Subsidence and Insurance

scottcru

We have a 1930's house in a clay area. Over the last few years we have noticed some cracking appearing near the front of the house (nothing major) on an internal wall and ceiling in the dining room and bedroom above. Most are hairline cracks.

To be on the safe side I contacted my home insurer (Tesco's) and was transferred to a specialist. The advice I got was that if they opened a request a record of subsidence would be recorded against my property for ever and a day. They then advised me I should obtain the advice of a structural engineer or builder (at my cost) before proceeding.

I've got to say I wasn't impressed, but :

Would a record of subsidence be permenantly made against my property even if it was determined there was some other reason ?

Should I expect the inurer to send someone out to investigate to determine whether it is subsidence ?

What are the consequences of haveing a subsidence claim against my property ? isn't it a good sign that the issue was resolved ? or does it just spook prospective buyers ?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

themanbearpig

Subsidence is a dirty word in the world of buildings insurance. It devalues the property, makes it harder to sell, and causes problems with insurance forever. No other insurer will ever give you a policy, and you are at the whim of the current insurer for as long as you own the property.

I would get some professional advice before going through the insurers!

ormus

hairline cracks are perfectly normal. all houses move a wee bit due to expansion and shrinkage over the seasons.

when you can see across the road thro a crack, thats a real problem.
subsidence excess on home insurance is usually 1000 quid anyways.

mule11

I dont know whether I'm just on my thick pills but cant find how to enter this thread so please excuse this attempt to get noticed.

I have a subsidence problem with my detached garage allegedly, according to the surveyor, caused by a tree in the adjacent neighbour’s garden. Like most claims of this nature there is a £1,000 excess payment required. I thought this excess would be recovered from the neighbour/insurance, as I am in a non-fault position (similar to a car accident where you are punted up the rear). However, my insurance have responded with the following statement** which I find quite extraordinary that they have decided to band together, like a Cartel, & dispense with any help whatsoever; it would be the same for all claims albeit the persons deserving of assistance are denied so the Insurers’ benefit albeit by default, how can this be ethical?!? Any ideas to help me challenge this anomaly would be most welcome, thank you.

**Unfortunately it is unlikely that a recovery of the costs incurred in the claim can be made from a domestic third party. All insurers entered into an agreement between themselves whereby they will not seek recovery of the costs of investigating or repairing damage in properties from the owner of a neighbouring property, unless proper action is not taken to remove the effects of tree which results in a second incident of damage.

dacouch

It's because under UK civil law you can only successfully sue if you can prove the damage could "Reasonably" have been avoided which is difficult to prove with trees. The exceptions being if there are known problems with the tree roots and the neighboor takes no action