Roots At A Joint
Coastal planting is vigorous and roots find any joint that weeps. They grow into the bore and catch everything that passes.
Home / CCTV Drain Inspection
A CCTV drain inspection in Ballito answers the two questions that decide what a drain problem costs you: what is actually wrong down there, and whose side of the boundary it sits on. You get the footage and the measurement, and you are free to take both elsewhere.
Tell us how often it has blocked and whether anybody has quoted you for an excavation. If a dig has been quoted, a survey first is usually the cheapest decision available.
If it is blocking repeatedly, it is one of these. Clearing it again only buys time: see drain unblocking.
Coastal planting is vigorous and roots find any joint that weeps. They grow into the bore and catch everything that passes.
A section that has broken and dropped. Nothing will clear it because the pipe itself is no longer the right shape.
Sections that have moved apart, letting sand and soil in from outside. Common where ground has settled or been built over.
Laid too flat, so liquid runs and solids stay. A construction fault rather than a maintenance one, and no amount of rodding fixes it.
Hardened on the pipe wall over years until the bore is a fraction of its size. Frequent in letting and guest house lines.
Distance along the line recorded against the connection point, which is the number that decides whether this is your bill.
There is one measurement that matters more than everything else a drain camera records, and it is not a description of the defect. It is a distance. How far along the line, from the access point the camera went in at, does the problem sit? Because somewhere along that run is the boundary connection, and that invisible point separates a problem you must fund from a problem you merely have to report.
Everything from your fittings to that connection belongs to you. The sewer main beyond it belongs to the utility. Those two facts are uncontroversial and widely known in the abstract. What is much less widely appreciated is how often the distinction is never actually established before money is spent, because establishing it requires somebody to look, and looking requires equipment that a rodding visit does not include.
So the common sequence runs like this. A drain blocks. Somebody clears it. It blocks again a few weeks later, is cleared again, and blocks a third time. At that point the diagnosis shifts from blockage to defect, and the quote that follows is for an excavation, because a defect in a buried pipe has to be reached. The figure is substantial, the disruption is real, and the reinstatement of paving or a driveway afterwards is frequently the largest line on it.
Everything about that sequence may be correct except the most expensive assumption in it, which is that the defect is on your land. Nobody in that story has established where the boundary connection is relative to the fault. If the collapse sits two metres past it, the excavation being quoted is on infrastructure you do not own and are not liable for, and the correct action is a phone call to the utility rather than a payment to a contractor.
The rule is simple: never authorise an excavation on a buried drain until somebody has put a camera down it and told you a distance. A survey costs a fraction of a dig. It either confirms the excavation is yours and necessary, which means you proceed knowing exactly where to open and how far, or it establishes that the problem is not yours at all.
Four things to establish. The third one is the expensive one.
Priced before we attend, and the price does not change with what we find.
Agreed up front and unaffected by what turns up, because otherwise it is not really a survey.
Chamber, rodding eye or a lifted fitting. Nothing is dug to get the camera into the line.
The defect's position measured along the line and set against the boundary connection.
Recording and written summary handed over, to take to another contractor or an insurer if you want.
What it costs, when it is worth it, and why the boundary measurement is the point.
It is charged as a survey with its own fixed figure, given to you before we attend, and it is deliberately separate from any repair. That separation is the whole point: a survey whose price depends on what it finds is not a survey, it is a sales call. You get the footage and a written summary of what is in the line and where, and you are free to take both to somebody else for the repair quote. We would rather you did that than felt committed.
Four situations justify it. A drain on its third blockage. A clearance that failed again inside a month. A purchase where the drainage is entirely unknown. And any point at which excavation has been put to you as the solution. That last case is the important one. An excavation is expensive and largely irreversible, and spending a fraction of it first to establish exactly where and what the defect is will either confirm the dig or save you from it.
Because it decides who pays, and the amounts are not comparable. Everything from your fittings up to the boundary connection is the property owner's responsibility, and the sewer main beyond it is the utility's. If the defect sits past your connection, you are logging a call rather than funding an excavation. A camera survey establishes which side of that line the problem is on, with footage and a distance measurement, and that is the difference between a phone call and a bill.
Roots that have found a joint and are growing into the bore. Partial collapses where a pipe has cracked and dropped. Displaced joints where sections have moved apart. Sections laid at too shallow a fall, so solids settle instead of being carried. Set fat coating the pipe wall and narrowing it. Foreign objects, which are commoner in letting stock than people expect. Each one has a different remedy, and guessing between them is how money gets wasted.
Almost never. The camera goes in through an existing access point, usually the inspection chamber, a rodding eye or a lifted fitting. That is precisely why it exists: to look inside a buried system without opening it. If a property genuinely has no accessible entry point anywhere, we will tell you that before attending rather than arriving and charging you to discover it, because that changes the job into something else entirely.
Yes, and it is yours. You get the recording and a written summary identifying what was found, at what distance along the line, and which side of the boundary that distance puts it on. You are welcome to take it to another contractor for a comparative quote, or to a body corporate or an insurer. A survey you are not given the results of is worth very little, and withholding footage is a way of making sure the repair quote goes unchallenged.
Frequently, yes, because it provides the one thing claims usually lack: evidence of what actually failed rather than an assertion. Footage showing a collapsed section, with its position along the line recorded, supports a claim in a way that a plumber's opinion does not. It is also useful for a body corporate needing to demonstrate where a shared line failed and which unit or common section it belongs to.
For an older property, or one that has been let out or stood empty for long periods, it is one of the cheaper pieces of due diligence available to you. Drainage defects are invisible at a viewing, they are expensive to put right, and they are not something a standard inspection will find. Establishing the condition of the line before transfer costs a fraction of discovering a collapse afterwards, and it is a rare survey that finds nothing at all worth knowing.
Get In Touch
Tell us how many times it has blocked and whether an excavation has been quoted. If a dig is on the table, a survey first is almost always the cheaper decision.