Neighbour's rainwater causing problems

[Interlaken]

My tenants summond me this morning to see the state of the back garden and patio which has suddenly become very wet.

I took a look over the fence at one of the boundaries and discovered that a neigbour has place an open water tank up by my fence fed by rainwater pipe from his sloping roof which measures 10'X6'. The sloping roof is some 8 feet away. (Originally a water butt was up by his wall.) The overflow from the tank must be going onto my land a making a mess.

This neighbour is a particularly nasty young man so want to have my facts right before writing to him. Surely each property has to deal with their own rainwater via a soakaway? Anyone know the regs on this? I can see why he has not dug up his garden for a soakaway as it is very small but object to him doing this.

[billericayboy]

Do some research on Rylands v Fletcher.


Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under nuisance, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas; while ruling in favour of Rylands, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher; that "the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".

I learnt this many years ago - probably becouse of the age of the problem and the flooded mine.

[Interlaken]

Thanks for this BB. I have emailed my local building inspector with the problem and am still waiting for a response. I will keep this as ammunition if all does not go well.