Now I find out the property is underpinned. Insurance problems? you bet ya.

g_fella

Things havent moved on a lot, but discussions are continuing and we plan to get a structural engineer in to give his opinion on the work that was carried out.

However, I have a question for you which may or may not affect our issue with the insurance companies.

When I mention that the property we are buying has been 'underpinned' most people automatically jump to the conclusion that the foundations for the property have been dug out and steel reinforcements have been put in place to ensure the property remains secure from future subsidence. However after seeing full details of the work that was carried out, it's clear to see that is not the case at all. The work that was performed was to effectively remove the existing concrete slab that made up the floor, put 87 (eighty seven !) mini piles in a staggered grid throughout the whole ground floor and relay a new concrete flooring slab. No work has been done to secure the actual structure of the building and the house itself shows no sign of subsidence since it was built.

I have seen use of the word 'settlement' used alongside discussions about subsidence, but I'm unclear as to the difference. My understanding is that the work that was performed on the concrete slab was to rectify 'settlement' of the concrete slab, and not 'subsidence' of the building structure.

In our homebuyers report it even states that movement of the concrete slab may not be covered by a lot of insurance companies (he didnt know the concrete slab had been 'underpinned', if that is the correct term, when he wrote the report).

Can anyone offer an opinion on this ? Because if the insurance companies dont cover the settlement/subsidence of the concrete slab, then I can confidently say that the building has never suffered from subsidence and hence get quotes from all of them !

pawpurrs

http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/foundation_repair/what_causes.htm

Sounds like you *might* get away with that one.

g_fella

I guess the only true way to find this out is to phone the insurance companies again.... great. I guess I should phone the ones that said no before to see if this new information makes them think differently.

Just had our homebuyers survey through as well... more but different things to consider. Surveyor says it is 'essential' that we get someone out to check the drains with CCTV cameras (is it really ?), flat roofs need recovering as there are signs of age and splitting in the current covering (should we be offering less as a result of this work being required ? no current signs of leaks tho), the electrics need checking and fuse box changing to one with trip switches (i think this can wait until after we get into the house - assuming we do), loads of gas pressure/boiler type checks (to be honest I just want to know how old it is, and whether it has been serviced).

Fun Fun Fun.

pawpurrs

All perfectly normal, surveyor covering his backside, doesnt want to be liable.
So to cover himself says drains should be checked, flat roofs only have a limited lifespan of approx ten years, so it will say something along the lines of, the flat roof will need recovering at some stage. Electrics need checking, covering himself there again......same with boiler etc...... Hes not saying there is anything wrong with them, he is just covering himself against liabilty incase there is something wrong.
Regarding electrics, prob says not up to modern standards, prob wouldnt be if it was done last week :rotfl:
These homebuyers surveys are a waste of money!
Most of it is copied and pasted.

epsilondraconis

Unfortunately I can't offer any advice g-fella; however I've just read your thread and found it very interesting. I hope everything works out okay for you.

g_fella

Thanks pawpurrs, I understand what you are saying and of course they will cover themselves, but I don’t think you could class the homebuyers survey as a waste of money. Would you go into buying a house with just the basic valuation, or are you saying that you would get a full structural survey? There aren’t any more options are there? I think it's good to know a bit more about the property and some of the specifics pointed out in our homebuyers report are good to read. Nothing that would particularly stop us buying the property in this case, but certainly a lot of information about things we might consider repairing or altering once we are in there. Certainly a lot more information than the basic valuation would have given.

Anyway, back to my quest for competitive insurance....

I have just made some quick calls to the companies that originally said no. Described the work that was carried out and listened to what they had to say.

Direct Line - Unfortunately I mentioned the term underpinning in my description... basically the lady I spoke to said that if the work that was carried out was described as underpinning then the answer was no. I asked her if the work didn’t mention underpinning (as I'm no technical expert and I'm not sure if the work that was carried out is strictly that) what would there response be. She said that they would need to see details of structural report before they could say yes or no. I think that was just a polite way of saying no though :rolleyes:

Churchill - (Didn’t mention underpinning this time but just described the work) Chap I spoke to asked why the work was carried out, and I explained the floor had dipped and suggested that was more like heave or landslip, I said I didn’t know what the technical term for it was as I don’t (landslip, subsidence, settlement - could be any of them). He said that their underwriters would almost certainly say no, but he did offer some advice. He suggested I call the ABI (Association of British Insurers) on 0207 600 3333 during normal office hours as they should be able to help me by giving details of insurers and underwriters that would consider taking on the insurance, this would include specialist insurers but may include some more mainstream insurers.

esure - (again didn’t mention underpinning, just described the work) The lady i spoke to put me on hold while she spoke to someone from the underwriting team. Came back to say if the cause was subsidence then the answer is no, but if I really wanted to see if they would cover the property then I would have to go through the potentially lengthy process of submitting structural reports after which the answer could well still be no.

So there we go.. Different tact, but near enough the same results. I must just say that everyone I have spoken to at the companies I've mentioned in my posts have been very friendly and quite knowledgeable and more importantly sound like they are based in this country (one of my personal bug bears is foreign call centres).

Plan of action is to phone the ABI on Monday, then get some proper quotes of those that will cover the house, then make a decision.

Have a good weekend MSE'ers :beer:

harryhound

I think the no win no fee industry coupled with the "its not my fault" current attitude is creating this nonsense.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?

I bought my home in the 1970's. and another property in the 1980's.

In the 80's I went to the local council and asked for a copy of the flood report.
"I've never been asked for that before".

In the 70's I consulted the geological survey in the library and found the area was just outside "Claygate Beds": For those who do not instantly recognise the term, it means a layer of clay and a layer of sand and a layer of clay etc. etc. etc.
The home I wanted is built on a "hump" where a steepish hill flattens out into a gently sloping field. Claygate beds are one of the worst subsoils on which to build especially if the hillside is steeper than a few degrees and water is involved. It is a double whammy, all the problems of swelling and shrinking plus the risk of the house tobogganing down the hill. A particular problem if a nieve owner builds a modern extension.
So before exchanging contracts I dug an exploratory hole and found solid clay.
As soon as I moved in I dug out the 5ft deep ditch that ran along my "uphill" boundary (the previous owner was hard at work filling it in ("Its never had water in it") Since then it has carried more than an normal sewer pipe can handle. It is simple really, those old boys who dug it originally with wooden agricultural shovels, did not do it just to keep warm in a cold winter.

In the last 30 years two homes up the hill have been totally rebuilt by the insurance companies and another has been sold at auction for 87K (cash?) when similar properties were fetching 250K.
If you build across the hillside you ought to put in a French drain round three sides of the house and drain it down down the hill, or build on piles. To stop the water building up against the now deep foundations specified.

As one of the oldest residents, I get no thanks for pointing this out to new arrivals.

Interestingly one road is authority A and the next road is authority B - one specifies piles the other (foolishly in my opinion) deep mass concrete.

Me ? I'm in the mass concrete authority, but so far without problems.

I do have a dodgy floor slab in the living room - almost certainly a bodge job when the previous owner converted suspended floors to solid.
No I won't be trying to claim, I'd be responsible for the first umpteen pounds of the claim, have to pay a so called professional for certifying the work and blight the future value of the home. When I get around to it, I will dig it out, probably install under floor heating with a good thickness of insulation and reinstate. (An alternative is to inject it with slurry or polyurethane; the latter expands on curing and can lift a slab back into position, in theory).

It seems to me that the relatively simple industry of domestic housing is now completely tied up, in a jobs for the boys system intended to protect consumers from their own folly and the possibility of litigation. After all 9 out of 10 buyers cannot be bothered to read the HIP.
Meanwhile the number of people actually doing the work becomes a smaller proportion of the costs.
We all have to pay the resulting expense in our insurance premiums.

g_fella

I just thought I'd come back one last time to finish off the whole insurance thing.

Further to the homebuyers report, we had a structural engineer do a quick report on the property to ensure that we weren't about to buy a complete duffer of a property (vendors offered to pay to put our minds at rest, so why not).

I instructed the bloke to give us his honest opinion on the current structure of the property and to look for any signs of subsidence/heave/landslip etc. Sent him all the plans of the work that was carried out, and asked him to put a name on what he believed the cause of the original problem to be, and his technical description of the work that was carried out.

He did the report. No signs of anything wrong with the structure. And his report stated:

"From the borehole and design information for the slab replacement works it would appear that the problems with the original slab was a combination of the following:
· Poorly constructed concrete slab.
· Settlement of the fill and soil resulting in settlement of the slab itself at some stage following the construction of the house.
For our clients clarification purpose we can confirm that the existing mini piled ground floor slab construction is not of a type of construction known as “underpinning” as the piles support a totally new reinforced concrete slab over the total ground floor area. The description of the works is as per the Building Regulation Notice of Passing Plans as issued by District Council as being “Replacement ground floor slab supported on minipiles”.

Armed with this information I went back to the insurance companies for one final stab.
Direct Line - They said YES. As long as the structure of the building has not moved or it hasnt been underpinned then they would insure.
More Than - The girl on the phone just kept repeating "The question would be has it suffered from subsidence, landslip or heave", I said no it has suffered from settlement, to which she said, "Yes but the question is has it ever suffered from ...". I thanked her and moved on.
Churchill - They said No initially, but it would depend on the full details in the report. If it said "not ongoing" then it would be referred to the technical team who would request the report. Basically it turned into a MAYBE.
esure - They said it would be referred, so again a MAYBE. Kindly reminded me that if I did call back to mention that I would have done the quote online so that they could still offer me the online discount.
Privilege - Would want to see the report. As long as the problem was historic, non-progressive and not on-going, then they would say YES.

And finally...

Tesco's - Dont know why i didnt phone them the first time (maybe i did but forgot to write it down). The very helpful chap said I was right to mention it, but from the description of the problem, work carried out and timescales they wouldnt have a problem. Settlement for them is not an issue. Quote for buildings and contents insurance under £300 for the year :j. I've used them before for my car insurance , claimed, and everything was very easy. Pleased to say they will be receiving my business again. Top stuff.

Of course I should be writing this from the new house by now. Pretty much everything was sorted out a couple of weeks ago, and we thought everything was in place ready to exchange. Unfortunately my buyer is having nightmare getting his mortgage offer into his solicitor. The mortgage company [begins with B, rhymes with Fritannia] are holding everything up. They claim to have sent the offer through weeks ago, then they claimed it was sent a week ago, now another copy was sent 3 days ago... all of which have failed to appear. They refuse to fax it and claim they only use 2nd class post. It's the last piece of the puzzle, and everyone is getting decidedly fed up. Fingers crossed it appears tomorrow.

The End
:beer:

Ladybird20

I am still following your thread as like i saidin an earlier post i had 12 pile foundations put under the floor.Myhouse wasnt/isnt subsiding through settlement but had dipped by 15mm.On having the floor dug up by the nhbc it revealed that the block and beam floor support never had foundations under a load bearing wall.The nhbc did the repair and put the pile foundations under the said block an beam supports. The word subsidence/settlement is worlds apart in the eye of insurers,compared to what i had done,but i am still intrested in how insurance companies perceive this. I am with direct line and havnt dreamed of changin basically coz i can tbe bothered with the hassle but on reading ur last post i mite give tesco a ring.........good result bet ur dead chuffed ..

jenny74

g_fella wrote: »

Direct Line - They said YES. As long as the structure of the building has not moved or it hasnt been underpinned then they would insure.
More Than - The girl on the phone just kept repeating "The question would be has it suffered from subsidence, landslip or heave", I said no it has suffered from settlement, to which she said, "Yes but the question is has it ever suffered from ...". I thanked her and moved on.
Churchill - They said No initially, but it would depend on the full details in the report. If it said "not ongoing" then it would be referred to the technical team who would request the report. Basically it turned into a MAYBE.
esure - They said it would be referred, so again a MAYBE. Kindly reminded me that if I did call back to mention that I would have done the quote online so that they could still offer me the online discount.
Privilege - Would want to see the report. As long as the problem was historic, non-progressive and not on-going, then they would say YES.

What I think is funny about the above info given to you is that Direct Line, Churchill and Privilege are all part of the same insurance comoany - They are all owned by RBS Insurance.

DId you ever find out who insured the property previously? As I said before, they would offer insurance.