Contaminated Land · Report on Title scenario
It is a flag about history rather than a finding about the soil. Environmental searches work from records of what land was used for — works, yards, tanks, tips — and report where that use could have left contamination behind. Nothing has been tested. What makes it matter is that if land is later identified as contaminated, a legal obligation to deal with it can attach to its owner.
From the e-ROT archive
This scenario is drawn from Report on Title material dealing with this specific circumstance.
It compared the property's location against historical mapping and records of potentially contaminative land uses, and reported proximity. “On or near” covers a radius, so a result can be triggered by something that was never on your plot at all.
Nobody has taken a sample. An adverse result is a prompt for further enquiry or for insurance; it is not evidence that anything is in the ground, and the absence of one is not evidence that nothing is.
If a problem has appeared since completion, what the environmental search showed and what was reported to you is where the question starts.
Find out what should have been explained → WhenIBought.comThe practical risk is about ownership rather than occupation. Where land is formally identified as contaminated, responsibility for remediation can fall on the owner, and remediation is expensive. Lenders care about that because they are lending against the land.
So the effect you will notice is on the transaction: a referral to the lender, a condition, usually an indemnity policy. The Lexsure wording below frames it exactly that way — the risk to your ability to get a mortgage, now and in the future.
The health question is separate and is usually a question for a specialist, not for the search.
An indemnity policy at their expense, which is the standard and generally proportionate answer. Read the companion page on what such a policy covers before you accept it as the end of the matter.
Two things are worth checking regardless. Whether the cover runs long enough and passes to future owners, because this will come round again on your sale. And whether your buildings insurer is content having seen the environmental report.
Where the search suggests the property itself — rather than land nearby — may have been affected, a specialist environmental consultant can turn a records-based flag into an actual answer. That costs money and it is the only thing that produces certainty.
From the e-ROT archive
Report on Title paragraph
The land on or near the property has been subject to previous industrial activity. This risk of contamination could affect your ability to get a mortgage in the future, if the land is found to be contaminated as there is potential exposure to a legal obligation and associated costs to rectify.
As the searches suggest industrial activities at the property may have caused soil or groundwater contamination, further enquiries or insurance is recommended. Groundsure's experts can help you with this.
The seller is unable to confirm if any contaminated land is present, and have agreed to pay the cost of indemnity insurance, a copy of which is attached. The policy is valid for 25 years from the date of commencement. Please ensure that you have read and understood the terms, conditions and exclusions. The premium is not payable annually but you may be required to increase the level of cover upon any future resale.
Historic wording — DO NOT USE on a current transaction. Published in September 2018 and shown to illustrate how an adverse environmental result has been reported. It is reproduced exactly, including the named search provider and the policy period, neither of which is a general rule.
Do not rely on wording copied or saved from this page. Get the current wording dealing with this scenario.
View current paragraph →Keep relevant ROT wording under review as Lexsure issues updates.
View Notification Service →