A COUPLE have been given £220,000 compensation after a giant sinkhole forced them out of their home.

David O'Connor and Susan Docherty got the cash after suing Scottish Water at the Court of Session after the huge hole ate up their garden.

The pair claimed the company didn't do enough to prevent the void from opening at their property in December 2013 in Calton.

They claimed that Scottish Water should have done more to ensure the structural integrity of a manhole close to their house.

Lawyers for Mr O'Connor and Ms Docherty argued that a water mains near to their home burst in December 2008.

Their legal team argued that the liquid damaged the structural support for a nearby sewer and a manhole, causing the sinkhole to appear five years later.

The court heard that the couple believed Scottish Water needed to do more to ensure the structure was sound.

Lawyers for Scottish Water claimed that the water main leak didn't contribute to the appearance of the hole and that they had done everything in their power.

But in a judgement published at the court judge Lady Wolffe in favour of the couple.

The judgement tells how the couple were forced to move after the presence of the sinkhole made their property uninhabitable.

Investigators who tried to establish what caused the sinkhole found that a nearby manhole had collapsed. This manhole, which was connected to a sewer, was the responsibility of Scottish Water.

Lady Wolffe wrote: "In advancing their case, the pursuers relied principally on the 2008 event, which created two sinkholes; one in the immediate vicinity of the manhole and a second further away across a nearby railway bridge.

"They also rely on evidence of a sinkhole in the immediate vicinity of the manhole noted in November 2013.

"It was also suggested that the property was on the site of a former public house (which was likely to have had a cellar) and the possible build up of water in this cellar may have also contributed to the collapse in December 2013.

"[Scottish Water] contend that the 2008 event was unrelated to, and had no causal connection, with the 2013 collapse.

"They advance alternative explanations for the 2013 collapse, including heavy rainfall in the month or so preceding the 2013 collapse and it is said, the poor quality generally of the land in this area."

Lawyers for Scottish Water argued that there was large amounts of rain fall in the area in the month leading up to the appearance of the sinkhole.

They argued that they had done everything in their power to ensure that the sinkhole didn't materialise.