Homeowners face paying a five-figure sum after their local council invoked a centuries-old law to claim they were responsible for maintaining a stream near their homes.

Graham Ottaway, 76, first bought his semi-detached home in St Neots with his wife around nine years ago, where he was informed the boundary of his home ended at his garden fence. 

But just a few weeks ago, he was told by Cambridgeshire County Council that he and others living on his street were responsible for the waterway as well as the surrounding foliage and shrubbery due to riparian responsibilities. 

Riparian rights and responsibilities in the UK are the legal obligations that come with a piece of land which borders a body of water, such as a river, stream, or lake. However, it can also refer to a ditch or a brook. 

While riparian Landowners are privy to certain entitlements, they are also responsible for the maintenance of the waterway, such as blockages, flooding or pollution, as well as protecting the local wildlife. 

And if they fail to fulfil these duties derived from common law dating back to Ancient Rome, then they could face prosecution under several modern-day pieces of legislation. 

These include the Public Health Act 1936, the Land Drainage Acts 1991 and 1994, the Water Resources Act 1911, as well as the Environment Agency Land Drainage Bylaws 1981. 

Meanwhile, Mr Ottaway insists he had no idea about the riparian responsibilities associated with his home and that it was not mentioned in the deeds or by the conveyancer. 

'When we did the searches on the property, if something had come back saying we're responsible for thousands of pounds worth of upkeep for the land beyond our fence, we probably wouldn't have bought the house,' he told the Daily Mail. 

Responsibility does lie with the conveyancer, solicitor and the seller to disclose if a home has riparian responsibilities; but, the buck ultimately falls with the buyer to ensure they have done their due diligence. 

And if a seller fails to disclose a known watercourse, they could be held liable for misrepresentation. 

The 76-year-old has maintained that he has been unable to find another street in the area that has been hit with the law by the council, as he pointed out there were 'quite a few little streams' that ran through the area. 

'They're saying, "Well, no, actually, now it's your responsibility all of a sudden",' he said of the council letter detailing how they were now responsible for upkeep of the stream and vegetation in the neighbouring bank.  

'We've got really mature trees, and hundreds of years-old oak trees growing on this bank.  Now, if they come down, that's going to cost us thousands of pounds,' he added.

'You're talking tens of thousands of pounds, you're not talking a few hundred. It's a major expenditure,' he said. 'It's quite intimidating because there's no ifs, no buts, about it.

'[The council] are saying this is what you're responsible for, and this is what you're going to have to do.'

A letter from Cambridgeshire County Council, seen by the Daily Mail, told residents of the streets that it was their riparian responsibility to maintain Duloe Brook up to the boundary of their homes. 

It said officers from the council's Flood and Water team had recently inspected the area and noted 'vegetation and debris that could cause an obstruction to the flow of water', ordering for it to be removed by December 15 of last year.  

'The lack of maintenance of any watercourse for drainage purposes presents a risk of flooding and pollution,' it added. Residents have taken no action to clear any vegetation from the area, according to Mr Ottaway. 

He claims there have been inconsistencies in how the local authority has applied riparian laws, pointing out those on the other side of the bank are not responsible for maintenance on their side, as well as some homes at different points of the stream.   

'It makes you think, will other councils just be able to do that if they no longer want to take responsibility for a piece of land?

'It seems that somebody's come along and thought, oh, that's going to cost us a fortune if we have a problem there. We'd best push it onto the houses.

'Surely if it applies to us, it applies to everybody along the length of the stream. [But] it seems to only apply to certain houses,' he added.

'Now, on the other side of the brook, there are houses. What they're saying is, that doesn't count.

'[The council] cut the grass over there. Why are they not on the riparian law if they back onto the property? Now, why should we be responsible for something that's beyond our property?

The 76-year-old claimed he previously complained to the St Neots Town Council about the brambles encroaching on his fence and garden from the bank, but they claimed it was Huntingdon council's responsibility. 

He claimed: 'They said, "Oh, it's not our responsibility". So I contacted Huntingdon [District Council], and they said, "No, it's not our responsibility".' 

'I had to pay £500 to put a gate into the fence so I could gain access to the bank just to cut back what was growing over the fence.'

Meanwhile, Mr Ottaway says some of his neighbours have lived on the streets for as long as 15 years and have 'never heard' about riparian responsibilities 

'All of a sudden, the council, it's almost as if the council have found some antiquated law somewhere and thought, oh, we won't have to look after that now,' he said.

He added that a young couple with a baby who had moved there last year were left 'shocked' by the revelation.   

'It seems silly to me, they're holding us responsible for something that we have to go down a bank, across a stream, and up the bank on the other side for, something that's not actually in our property.

'I mean, I'm sure if I decided to put a shed on that bank, I wouldn't be allowed to because it's not my property.'

The Daily Mail has approached St Neots Town Council for comment. 

It is understood that Huntingdon District Council does not own the land in question and cannot comment on matters relating to Cambridgeshire County Council. 

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: 'Following a report from a member of the public, we inspected Duloe Brook and found it to be in a poor state of repair.

'In general, the responsibility for maintaining watercourses rests with the owners of the adjacent land, however, specific responsibilities can vary, as laid out in leases and legal agreements, especially where occupiers are not the property owners.

'We have written to landowners along this stretch of Duloe Brook to remind them of their responsibilities to keep the channel and banks clear to ensure the risk of flooding is not increased for either themselves or their neighbours. Our officers also met with residents in November 2025 and March 2026 to answer their questions.

'Responsibility for the maintenance of watercourses is unfortunately not always highlighted to prospective buyers by their conveyancers. We have pushed for the conveyancing process to be updated to correct this and in 2024 presented to the Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, highlighting this issue.'