Installed 2008, by prev owner. He had started the easement, but somehow it was not finalised, he also did not get it registered. So when I brought the house December 13 it was not picked up. previous owner is now sorting out the easement, but landowner now making demand that easement has the development clause in it.
Solicitor missed when buying the house as the previous owner misled on the details of the drainage - eg drainage was in the property. After a problem arose it became evident that the drainage system was not in the property and relied on access tot he field - the farmer refused me access, saying they were unaware of a pipe and if so it should be in my deeds. I got advice from solicitor who was involved when buying the house, and it led to various letters around misrepresentation. However this solicitor made many mistakes including sitting on a reply for 3 months, while telling me they were chasing, and a fixed fee, that kept changing, they also told me that the previous owner was denying everything, when infact he had offered to sort out the deeds and the drainage licence, but would not pay for a new sytem or for it to be to be repaired. I got some money back and parted with the solicitor. I took up the previous owners offer and he sought to get the easement arranged and added to mine and the landowners deeds, based on the one he had started back in 2010. However this is now very retrospective and i gather the landowner is now not agreeing to the original easement drawn up in 2010 (never signed). They want to add the clause in about development, I am trying to establish if this makes a mockery of the easement. And if I need to refuse this clause and once again seek legal advice. Problem is the house has no other alternatives for drainage and the landowner is now able to call the shots as this is now all retrospective.
The system I refer to is a septic tank, that the previous owner had converted into a bio filter system, that pumps semi treated waste into a watercourse. The water course in this instance is via a pipe under the landowners field in the 1 meter from edge area on two sides of the field extending about 150meters in length. To enter the watercourse the system should have also had a licence - this was also not done and the previous owner seems to have made good progress on this part of the issue.
unresolved I would say, the previous owner response set out what they would do and to avoid further legal costs (my tab was already at £1000) and it was unlikely that I would be able to claim legal costs back, I basically looked at the offer on the table, which was to put in place the easement and licence that should have been in place when i purchased the house.