Vaults under the street

[ljn]

My house is part of a typical Georgian terrace that faces onto a square surrounded by similar houses.
All the houses have vaults that extend under the pavement and under the street.

Residents of the square are concerned about the effects of traffic above the vaults.
The vaults weren't designed for heavy traffic and highways have not carried out any reinforcement. The asphalt of the road is only 6" above the vaults.

A similar vault recently collapsed under a street in Broadstairs, Kent and the owner of the vault was liable for reinstating the vault, the public highway and any other damage. Apparently they had to find over £100,000

We are thinking of asking for an assessment on behalf of highways and to ask for a weight restriction for on the square. The road around the square is not a main road, so a restriction wouldn't cause disruption.

Does anyone have any experience or advice?

I'd imagine the buildings insurance would cover the vault colapsing -but that could just be in my immagination. The other week I saw a documentary where half of a house fell into the sea, and that wasn't covered by the buildings insurance.

 

[Craig]

My understanding is that, outside the City of London, the house owner owns the land up to the centre line of the road, and usually the road surface adopted by the local authority who are then responsible for maintenance (utility providers have statutory rights to lay pipes, etc. ). The result of this is that the houseowner would be responsible for the maintenance of their vault, but it’s possible that you could claim that the traffic is a nuisance causing the damage and so you are not liable.

I know my father spent years arguing with his local authority about the collapse of a boundary wall caused by traffic - it’s a long slog and they won’t put their hands up voluntarily!

However, our LA in its wisdom planted trees over pavement vaults down our street without any kind of root restriction (in comparison, in Kensington & Chelsea the LA has guidance which says they wont plant trees where there are pavement vaults) - and those roots are now pushing out bricks in our vault. I wrote to them pointing out their liability and them came out and pruned back the tree asap, hoping this would be sufficient - it won’t be, but I don’t want to see the tree gone so am just monitoring it.

If you are worried, I would suggest a chat with a friendly lawyer and also write to the LA to point out the ongoing cause of damage.

 

[MdB]

My understanding is that, outside the City of London, the house owner owns the land up to the centre line of the road,

I would be interested to know where you got this from as it might apply to me. My belief is that the deeds of the house tell you what you own and that is it. This could mean all of the land under the road, half the land or none of the land.

and usually the road surface adopted by the local authority who are then responsible for maintenance (utility providers have statutory rights to lay pipes, etc. ). The result of this is that the houseowner would be responsible for the maintenance of their vault, but it’s possible that you could claim that the traffic is a nuisance causing the damage and so you are not liable.

I believe I've read somewhere that the top so much (100mm??) is owned by the council when a road is adopted by them. The land beneath it stays with the original owner. I could be completely wrong though.

 

[Craig]

Hi MdB. I found all this out as we have vaults, and they weren’t on the deeds. Our neighbours were. So I asked a solicitor at Linklaters who went off and found out for me. Maybe it only applies in London? (However, in the City of London, the land under the road belongs to the City. I have a friend whose job it was to charge people for oversailing the City's land whenever an upper floor protruded over the street!)

With our vaults, I wrote to the land Registry pointing out they existed and were ours, and they amended our title deeds to include them.

What you say about the ownership of the top sounds quite likely. I haven’t looked into adoption in any depth - though as an aside, I wish they had not enacted the London Street Acts as we would still have gates at the end to keep the traffic out!

 

[Manks]

You need to speak to a decent solicitor and soon.

There are a number of problems here, including the cost to you of any collapse of the vault and also liability should anyone's car end up in your vault leading to a claim for damages.

The cost of a good solicitor between all the houses would be chicken feed, then everyone knows where they stand. Any collapse is likely to affect one or two houses, leaving the burden upon the few. Your insurers absolutely must be kept in the loop too. They are becoming increasingly slippery, arguing the toss down to points of grammar, so non-disclosure of a "material fact" such as a vulnerable vault may well give them scope to decline a claim, and don't believe that it would only relate to a collapse claim, if you sustain a major loss of any type insurers start to become inventive in liability avoidance techniques!

Manks

 

[Nemesis]

Ensure you are covered by your house insurance for legal costs, then call your insurers before doing anything else.