Purchasing a property served by a private supply
Background
The provision of water to a property via a private supply is often because a connection to a public supply is simply not feasible. This can be for a variety of reasons but is usually ultimately due to a property’s isolated (and usually rural) location, or the local topography. This can result in a major challenge when an alternative to the private supply (for example a connection to a public network) is necessary, or desired.
The effect of these limitations can, by their nature, be impactful when situations change. Unfortunately, they are often overlooked by buyers of properties served by a private supply. To compound matters, checks on the water supply arrangements do not form part of the formal conveyancing process by solicitors, although sometimes they request a single certificate of analysis from the vendor to demonstrate that it is “potable.” This however is only a measure of the quality of the water at the time the sample was taken. As a result, these problems only come to light when they manifest later, once a property purchase is complete.
Problems arising post sale of a property might include, for example, a deterioration in quality, unexpected insufficiency, or where disputes between neighbours over responsibilities in its management and maintenance develop. These situations may cause additional difficulties where an alternative supply is cost prohibitive or impractical for the reasons given above. In some scenarios they can also incur expensive legal costs.
Case detail
This case study concerns a small shared private water supply (regulation 10 supply) in the southeast of England, supplying two dwellings. For the purposes of this example, these shall be known as properties A and B. The owner occupier of property A owns both the land on which the source and treatment system are located. On this basis, property A exercises control as a relevant person , of the supply of treated water to property B as well as their own. This is a historical arrangement, which at some unknown date in the past, very likely offered the best practical means to supply both properties through verbal mutual agreement between the then owners of properties A and B.
In late 2024 the current owners of property A decided that they no longer wanted to bear any further responsibility to provide treated water to property B and advised the occupiers of property B that they intended to cut the connection to them before the end of January when they planned to leave country. Property A did however intend to grant verbal permission to allow Property B to access the supply source, but not the treatment system, which were both located on their land.
On checking their property deeds in consideration of this, the owner occupier of property B discovered that Property A had no legal obligation to supply water to them. In fact, there were no formal agreements, such as covenants or easements in relation to the supply of water at all. It is likely that this had not been checked or understood during the property conveying process, although the assumption by the buyers was that it had, and that no foreseeable problems had been anticipated.
In January 2025, the owner of property B contacted the local authority to determine whether the intention of their neighbours to cut off their supply could be prevented. By this time the situation had become urgent as the owners of property B were soon to leave the country.
The local authority was aware of their powers under section 80 of The Water Industry Act 1991 for insufficiency, or intended insufficiency, on a private water supply. However, in early January 2025 they contacted the Inspectorate to confirm whether this was the best approach and their only option. The Inspectorate advised that this was appropriate, and that the purpose of serving the notice should be to require the owners of property A to give property B adequate time to make suitable alternative supply arrangements. However, on this occasion time was running very short to do so. In the absence of any written legal obligations, property A could not be required to reconnect the existing supply. Unfortunately, in situations of this nature, it becomes incumbent on those experiencing or expecting imposed insufficiency to overcome the loss of supply, as a section 80 notice does not compel reinstatement of a supply.
The Inspectorate also advised that any non-compliance with a section 80 notice would not constitute an offence. The only option in this instance would be for the local authority to carry out the work itself and recover the costs later. In this instance, the local authority was advised to check with its housing officer and legal colleagues as to whether other environmental enforcement legislation could be applied.
About a week later the Inspectorate learned from the local authority that there were indeed feasible options in this respect following their consultation with legal advisors. This included the use of a community protection notice, which could be used in parallel with a section 80 notice to create both powers to reinstate the supply. Other enforcement notices related to anti-social behaviour could also potentially be used.
Key messages
This case study illustrates how essential it is that those intending to purchase a property served by a private supply, fully anticipate and plan for any potential risks the supply might pose, now or later. This is particularly important where its control is exercised by others. Failure to understand the implications of these risks could result in unforeseen costs, practical difficulties and or disputes with others who share or control the supply, later once the property purchase has been completed.
Buyers should, for example, take account of any actual or potential insufficiency or water quality risks (including being cut off at short notice) associated with these arrangements, and whether any existing contingencies are in place to mitigate these risks should they arise. If these are not in place, it may be incumbent on the owner, following the purchase, to put them in place at cost.
Where a supply is shared with others, prospective buyers are also advised to establish whether there are formal agreements in place between all parties concerned with regard management and maintenance responsibilities of the supply. Where these are not in place, due consideration should be given to any risk this might present going forward.
This case study also alludes to the limitations of section 80 of The Water Industry Act 1991 in resolving intended disconnection of supplies by those exercising their control. It has also given rise to the possibility that other environmental health legislation and the powers they bestow on local authorities, may be applicable in situations like this or of a similar nature.
This case study has also highlighted the inadequacies of property conveyancing processes, which do not make robust checks in relation to the provision of a safe, sufficient, and reliable drinking water supply. A single, one-off sample does not adequately provide this assurance, even when the results are compliant with the regulatory standards on that occasion.