Sewage Pipes Missing From Easement

So whose responsibility was it to tell us that the pipes would be laid later? Our conveyancer? If so, that's another thing to add to the list of his incompetence when we take him to VCAT ...

As first home buyers, how are we meant to know this?

Also, we were told that the work on our property would be around a month. Considering he wants to build ASAP, that means we won't feel comfortable using our pool during the day during the time of year it would normally be used most. Does this still mean no compensation?

As I said, if it was maintenance, or only a couple of days, we wouldn't care, but this is laying of the pipes, which, in a sense, is still part of the creation of the easement, which falls into the category of the link I shared above. At least, to me it does.

 

I'd disagree - the easement is for the benefit of the adjoining lot, consent would be required from the other lot owner. Where would it leave you if the pipe becomes blocked or damaged? Who bears responsibility? This will be different If Melb Water is the owner of the easement.

No. Drawing the plan and registration creates the easement. Construction means nothing in this instance.

 

Hmmm, you make a valid point, if the sewer pipe is a 'private' sewer. Below is what I believe is happening to the OP, but could be proved wrong if the situation is different.

The developer, who could be abutting the OP or a number of properties over, requires the sewer extension as a condition on their permit. There is an easement at the rear of a number of properties in favour of south east water which allows for the extension. The developer will pay to have a design done, approved by south east water, and use south east water accredited contractors to perform the works. The works by this contractor will be up to the perimeter of the developers property. Following the completion of the works, the sewer this accredited contractor has constructed will transfer into the ownership of South East Water. Which anyone else can then tap into (subject to load size).

While the above sewer is now owned by SEW, it only goes to the developers property boundary. The developer 'may' now build a private sewer within their development, this can be constructed by a plumber of their choice (doesn't need to be SEW accredited), which is much cheaper. This sewer will be for the benefit of the lots within the development. If an easement is formed over this private sewer it will be in favour of 'Lots on a plan', or possibly a limited owners corporation will be setup to 'manage the common services'.

Use of the SEW sewer will not require permission from the adjoining lot owners, use of the private sewer will.

 

What you have told us in your posts is there were a lot of issues in relation to this property . . . but you opted to go to the low cost solution of a conveyancer rather than do a full due dilligence.

If you buy a service which is basically administration of transfer of title; you get what you pay for.

There is no substitute for spending the time and understanding the situation.


When working for Water Authorities I have seen thousands of searches for property purchases, generally the whole business is an exercise in asking for, and providing, the minimum information to avoid liability.

About once a year on average someone would visit the office and say "I am thinking about buying a property and would like to know if there are any problems". I would spend time and give these people full and frank verbal advice because they had made the effort.

 

They might Directional Bore it, if so you may not even see that it's been done.

Directional boring - Wikipedia

 

I have received similar service/information from other departments as well eg. Rail corridor management (proposed rail tunnel would be 39m below a property - but ended up on the other side of the road at that depth) - no compensation payable as you don't own the land below the surface, there was no disturbance, gazettal of the project was done prior to purchase etc.

Have also had road widening restrictions removed as they were no longer required/not going to proceed - much harder to achieve.

 

It is the Authority which is benefitted by the easement in this case (read the OP @SNM ) but (agreed) the requirement would remain had it have been a private line.

So the easement may be of some benefit to @verucaboi as well should they consider connecting a GF or other structure