Vendor lied about subsidence

Redman500

I bought a Victorian property a year or so ago. It was in a poor state but aside of some 'movement' there was no evidence of wholesale subsidence and we bought the property with a view to refurbishing it and moving in.

The Vendor informed our solicitor that he had not made any subsidence claims on the property (standard question) and we merrily bought insurance on this basis. Initially our premiums were extremely high because we were not living in the property.

When the refurbishment was complete we sought 'normal' insurance on the property but at our insistence, our broker told the lowest quoting company that there had been some minimal movement. To our broker's surprise, following a routine database check, it transpired that a claim had been made. As a result the usual high street insurers would not touch the property.

We had no legal means of obtaining details of the claim (data protection) but were able eventually to find out what had occured.

It turns out that the vendors had made a claim on the property and we obtained a copy of the very detailed, and presumably expensive, report that was subsequently produced. The claim was rejected by the insurer but the insurer decided, in their wisdom, to log the claim on the database that insurers use in their valuations etc.

As a consequence, all insurers that would otherwise quote are put off quoting (given subsidence issue) leaving the previous insurer of the property able to charge us through the nose for the insurance - despite the fact that they rejected the claim.

I'm extremely unhappy with the behaviour of the vendor but am not exactly thrilled with the insurer either.

Does anyone have any suggetsions as to what kind of (legal) redress I could seek?

Our solicitor has warned us against action re-the vendor, on the grounds that this might further muddy the profile of the house should we ever wish to seel it. I see her point but am concerned that the vendor has got away with lieing about the claim. Granted the claim was not met by the insurer BUT he/she still made a claim and must have been aware of the implications for us as the buyers.

The main issue is that we bought a house without a claim and we own a house with one - not made by us. We are worried about the extent to which our property's value might have been affected. Would be grateful of any advice.

Rikki

Did you not have a structural survey done prior to buying. This would have shown up any defects with the property. Also is it not your solicitors job to find out about the property from the searches they conduct prior to you going ahead with a purchase?

I wonder if the seller were aware their unsuccessful claim would effect you in the future.

lincroft1710

Did the insurer reject the claim because they disagreed that subsidence caused the problem?

If your solicitor advises against action she may think you don't have a strong case, such work is very lucrative.

As you have not stated how bad the subsidence is and how it affects the house it's impossible to comment about the effect on value. In the absolute worst cases I've come across 1) the D word, DEMOLITION 2) a house with severe subsidence problems sold for about 25% of value of identical one opposite unaffected. In the majority of cases, underpinning can usually cure the problem, if in fact it is even that bad. In theory a house that has been properly underpinned is on more solid foundations than one that hasn't.