Today's most viewed
Water relief as pipe gets moved
 |
| Tony Woodley by the site of the work in Cavell Road |
A retired builder from Oxford has won a four-year battle to have a dangerous water main diverted from beneath his home.
Tony Woodley, 68, feared he would need to demolish an extension to his house in Iffley Road or face a £500,000 bill after Thames Water discovered the 24-inch thick pipe ran under the property.
Water mains should not run under houses, and a water company spokesman admitted that if it had burst, it "could have taken out the whole house".
Last night Mr Woodley spoke of his relief after the water company began work on a £500,000 diversion scheme - ending years of stress and tens of thousands of pounds in lost income.
He said: "It's been really stressful. I had a heart attack two-and-a-half years ago. I wasn't sleeping. All I was thinking was how to beat Thames Water."
The pipe was laid by Oxford City Council more than 50 years ago. But Mr Woodley and wife Sheila, 67, said no mention was made of it, or an adjacent gas main, when they bought the house in 1980.
In 1992, the couple spent £60,000 building a second storey to an exisiting extension and transformed the semi-detached house into four flats, three of which they rented out.
Twelve years later engineers working on a gas leak beneath the extension discovered the water main.
Thames Water insisted the main was listed on Land Registry records and the extension had to come down for safety reasons.
If the pipe burst, water would escape at a rate of 300 litres per second.
Thames Water told the couple they had three options: pay £500,000 to relocate the main; demolish the extension at a cost of £80,000; or strengthen the existing pipe at a cost of £250,000.
Mr Woodley, who said the couple had lost £80,000 in rent since 2004, and spent £8,000 in legal fees, refused to accept liability and threatened to take the matter to court.
Thames Water even offered to buy the couple's property at a reduced price, before agreeing, 18 months ago, to divert the pipe - and pay for the work.
Mr Woodley said: "It's a relief work has begun."
Thames Water spokesman Amy Dutton said work began on Monday and would take about 16 weeks.
She said: "The decision was made without acceptance of any liability on Thames Water for the situation - but we believe this is the right way forward.
"Diverting the main will alleviate the ongoing risk of the main bursting and causing substantial damage to the property."
Thames Water has created a temporary car park at the end of Cavell Road, and apologised for the disruption.
7:09pm Tuesday 19th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Zimmer, Oxon on 8:03pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Well done Sir. It's a pity more of us don't take on these giants, perhaps then they would not treat the small man with distain.
Well done Sir. It's a pity more of us don't take on these giants, perhaps then they would not treat the small man with distain.
Posted by: brian, Oxford on 8:46pm Tue 19 Aug 08
While I feel sorry for Mr Woodley, why should Thames Water (and the water bill payers) spend half a million pounds diverting this pipe. Surely the solicitor advising him when the property was bought should have told him and be paying for this bill. Just because someone builds over a water main doesn't mean Thames Water have to spend the money to correct someone else's mistake. It is not a question, I think, of "taking on these giants" as Zimmer says above but of showing Thames Water an enormous amount of gratitude for paying to sort this out.
While I feel sorry for Mr Woodley, why should Thames Water (and the water bill payers) spend half a million pounds diverting this pipe. Surely the solicitor advising him when the property was bought should have told him and be paying for this bill. Just because someone builds over a water main doesn't mean Thames Water have to spend the money to correct someone else's mistake. It is not a question, I think, of "taking on these giants" as Zimmer says above but of showing Thames Water an enormous amount of gratitude for paying to sort this out.
Posted by: Darren, Oxford on 8:54pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Brian
It's Mr Woodleys land and if he wants to use the land for purposes that he is entitled to within planning laws then Thames should be obliged to move the pipe.
We have lead pipes coming from the street to the house and we have replaced our side with plastic but Thames water refuse to do their side. They are content to poison us with lead for their own profits. So I'm glad and personally couldn't care less about this company who expects us to pay for their expansion plans.
Brian
It's Mr Woodleys land and if he wants to use the land for purposes that he is entitled to within planning laws then Thames should be obliged to move the pipe.
We have lead pipes coming from the street to the house and we have replaced our side with plastic but Thames water refuse to do their side. They are content to poison us with lead for their own profits. So I'm glad and personally couldn't care less about this company who expects us to pay for their expansion plans.
Posted by: brian, Oxford on 9:05pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Darren - it would be a standard planning condition that you're not allowed to build over a water main, precisely because it is dangerous. I suppose the question is if it was not picked up in the planning process, who should have picked it up. I just find it tiresome of all this lazy thinking - don't bother finding out who is really at fault, just blame the nearest large company. Nevermind that the taxes they pay on their profits fund our health service and other things we take for granted, never mind that the profits they make go to their shareholders, most of whom happen to be the pension funds we all rely on for our retirement. With regard to your lead pipes if you check Thames Water's website they will replace the communication pipe if the amount of lead is above a certain level. That big old mean company...
Darren - it would be a standard planning condition that you're not allowed to build over a water main, precisely because it is dangerous. I suppose the question is if it was not picked up in the planning process, who should have picked it up. I just find it tiresome of all this lazy thinking - don't bother finding out who is really at fault, just blame the nearest large company. Nevermind that the taxes they pay on their profits fund our health service and other things we take for granted, never mind that the profits they make go to their shareholders, most of whom happen to be the pension funds we all rely on for our retirement. With regard to your lead pipes if you check Thames Water's website they will replace the communication pipe if the amount of lead is above a certain level. That big old mean company...
Posted by: How Interesting, Oxford on 10:27pm Tue 19 Aug 08
The mains shows on the Land Registry - was it mentioned in Mr Woodley's deeds? Only he knows the answer to that one. If yes, sure it's his responsibility to check all paperwork before buying the property. If not - who's responsible. Presumably whoever drew up the deeds - the orignal owner/builder. If it's registered on with the Land Registry it seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be mentioned in the deeds - but stranger things have happened! Also, for my own curiosity, if OCC laid the pipe, when would it have become owned by Thames Water? I think it's highly unlikely Thames Water (as a non-charitable organisation) would have accepted liability without reason (they have their shareholders to answer to). Glad it's sorted for the old boy though.
The mains shows on the Land Registry - was it mentioned in Mr Woodley's deeds? Only he knows the answer to that one. If yes, sure it's his responsibility to check all paperwork before buying the property. If not - who's responsible. Presumably whoever drew up the deeds - the orignal owner/builder. If it's registered on with the Land Registry it seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be mentioned in the deeds - but stranger things have happened! Also, for my own curiosity, if OCC laid the pipe, when would it have become owned by Thames Water? I think it's highly unlikely Thames Water (as a non-charitable organisation) would have accepted liability without reason (they have their shareholders to answer to). Glad it's sorted for the old boy though.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
