51, ArtsApart
><llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
>I submit my interpretation, as but one interpretation here which
>purports to allow you to impose a more equitable arrangement, is
>probably the most rocksteady so far. That is, you should argue that
>the "cost of the equipment" includes running costs such as
>electricity.
Plainly it doesn't. No reasonable interpretation of the word
"equipment" would include electricity to run it. It is also pretty
irrelevant. Assuming the �20 has been incremented in line with the RPI
since 1995 it should now be about �28. That amounts to about an hour
a day pumping for one house alone which is a fair amount of time.
Unless the pump is running for much more than this (and the best way
of determining that is to fit a cheap power meter on the pump electric
feed) you are going to be starting a squabble over next to nothing.
>The benefit of appearing to be fair is that, if your neighbour does go
>and see a solicitor, that solicitor is more likely to advise your
>neighbour to pay up rather than fight the matter, and also your
>neighbour (if he recognises your demands as fundamentally fair and
>justified) is more likely to accede to your demands.
I can't see why any solicitor would suggest their client should pay a
charge they clearly have no obligation to pay.
Moreover, arguing over the trivial cost of the electricity rather
distracts from the far more substantial problem which would appear to
be that the borehole cannot sustain present the rate of extraction.
The OP wants the rate of use to diminish rather than to be paid a few
pounds more each year. Their preferred solution is to separate the
supplies entirely. Short of persuading the neighbour this is a good
idea (and realistically probably having to pay for an alternative
borehole to be sunk on the neighbours property and modern filtration
equipment to be installed) I can't see how they are going to achieve
their aim. There is the added complication that because of the
proximity of the boreholes even if a separate borehole is sunk for the
neighbour it may still compromise their own supply.
The OP also needs to make sure they are not making a mountain out of a
molehill. Is the problem that the neighbours are , in the OP's
opinion, just not very nice and they want nothing to do with them or
is there an actual quantifiable impact on their own water use by the
neighbours actions? It is easy to allow relatively unimportant events
to build out of all proportion and in disputes between neighbours this
can soon become a very expensive hobby.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>I was thinking more in terms of getting their house connected to the mains. As
>long as they *allow* the neighbour to draw water from the original borehole,
>they can't be forced to use the borehole themselves. That was my point.
Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes that solution would ensure the
OP's water supply, albeit at considerable cost. Leaving the borehole
to the neighbour would however still leave them with the covenant
responsibilities to share equipment costs and provide electricity for
the pump.
v.me...@i.do.not.believe.it
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:03:00 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
Where in the covenant does it mention an obligation to provide
electricity for the pump ?
Mike Ross
I don't see any such responsibilities - read again:
"house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
time being "
Now I don't see anything that actually stipulates that A must pay the other
half! That was very likely in mind, as A was also using the borehole at the time
the covenant was written, but I see nothing that specifically requires A to pay
half of anything, most especially if A is no longer using the borehole!
The balance of the covenant is largely about giving B rights to use and maintain
A's borehole, and the piping on A's land. There's an obligation on B to pay a
share of the joint pumping costs, but that obviously can't apply if A is no
longer pumping; B would absolutely have the right to continue pumping if they
wanted to use the borehole.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:12:23 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes that solution would ensure the
>>OP's water supply, albeit at considerable cost. Leaving the borehole
>>to the neighbour would however still leave them with the covenant
>>responsibilities to share equipment costs and provide electricity for
>>the pump.
>
>I don't see any such responsibilities - read again:
>
>"house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
>pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
>to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
>time being "
>
>Now I don't see anything that actually stipulates that A must pay the other
>half!
It doesn't - it says A will do/have done the work and B will pay them
half the cost of doing so.
" [A will] forever hereafter repair maintain the bore hole and all
necessary connections from the bore hole or the pipes leading
therefrom to the said grantees line of pipes"
In any case covenants tend to be interpreted in the spirit of their
meaning rather than the strict letter. Clearly the purpose of this
covenant was that the borehole would be shared and the cost of
maintaining it and the necessary equipment to do so would be shared
between the two houses.
If A ceased to need the borehole that would not remove B's need to
continue to use it to get water and would not remove the
responsibilities in the covenant. B would obviously not agree to
removing the covenant in its entirety as they rely upon the borehole
and equipment on A's land for water. If the two were on better terms
B might be prepared to take on all the cost so long as their right to
continue to use the borehole was not altered and they could still get
access to work on it. However, given that they do not appear to be on
good terms) there is no reason for B to agree to this arrangement.
Therefore the only obvious solution which would achieve A's aim of
having nothing to do with their neighbours and remove the covenant
would be to pay to relocate the borehole and equipment on B's land
(assuming it is suitable). Even this would need B's agreement.
>but I see nothing that specifically requires A to pay
>half of anything, most especially if A is no longer using the borehole!
A is required to maintain it, it was probably written this way as the
equipment is all on A's land. B then has to pay half of A's costs.
>The balance of the covenant is largely about giving B rights to use and maintain
>A's borehole, and the piping on A's land. There's an obligation on B to pay a
>share of the joint pumping costs, but that obviously can't apply if A is no
>longer pumping;
Unfortunately it would still apply. There is no provision for the
pumping cost to be shared in proportion to the water used. The cost
is also unlikely to be very high so is hardly worth fighting over.
Mike Ross
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:33:57 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:12:23 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes that solution would ensure the
>>>OP's water supply, albeit at considerable cost. Leaving the borehole
>>>to the neighbour would however still leave them with the covenant
>>>responsibilities to share equipment costs and provide electricity for
>>>the pump.
>>
>>I don't see any such responsibilities - read again:
>>
>>"house B (grantees) undertakes that they and successors in title will
>>pay half the cost of bore hole mainainance and for equipment required
>>to produce water to the satisfaction of the water testing board for the
>>time being "
>>
>>Now I don't see anything that actually stipulates that A must pay the other
>>half!
>
>It doesn't - it says A will do/have done the work and B will pay them
>half the cost of doing so.
>
>" [A will] forever hereafter repair maintain the bore hole and all
>necessary connections from the bore hole or the pipes leading
>therefrom to the said grantees line of pipes"
I'd missed that bit. That's hugely, grossly unfair. OK OK, it's perfectly fair
*as long as they're sharing the use of the borehole*. But if A no longer needs
or wants use of the borehole, why on earth should A continue to pay for its
maintenance, for benefit whatsoever to A, but exclusive benefit to B?? I can't
see how that could ever be enforced as being a fair contract!
>In any case covenants tend to be interpreted in the spirit of their
>meaning rather than the strict letter. Clearly the purpose of this
>covenant was that the borehole would be shared and the cost of
>maintaining it and the necessary equipment to do so would be shared
>between the two houses.
Agreed entirely. Well almost. I see it as a two-part thing; the primary purpose
is to guarantee B's water supply, since it lies on A's land (hence the language
preventing pollution and guaranteeing B access to the land). The secondary
purpose is to share the costs equitably. So long as the borehole IS shared. But
you can't compel someone to usa a borehole for water; if connection to the mains
(for instance) becomes available and A decides to avail themselves of it, then
that part of the contract is effectively nullified - all that remains is the
(perfectly reasonable) requirement to not interfere with B's use of the
borehole, should they continue to wish to use it. The only fair and reasonable
interpretation as to costs and maintenance is that, in such circumstances, B
should be entirely responsible for both.
>If A ceased to need the borehole that would not remove B's need to
>continue to use it to get water and would not remove the
>responsibilities in the covenant.
Of course not.
>B would obviously not agree to
>removing the covenant in its entirety as they rely upon the borehole
>and equipment on A's land for water.
Agreed again.
>If the two were on better terms
>B might be prepared to take on all the cost so long as their right to
>continue to use the borehole was not altered and they could still get
>access to work on it. However, given that they do not appear to be on
>good terms) there is no reason for B to agree to this arrangement.
If A is no longer using the borehole then B would have no choice but to take on
the costs; A could not reasonably be expected to pay in perpituity for a service
that only benefits B.
>Therefore the only obvious solution which would achieve A's aim of
>having nothing to do with their neighbours and remove the covenant
>would be to pay to relocate the borehole and equipment on B's land
>(assuming it is suitable). Even this would need B's agreement.
Or for A to simply relinquish ownership of the bit of land where the borehole is
located - they could give it to B, if B wanted it.
>>but I see nothing that specifically requires A to pay
>>half of anything, most especially if A is no longer using the borehole!
>
>A is required to maintain it, it was probably written this way as the
>equipment is all on A's land. B then has to pay half of A's costs.
>
>>The balance of the covenant is largely about giving B rights to use and maintain
>>A's borehole, and the piping on A's land. There's an obligation on B to pay a
>>share of the joint pumping costs, but that obviously can't apply if A is no
>>longer pumping;
>
>Unfortunately it would still apply. There is no provision for the
>pumping cost to be shared in proportion to the water used. The cost
>is also unlikely to be very high so is hardly worth fighting over.
That would lead to the ludicrous position that A would be effectively obliged to
pay B to pump B's water. But agreed it's not worth a fight.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:12:13 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>
>>It doesn't - it says A will do/have done the work and B will pay them
>>half the cost of doing so.
>>
>>" [A will] forever hereafter repair maintain the bore hole and all
>>necessary connections from the bore hole or the pipes leading
>>therefrom to the said grantees line of pipes"
>
>I'd missed that bit. That's hugely, grossly unfair. OK OK, it's perfectly fair
>*as long as they're sharing the use of the borehole*. But if A no longer needs
>or wants use of the borehole, why on earth should A continue to pay for its
>maintenance, for benefit whatsoever to A, but exclusive benefit to B?? I can't
>see how that could ever be enforced as being a fair contract!
It doesn't have to be fair except when written. Usually as time goes
by such covenants are overtaken by events (in this case for example
both houses going onto mains water) but until they do they are
difficult to overturn. As altering them is only easily done if all
affected parties agree it makes reaching some form of amicable
agreement all the more important.
>Agreed entirely. Well almost. I see it as a two-part thing; the primary purpose
>is to guarantee B's water supply, since it lies on A's land (hence the language
>preventing pollution and guaranteeing B access to the land). The secondary
>purpose is to share the costs equitably. So long as the borehole IS shared. But
>you can't compel someone to usa a borehole for water; if connection to the mains
>(for instance) becomes available and A decides to avail themselves of it, then
>that part of the contract is effectively nullified - all that remains is the
>(perfectly reasonable) requirement to not interfere with B's use of the
>borehole, should they continue to wish to use it. The only fair and reasonable
>interpretation as to costs and maintenance is that, in such circumstances, B
>should be entirely responsible for both.
Unfortunately that isn't what was agreed in the covenant. With
neighbours on good terms it would undoubtedly what they would agree
amongst themselves. Without that agreement it will be very difficult
and hugely expensive to attempt alteration.
>If A is no longer using the borehole then B would have no choice but to take on
>the costs; A could not reasonably be expected to pay in perpituity for a service
>that only benefits B.
They can as that is what their predecessors agreed to. The
fundamental problem with this sort of covenant is that while it
protects each party against the consequences of changes in ownership
it also makes it almost impossible to alter them unless all affected
parties agree.
>Or for A to simply relinquish ownership of the bit of land where the borehole is
>located - they could give it to B, if B wanted it.
The immutable law of Sod will make sure it is in the corner furthest
from the neighbour.
Ste
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:46:55 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 7 Apr, 23:51, ArtsApart
> ><llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
> >I submit my interpretation, as but one interpretation here which
> >purports to allow you to impose a more equitable arrangement, is
> >probably the most rocksteady so far. That is, you should argue that
> >the "cost of the equipment" includes running costs such as
> >electricity.
>
> Plainly it doesn't. No reasonable interpretation of the word
> "equipment" would include electricity to run it.
I didn't say "equipment", I said "cost of equipment". It's not a
strain on the ordinary meaning of the language to say "the cost" of
various "equipment" includes the cost of running it. The convenant
also doesn't define "cost" any further, to include only purchase cost,
nor to exclude running costs, and clearly the core theme of the
convenant (and, we presume, the intentions of the parties) is that
costs are shared equally between the parties.
> It is also pretty
> irrelevant. Assuming the 20 has been incremented in line with the RPI
> since 1995 it should now be about 28. That amounts to about an hour
> a day pumping for one house alone which is a fair amount of time.
> Unless the pump is running for much more than this (and the best way
> of determining that is to fit a cheap power meter on the pump electric
> feed) you are going to be starting a squabble over next to nothing.
Agreed, but I would point out that an hour of flow per day is hardly a
great deal. Bear in mind, there are no ballast tanks anymore, and
presumably the pump operates at full power regardless of whether one
is drawing 1 litre per minute or 100 litres per minute. As such, a
constant trickle of flow could consume very little water, but a great
deal of power.
> >The benefit of appearing to be fair is that, if your neighbour does go
> >and see a solicitor, that solicitor is more likely to advise your
> >neighbour to pay up rather than fight the matter, and also your
> >neighbour (if he recognises your demands as fundamentally fair and
> >justified) is more likely to accede to your demands.
>
> I can't see why any solicitor would suggest their client should pay a
> charge they clearly have no obligation to pay.
Bitter legal feuds between neighbours are notorious for costing both
neighbours everything they own. You can't see why a solicitor might be
acting in his client's best interests overall by suggesting he pay £5
more now in the interests of a fair and equal sharing of the costs of
supplying water, or spend tens of thousands up front in court, lose
any and all relationship with the neighbour, and probably be left with
a heart condition?
> Moreover, arguing over the trivial cost of the electricity rather
> distracts from the far more substantial problem which would appear to
> be that the borehole cannot sustain present the rate of extraction.
> The OP wants the rate of use to diminish rather than to be paid a few
> pounds more each year.
Indeed.
> Their preferred solution is to separate the
> supplies entirely. Short of persuading the neighbour this is a good
> idea (and realistically probably having to pay for an alternative
> borehole to be sunk on the neighbours property and modern filtration
> equipment to be installed) I can't see how they are going to achieve
> their aim. There is the added complication that because of the
> proximity of the boreholes even if a separate borehole is sunk for the
> neighbour it may still compromise their own supply.
Agreed. I imagine the hard-headed resolution would be for the OP to
fit his own ballast tanks, and take his "cut" of the water first.
> The OP also needs to make sure they are not making a mountain out of a
> molehill. Is the problem that the neighbours are , in the OP's
> opinion, just not very nice and they want nothing to do with them or
> is there an actual quantifiable impact on their own water use by the
> neighbours actions? It is easy to allow relatively unimportant events
> to build out of all proportion and in disputes between neighbours this
> can soon become a very expensive hobby.
Indeed, I've warned against precisely that.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 12:07, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> Plainly it doesn't. No reasonable interpretation of the word
>> "equipment" would include electricity to run it.
>
>I didn't say "equipment", I said "cost of equipment". It's not a
>strain on the ordinary meaning of the language to say "the cost" of
>various "equipment" includes the cost of running it.
Oh come on, it is stretching further than Nora Batties knicker
elastic. When did you last see anything advertised as "£200,
including electricity"? The cost of equipment is just that, the
running costs are quite another matter.
>Agreed, but I would point out that an hour of flow per day is hardly a
>great deal. Bear in mind, there are no ballast tanks anymore, and
>presumably the pump operates at full power regardless of whether one
>is drawing 1 litre per minute or 100 litres per minute. As such, a
>constant trickle of flow could consume very little water, but a great
>deal of power.
The pumps usually maintain pressure and switch on and off
automatically if the flow is low. A gently running tap should cycle
the pump on and off rather than running it continuously. If it _is_
running for many hours with little water being drawn then a better
control system would be worth looking at.
>> I can't see why any solicitor would suggest their client should pay a
>> charge they clearly have no obligation to pay.
>Bitter legal feuds between neighbours are notorious for costing both
>neighbours everything they own. You can't see why a solicitor might be
>acting in his client's best interests overall by suggesting he pay £5
>more now in the interests of a fair and equal sharing of the costs of
>supplying water, or spend tens of thousands up front in court, lose
>any and all relationship with the neighbour, and probably be left with
>a heart condition?
I suspect he would simply say the neighbour had no case and probably
couldn't afford to bring a case to court so ignore them. He could
also suggest that if they get stroppy he should insist on the
equipment necessary to bring the water up to potable standard is
installed (which the neighbour would be hard pressed to half fund).
>> Their preferred solution is to separate the
>> supplies entirely. Short of persuading the neighbour this is a good
>> idea (and realistically probably having to pay for an alternative
>> borehole to be sunk on the neighbours property and modern filtration
>> equipment to be installed) I can't see how they are going to achieve
>> their aim. There is the added complication that because of the
>> proximity of the boreholes even if a separate borehole is sunk for the
>> neighbour it may still compromise their own supply.
>
>Agreed. I imagine the hard-headed resolution would be for the OP to
>fit his own ballast tanks, and take his "cut" of the water first.
Indeed.
Ste
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:38:50 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 8 Apr, 12:07, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> Plainly it doesn't. No reasonable interpretation of the word
> >> "equipment" would include electricity to run it.
>
> >I didn't say "equipment", I said "cost of equipment". It's not a
> >strain on the ordinary meaning of the language to say "the cost" of
> >various "equipment" includes the cost of running it.
>
> Oh come on, it is stretching further than Nora Batties knicker
> elastic. When did you last see anything advertised as "£200,
> including electricity"? The cost of equipment is just that, the
> running costs are quite another matter.
Lol. The point is that in this case the "running costs" ought to be
covered, and it surely could never have been the intention of the
parties to share only the purchase costs while leaving the running and
maintenance costs to House A. The "cost of equipment", in this
situation, naturally includes the running costs. When purchasing goods
on the open market, you don't normally include running costs because
they are by definition ongoing - for example you don't generally sell
a car "running costs included in the price". But in the context of
machinery and equipment that has running costs, the "cost of the
equipment" naturally includes those ongoing running costs.
And moreover, there is no express provision that says House A must
provide electricity to any pump - House A could conceivably fit a hand
pump to the shared supply.
As I've said, the real problem is that the covenant suffers from very
poor drafting indeed.
> >Agreed, but I would point out that an hour of flow per day is hardly a
> >great deal. Bear in mind, there are no ballast tanks anymore, and
> >presumably the pump operates at full power regardless of whether one
> >is drawing 1 litre per minute or 100 litres per minute. As such, a
> >constant trickle of flow could consume very little water, but a great
> >deal of power.
>
> The pumps usually maintain pressure and switch on and off
> automatically if the flow is low. A gently running tap should cycle
> the pump on and off rather than running it continuously. If it _is_
> running for many hours with little water being drawn then a better
> control system would be worth looking at.
I suppose it all depends on the particular setup.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 9 Apr, 16:51, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>Lol. The point is that in this case the "running costs" ought to be
>covered, and it surely could never have been the intention of the
>parties to share only the purchase costs while leaving the running and
>maintenance costs to House A.
No, that's why house B has to pay £20 per year increased in line with
the PPI to cover half the costs of the electricity to run the pump.
>And moreover, there is no express provision that says House A must
>provide electricity to any pump - House A could conceivably fit a hand
>pump to the shared supply.
As doing so would patently " adversely affect ...the flow of water
passing from the bore hole through the pipes to B"
it would breach the covenant.
>As I've said, the real problem is that the covenant suffers from very
>poor drafting indeed.
Not really, it suffers from the problem that many such covenants do
that they cannot altogether legislate for one party doing something
unexpected or for changes in technology.
It also doesn't include things like the holding tanks which the OP
considers to be necessary. If they are the solution is for him to put
some up on his land and ensure they are filled overnight to minimise
the effect on him of the neighbours use of water. He is obviously
peeved that a perfectly good pair are sitting next door doing nothing
but the neighbour won't give them to him. New ones would have a
higher cost but would still be significantly cheaper than a solicitor.
Blah
From a previous post, wern't the holding tanks part of the original set
up and by removing them the other party has already broken the covenant.
Ste
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Apr, 16:51, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >Lol. The point is that in this case the "running costs" ought to be
> >covered, and it surely could never have been the intention of the
> >parties to share only the purchase costs while leaving the running and
> >maintenance costs to House A.
>
> No, that's why house B has to pay £20 per year increased in line with
> the PPI to cover half the costs of the electricity to run the pump.
That is what we suppose, but that is not what the covenant says. It
simply says B will pay A £20 per year "for pumping the water" - it
doesn't say anything about covering costs.
> >And moreover, there is no express provision that says House A must
> >provide electricity to any pump - House A could conceivably fit a hand
> >pump to the shared supply.
>
> As doing so would patently " adversely affect ...the flow of water
> passing from the bore hole through the pipes to B"
>
> it would breach the covenant.
Again, that depends on whether, and to what extent, A is bound by the
covenant to supply electricity. I submit A is not bound to supply an
infinite amount of water to B at whatever cost to himself. The
covenant is so broad that it could be interpreted that if A takes any
water at all from the borehole and leaves B short, he has "done
something that affects the flow of water to B".
> >As I've said, the real problem is that the covenant suffers from very
> >poor drafting indeed.
>
> Not really, it suffers from the problem that many such covenants do
> that they cannot altogether legislate for one party doing something
> unexpected or for changes in technology.
Something unexpected like "not paying", or something unexpected like
having a fixed amount "for pumping" when the real cost could vary
dramatically?
> It also doesn't include things like the holding tanks which the OP
> considers to be necessary. If they are the solution is for him to put
> some up on his land and ensure they are filled overnight to minimise
> the effect on him of the neighbours use of water. He is obviously
> peeved that a perfectly good pair are sitting next door doing nothing
> but the neighbour won't give them to him. New ones would have a
> higher cost but would still be significantly cheaper than a solicitor.
In terms of the problem of the shortage of water to go around, I quite
agree that this is the most straightforward resolution.
Peter Parry
>
> From a previous post, wern't the holding tanks part of the original set
>up
They were in place at some time, whether that was when the pump was
installed or a later date isn't clear. They are not mentioned in the
covenant.
>and by removing them the other party has already broken the covenant.
No because they were apparently entirely on B's land and did not
affect the borehole operation.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>
>That is what we suppose, but that is not what the covenant says. It
>simply says B will pay A £20 per year "for pumping the water" - it
>doesn't say anything about covering costs.
It indeed doesn't mention covering costs - merely with the charge that
can be made for pumping the water. I suppose A could install a
manual pump and stand by it ready to pump like mad whenever B wanted
water but it would rather restrict his social life.
When written the presumption appears to have been that electricity
costs would rise in line with the RPI.
Ste
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >That is what we suppose, but that is not what the covenant says. It
> >simply says B will pay A £20 per year "for pumping the water" - it
> >doesn't say anything about covering costs.
>
> It indeed doesn't mention covering costs - merely with the charge that
> can be made for pumping the water.
It doesn't say that either. It says £20 for pumping the water. That
could quite easily mean £20 "for himself", as it were, and not for the
purposes of covering costs.
> I suppose A could install a
> manual pump and stand by it ready to pump like mad whenever B wanted
> water but it would rather restrict his social life.
>
> When written the presumption appears to have been that electricity
> costs would rise in line with the RPI.
That is one way of interpreting the situation. But it seems a little
naive to make a covenant binding forever hereafter, while assuming
that energy prices would remain tied to RPI - which they certainly
have not.
ArtsApart
Ste;627751 Wrote:
> On 10 Apr, 15:04, Peter Parry pe...@wpp.ltd.uk wrote:-> -
> That is what we suppose, but that is not what the covenant says. It
> simply says B will pay A £20 per year "for pumping the water" - it
>
> It indeed doesn't mention covering costs - merely with the charge
> that
>
> It doesn't say that either. It says £20 for pumping the water. That
> could quite easily mean £20 "for himself", as it were, and not for the
> purposes of covering costs.
>
> I suppose A could install a
> manual pump and stand by it ready to pump like mad whenever B wanted
> water but it would rather restrict his social life.
>
> When written the presumption appears to have been that electricity
>
> That is one way of interpreting the situation. But it seems a little
> naive to make a covenant binding forever hereafter, while assuming
> that energy prices would remain tied to RPI - which they certainly
> have not.
I would like to thank everyone for their views and advice on this
situation, not wanting to keep on hashing over the same ground but I
have got a little lost with all the responses........we have prompted
for the payment as stated in the covenant and have still not received
it.........does this now mean that house B has broken the agreement and
we can cut him off without recourse of action on us? Many thanks in
advance.
--
ArtsApart
Ste
Apologies if we left you behind somewhere. My advice on your
reasonable course of action is this: send him a letter referring to
your previous requests for payment, which now demands the outstanding
balance to be paid in full within 14 days. Also include a "penal
notice" that if he does not comply then you intend to cease providing
him with water and disconnect his pipework. Before taking any action,
confirm with him that he has received this letter.
If he does not pay, disconnect him.
Peter Parry
<llamasevensale...@aol.comINVALID> wrote:
>
>.we have prompted
>for the payment as stated in the covenant and have still not received
>it.........does this now mean that house B has broken the agreement and
>we can cut him off without recourse of action on us? Many thanks in
>advance.
No, it means you can remind him to pay and if he doesn't you can tell
him you are going to start action in the county court to make him pay.
If he does not respond to this then you can go to court.
You cannot simply cease supplying water without also breaching the
covenant yourself. It is not nullified by a single failure to pay the
bill on time. It is also likely a county court would be consider
cutting off the water supply to a house to be a far more significant
breach of the covenant than not paying a £20 bill on time would be.