Thames Water is Tunneling under your house.

[TJ]

wow - I just looked on the TW site.

What an amazing bit of engineering.

[AllforNun]

"If anything, the increased stability of water supplies has lead to an appreciation of the value of living in London..........."

aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhh......................Help my rib cage has just splintered !!!

[ruffers]

Thames Water is Tunneling under your house - No they're not.

I manage to get subsidence without their help though, yay me.

[Huguenot]

No Tom, it has not, and will not have impact on the value of the house. This is scaremongering.

If you spend cash on a costly and possibly malicious piece of litigation the most likely result will be an empty bank account and a frustrated coronary. I'm wondering if this is why you're canvassing support on here - so you don't have to pay for a case you know you're likely to lose?

[zephyr]

I did find the OP a little scaremongering to start with. I am not sure how a tube tunnel can be compared with this pipe. Yes the pipe is quite big but its just not the same. Is there evidence of subsidance from the actual ring main itself which has been in place for some years - not.

As a home owner I do understand the worry but I can't help but think people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.

[Villager]

Huguenot,

You might be well-intentioned but maybe also somewhat of a wishful thinker. I feel that the reality is more like Tom has said.

Property buyers just don't want to take any risks when it comes to making a choice and anything like this can put some people off. I discussed it a local estate agent rep and they said it would have an efect on value.

[Huguenot]

As I mentioned Villager, I'm not speculating, I'm referring to the fact that the construction of the ring main has been underway for over 30 years and property prices haven't been affected.

[Villager]

Hugenot,

You claim as fact some statement you attribute to OFWAT. Can you give us the link to the OFWAT document where this statement is?

[Villager]

Come on Hugenot, cat got your tongue? You are usually quick to respond.

Or is it yet another case of someone coming up with unsubstantiated claims just to support their views?

I scoured OFWAT's website and found no mention of this. OFWAT did however say that 80,000 homes now had water buts. Was that where the figure 80,000 came from?

[Huguenot]

Lol Villager, you're such an impatient chappie!

Unfortunately, as important as your observations have been, I'm unable to be permanently at your beck and call. You should however feel free to pursue your own lines of enquiry wherever necessary. Please don't interpret this as cowardice, merely inefficient time management on my part ;-)

Both Thames Water and OfWat (and presumably it's predecessors if they kept the paperwork) claim to have no record of complaints of damage caused by London Ring Main development. I received this through an online enquiry that you can repeat, use customer.feedback@thameswater.co.uk and through OfWat here.

If you employ your almost faultless paralegal skills and re-read this thread you'll note that the 80,000 households was my own estimate considering the ring main's length and location. I feel the coincidence with water-butt installations is unlikely to reveal causation, but you never know.

Thames Water is also regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency (and hence the Secretary of State), Natural England, the Health Protection Agency, Environmental Health Officers and of course the consumer Council for Water. Enquiries are also made of our numerous MPs.

It's plausible that any of these regulators may have had complaints and not passed them on to TW, but probably a little unlikely. Needless to say, I have no monopoly on their time, so please feel free to contact them also?

If you find evidence of damage and reparations from the Ring Main, you would of course have my unqualified support in a pre-emptive legal strike.

[Villager]

Hugenot,

Chappie!! Lady, please. You would do well to avoid making yet more erroneous assumptions/guesses/estimates ;-)

If you wanted to get an accurate and considered response from TW (rather than just PR Speak), I would suggest you might want to invoke the full weight of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004. TW is not covered by the FOI Act as far as disclosure is concerned.

[Huguenot]

Excellent, will you let us know what they say? ::o

[the-e-dealer]

How can they miss out Friern Road and Barry Road?