Buildings Insurance (subsidence claim 20 years ago)

tillson

Thanks for the advice. You are quite right about declaring the claim on all applications for insurance.

Although I am a chartered engineer, subsidence isn't an area that I know a great deal about. My initial thoughts are, that an event caused by a tree is different to an event caused by inherently unstable ground. For example, if my home was built on top of old mine workings and the whole area was unstable as a result of them collapsing at random intervals, I could see why there would be concern over future episodes occurring. There are other examples but I just cite the above to illustrate my point.

In my case, the damage was caused by a tree. That tree has now been removed along with all other vegetation in sufficiently close proximity to cause a problem. This was all done to a specification prepared by an arboriculturalist on behalf of the insurance company. I think this is quite different to the first example as the cause has been diagnosed AND illuminated. The illumination aspect is not possible in the first example, so I can understand the reason for there being a continuation of the risks involved.

The insurance company stated in writing, at the time of the claim that the work they undertake WILL RESTORE GROUND STABILITY. What I don't now understand is that if they have restored the ground's stability and they have totally eradicated the source of the instability, why do they put a 400% loading on the policy? And why won't the insurance company allow me to move to a different cheaper policy with them?

I think there can only be one of two answers to the above questions. 1) They are unfairly exploiting my situation and falsely inflating my premium for financial gain or 2) They have no confidence in the repair work they have carried out.

Neither of the two are particularly attractive answers and both, I think are worthy of complaints.

My view is that if I make a claim on my insurance, the insurance company have an obligation to repair my house back to the standard that it was prior to the claim being made. And that means restoring it to a standard whereby I don't have to go through the shenanigans the insurance company are currently trying to pull. If they don't have the confidence to insure it at market rates, then they have not done a satisfactory repair. I would be quite happy for them to tear it down and re-build it if that is what it takes!

I suspect there are thousands of people out there being screwed by insurers for similar reasons to me.

subsidencerip

Hi , I moved into a house 9 years ago, then estimated to be 100 years old. The house had subsidence , about 6 years previously to this. I didnt realise there was any problem as the house had been professionaly underpined, so I assumed this meant the house was at least as strong as any other house if not stronger. The only problem is that I am having to pay over double the best quote given on the gocompare website with my insurance company, Morethan(Royal Sun Alliance). It is also not possible for me move to another company.

I assume the prevous owners, must have made a claim from Morethan, for subsidence. When I bought the house I had problems with my previous house insurer refusing to insure it, and was advised by the previous owners to use their insurers. I should have read a little more into this. I Just assumed that the insurance company I was using at the time were a little fussy.

I now realise that no other insurance company will insure the house. I am concerned that this puts a blight on the market value of my property, and I dont like the idea of being pinned down to one company.

Surely if an insurance company has a claim for subsidence, they should put the property back in the same condition as before the claim and install it to its original value, and not leave the owners, subsequent owners with an increased annual cost and subsequent fall in value.

I guess I am luckier than some as my policy is still less than £700 to include contents, but am still very concerned about the hold my insurance company seem to have over my house, and feel very strongly that this is unfair.
I would be happy to sign any petition started by other members etc

dacouch

Did you not negoiate a discount off the sale price of the house for the subsidence? If not you should have

dsanders01

hi,
my problem relates to a problem obtaining buildings insurance for a property that we are in the process of buying.
we knew that there was previous subsidence at the property but it was 11 years ago, caused by a tree that was removed and the property underpinned with no further problems. the survey we had said that there was no evidence of issues currently.
once the vendors gave details of their current insurance we agreed to exchange (time constraints!) on the assumption that the current insurers would continue cover. however no we have discovered that the current owners changed from the original brokers (although it's still underwritten by the same insurers) who say that they won't continue cover as they have no record re underpinning for this property. the vendors insist that when they got the quote no info re underpinning/subsidence was requested! i'm having real trouble getting insurance due to all this and wondered if anyone had any advice. as we have already exchanged i'm not sure where this leaves us. our completion date is less than 2 weeks away..!
thanks!

Hooloovoo

Axa only request information on subsidence claims in the last 10 years. Since your claim is 11 years ago, you'll be able to get an online quote answering "no" to all the subsidence questions.

Legal and General only request information on claims in the last 15 years. But if you phone them up they may well give you a good quote. I have a subsidence claim on an extension just over 15 years ago. They gave me the most competitive quote for buildings and contents at just £180 and I got £55 cashback from topcashback.co.uk.

aberis

Having an underpinned property myself, I know the hassle and cost involved in insuring this.

However for everyone out there with older underpinned properties, I found some great news last night whilst looking for a new insurer.

Legal and General will insure an underpinned property IF the work was completed more than 15 years ago; at what appears to be no extra cost. I have just sorted out my buildings insurance with them this morning for around £240pa for a large, 4 bed, detached house which was underpinned in 1987/88

Apparently, speaking to the call centre agent, L&G consider that 15 years is long enough for any problems to re-occur.

Hope this is helpful; and spread the word ... maybe other insurers will start to follow suit.

jhe

we also suffered subsidence 17 years ago. had the house insured along with the mortgage{northern rock} and have never changed companys, when we paid the house off several years ago and the insurance was due for renewal i phoned northern rock as there was no mention of subsidence on renewal.i was informed northern rock changed their insurers years ago and they have no record of our subsidence claim, although they agreed to continue with our insurance, so dont know were we stand if we decide to sell the house. our subsidence was caused by a pipe dislodging under the rainwater grate, only underpinned around4foot by 4 foot on the corner of the house and because of it we pay inflated renewal prices every year.

McBane

Just been reading this thread with interest, and can sympathise with the comments.


Our house we bought in 2008 had subsidence in the past (2003), caused by trees in clay soil. The trees were removed and the entire main house underpinned (which is guaranteed until 2015). When we bought the house we had to get our mortgage company a structural engineering report for them to insure it, which was hassle, but the resulting quote was not sky high.


I had no idea about the continuing insurance from the previous occupier mentioned on this forum and this wasn’t even mentioned to us by the solicitor.


Anyway, we got contents insurance elsewhere as that was cheaper (via elephant). However, the renewal just came through and because of a query of a contents claim which somehow they did not have the correct information, I had to phone them – previously I’ve just renewed (yeah I know, should shop around!). During this they did the standard questions, one of which this time was regarding underpinning and subsidence – and a specific question re subsidence due to tree roots. Naturally I answered those questions honestly and queried if this was relevant to just contents insurance. The woman said probably not, but she would check and let me know.


Anyway, no confirmation but I got a quote through – a bit higher due to the claim, and I noticed on the form it stated no to underpinning and no to history of subsidence due to tree roots. I then checked previous contents insurance documents and noticed this was also on last years documents but not those previous.


I phoned to query this again, she went off to check, but this time she came back and said the quote was no longer valid and she’d need to move me onto a different system, and after asking a load of questions re our subsidence said it would need to be referred. So, I am now expecting a whooping great quote – assuming they quote at all.


But why?!? What has subsidence got to do with my contents, and why was this never an issue before – I sure as hell would never have lied if asked the question, and it was not any previous contents insurance documents. Are they thinking my house will just fall down and obliterate my contents?!?


So, now I’m thinking I should have just gone with my mortgage/buildings insurance company for contents also despite it costing a few quid more, just to save the hassle.


Reading this has then made me nervous about even going there, in case my buildings insurance company suddenly decided its forgotten all about my subsidence and I;m left with a real problem!


Is this right, or has the woman got all confused – or should I try for contents elsewhere.


I sure can sympathise with others in this kind of situation, the cause of subsistence was removed, the house was underpinned anyway and there has been no further problems for nine years and highly unlikely ever to be now. Yet ours is a high risk, while our neighbours are low risk despite several now having or just had the same problem because of trees maturing in clay soil too close to their houses! Crazy!