Since becoming a home owner many years ago, breaking free from the shackles of rented accommodation, it has occurred to me that at no time during the conveyancing process did the lawyers make reference to geological surveys. My current property c.2004 has been built - along with about 200 others of mixed design, but otherwise same basic construction - on what was originally a meadow: by definition a wet, low lying area close to a stream or river. Indeed the stream was diverted to one side, along higher ground, to permit building to take place. My house lies in line with four others in my gently sloping turning; all of the properties backing on to their virtual mirror images in a near parallel, adjacent turning some meters away. The common boundary fence between us marks very roughly the original path of the now diverted stream. Aerial photographs of the area, before building started came into my possession after I'd taken up residence, and the original course of the stream is clearly visible. Water, as we know, will always find the lowest point on a surface to flow through. It begs the question, thereby, as to whether or not that, in spite of being diverted, a greater proportion of the surface water beyond the "reach" of the diverted route will tend to accumulate along the old bed? That is, between the rearward adjoining gardens. For the record my biggest headache is trying to cope with the extreme water-logging which occurs every winter making the lawn almost impossible to walk on and certainly unusable for the grandchildren to play in during spells of sunny weather. Natural drainage is highly inefficient taking days sometimes during a "dry" spell before normal use of the lawn can be resumed. It is a constant headache and the cost of installing drainage exorbitant and, from feedback I have from one of my neighbours who has indeed "invested" in expensive drainage installations, it has not been worth the several thousands of pounds it cost them: as a pensioner this kind of outlay for me is out of the question. It has bothered me ever since - it takes time to evaluate whether or not the water-logging is characteristic or due simply to seasonal changes - so it is only after 6 years of managing the site that sufficient evidence can be shown indicating that the site is indeed very wet - and, arguably, untenably so. A major contributing factor is, undoubtedly, the fact that the soil is predominantly clay. The point of all this is that had I, or more appropriately, had my conveyancing lawyer accessed or had been allowed access to the Geological survey carried out on behalf of the developers I might well have decided not to buy the property in the first place! I admit I have never had sight of such a survey, but as the developers took it on themselves to divert the stream - permission to do so having been obtained from the relevant Government department - then they must [surely] have been aware that residual water in considerable amounts must potentially remain for all time. The creation of a retention pond at the foot of the slope, where it picks up the path of the original water course, bears testimony to this I think. It leaves me with the unanswered question as to why no mention of Geographical surveys is ever made during the conveyancing process for a [any?] house purchase. One only has to recall the deviousness of developers building over in-fill sites to realise how important sight of the results of such surveys really is, but no-one ever mentions them. I wonder why? Can anyone, with the legal know-how, explain, why it is, house purchasers - or their lawyers - are not privy to such information? One can be absolutely assured that the cost of these surveys is passed directly to the purchaser through the price of the property on offer: conceivably, since the whole development is surveyed in one hit in most cases, there is potential to recoup, on a very large development, that not inconsiderable (beyond the means of ordinary folk) cost many times over?