Re: Shared Water supply?

On 6 Apr, 10:57, ArtsApart
<llamasevensalesREMOVETHIST...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ste;625075 Wrote:





On 5 Apr, 23:31,

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.

Hmmm dont think we will be taking the option of sinking yet another
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.
.

Quantcast