URGENT - HELP 2nd Opinion on Subsidence

madmax2

Hi

Have just recently posted about buying a house with subsidence..

However, we now think the house might not have subsidence? There are no external cracks in the brickwork just cracks internally on the landing area ceiling and walls/bathroom ceiling. The vendors have had Cunningham Lindsey investigate it who are saying the cause of the subsidence is down to cracked/leaking drains? but they are saying the repair involves placing shire stabiliser piles under the rear kitchen/bathroom projection to the firm ground. A builder has advised us that if there are no externa cracks to teh brickwork outside then the house doesnt need underpinning? We think the internal cracks on the landing/bathrrom area might be down to a water leak which was in the lofta few years ago? My question is what should we do? Should we get a second opinion and challenge Cunningham Lindsey? We have been advised by another structural engineer that if we go down this route it will be difficult as the vendors insurance company will then want a 3rd opinion and if he agrees with Cunningham Lindsey then it will be a waste of time anyway. We love the house and are currently renting it as we have sold ours. Incidentally there are external cracks at the front if the property but Cunningham Lindesy response to that is

"The historically repaired damage to teh front left corner has been caused by settlement and is not considered to be progressive. The large verge tree is not implicated in teh cause of damage"

The rest of the report reads

"In order to prevent further movement we intend to install shire stabiliser piles below the foundation of teh kitchen/bathroom area. It is considered that this rear projection is point loaded, causing the ground below to consolidate. The main area of damage is to the rear kitchen/bathroom projection and takes the form of tapering diagonal and vertical cracks to 4mm wide. This pattern of damage indicates a mechanism of downwards movement to rear projection. Historically repair cracking was also noted to the front right corner of the property with minor internal cracking to teh lounge ceiling. The level of damage is slight and is classified as category 2 in accordance with BRE Digest 251 - Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings. We consider that the crack damage has occured recently but that distortions are historic. It is likely that movement is progressive. A site investigation has been carried out abd involved the excavation of trial pits and boreholes at the rear right corner of teh property and front left corner. A partial CCTV camera survey was carried out at the rear right corner. The results of the ground investigation at the rear right corner show the property is built off a 150mm thick concrete strip foundation. At a depth of 450mm below ground level the foundation bears on to soft, moist clay. The clay becomes firm at 1000mm but becomes soft at 1700mm to 2600mm. The foundation detail is identical at the front left corner but the foundation bears on to stiff clay soil. No roots were found in the excavation."

Sorry this is so long and a bit rambled!

Just hoping someone out there might have some knowledge on this or experienced similar. We dont really know what to do - very hard as we have fallen in love with the house but I suppose common sense in a way tells us to walk away as there are so many negatives rather than positves. Incidentally just found out also that a main sewer runs through the house as well so could this have any connection with the subsidence?

We have also been advised that if the house is underpinned then it goes down on a property blacklist which solicitors have access to? and also hat the value is now 30% less? I suppose really we would probably be idiots to go ahad and buy it knowing all we know now.

Another thing is initally this house was sold when we first noticed it so we thought "never mind". However, a few months later it was back on teh market so I rung the Estate Agent and queried this saying "I thought it was sold". They advised that the couple couldn't get the finances to buy it so thats why it was back on the market. So we put an offer on which was accepted (at this point we hadn't sold our house) and then teh mortgage cmpany came to do teh survey which stated:

"There has been movement of teh main structure as evidenced by various cracks to internal wall and ceiling plaster and external brickwork. A structural engineer should investigate the cause and extent of the problem and advise on remedial work and its cost. Works should be completed to the satisfaction of the structural engineer".

We then passed this to the EA who discussed it with the vendors who then contacted their insurance company who got the structural engineer hence this is where we are now. I wonder whether we should have instructed someone and paid for a report but I suppose at the time we didn't want to be wasting money. However, saying that we now know from the EA that the other couple that were suppose to be buying it had got a structural engineers report/survey and presumably the same reponse as that is why they couldn't get the mortgage etc. Just wondering whether it ould be worth now getting a 2nd opinion? Our plan was after the work was done to then get a report done which the vendor would pay for (however didn't envisage the house would have to be underpinned as there are no external cracks and if it is a leaking/broken drain which is goign to be repaired anyway why should it need to be underpinned?

We have been advised that teh EA should have been honest with us and explained that there had already been a survey/report done which highlighted the problems. But I suppose by doing that it would put people off. Do we have any come back with this?

I know I'm rambling on just hope someone understands me! This is getting so stressful and putting a lot of strain on me and my partner. The main worry being will we be saddled with a worthless property that we cant sell or that our children wont be able to sell when we are not here.

I suppose I know the logical answer - WALK AWAY as there is too much to loose. I suppose just looking for a miracle thinking that there has been a mis diagnosis and that the house hasn't got subsidence just settlement as my father thinks?

Any advice would be greatly welcomed even if it is WALK AWAY!

Thank you for reading this.

VIGILANT22

I didn't read all yr post....but this jumped out at me.....

Quote: but I suppose common sense in a way tells us to walk away as there are so many negatives rather than positves.

You have answered you own question, life is difficult enough without puchasing & inheriting problems..

No 1 rule is you do not fall in love with houses, they are only brick and mortar

Also I cant see anywhere that a structural engineer's report has been sent to the lender and accepted!!
If the last couple who wanted to buy couldn't get a mortgage, you will probably face the same problem..
If a mortgage was offered it would probably be subject to a retention and would only be avaibale after work was done and reinspected....To do this you would have to have a lage sum of money.....

Do we have any come back with this?

As far as I can read the EA has been honest with you and told you the sale had fallen through because of lack of finance....The EA acts on behalf of the vendor....what come back do you think you should have!!!....

The warning bells are ringing in my head and I am only reading yr post!

vegasvisitor

Not sure if I can offer any advice specifically as we are in a similar situation.

We have recently offered on a house, knowing that it has some issue, but hoping they weren't too bad. The surveyor thinks they are all fixable, but says we would NEED to fix them.

First problem is there was some movement on the front floors of the property, hall and front lounge. The vendor has fixed this with the guidance of a structural engineer, who will sell us a letter of comfort to attach to our title deeds along with a rundown on what happened to be sent to our surveyor. So I assume that is ok. I am told that the house was built on some landfill and that the floors move a bit in the year following the build, but not since. Build year is around 1900, and we saw it before the floors were fixed and there was a old built in cupboard, fireplace and skirting that did all sit correctly on the squinty floor, but have had to be removed to fix the floor. They have also replace an upstairs front floor and we do not know why. There is also some cracking to the back room upstairs at the wall joining the bathroom, but the surveyor can't tell why.

Then onto the other problem. The house needs a damp proof course, which will make the house uninhabitable for 3 weeks including taking back the plaster etc on an extension and lifting some floors at the back to damp proof the joists. We either need the seller to do this, or we need to bridge.

Also needs general maintenance, wood at roof needs refurbished, gutters need overhaul, heating needs replace, fires, kitchen etc.

Obviously there's plus points - the house is in the area we want to buy in, looks nice from the outside. Price is lower than the going rate due to the amount of work needing done (not ideal in this market). We have the funds to do the work, that part is not the issue. I think my issue is that we dont NEED to move, our house is ok, we just think these other houses are nicer (if nice inside of course). My concern is that it will never be nice inside and that the unevenness will cause on-going annoyance (swinging doors etc, although that might just be normal in an older house).

maninthestreet

lesley74 wrote: »

Not sure if I can offer any advice specifically as we are in a similar situation.

We have recently offered on a house, knowing that it has some issue, but hoping they weren't too bad. The surveyor thinks they are all fixable, but says we would NEED to fix them.

First problem is there was some movement on the front floors of the property, hall and front lounge. The vendor has fixed this with the guidance of a structural engineer, who will sell us a letter of comfort to attach to our title deeds along with a rundown on what happened to be sent to our surveyor. So I assume that is ok. I am told that the house was built on some landfill and that the floors move a bit in the year following the build, but not since. Build year is around 1900, and we saw it before the floors were fixed and there was a old built in cupboard, fireplace and skirting that did all sit correctly on the squinty floor, but have had to be removed to fix the floor. They have also replace an upstairs front floor and we do not know why. There is also some cracking to the back room upstairs at the wall joining the bathroom, but the surveyor can't tell why.

Then onto the other problem. The house needs a damp proof course, which will make the house uninhabitable for 3 weeks including taking back the plaster etc on an extension and lifting some floors at the back to damp proof the joists. We either need the seller to do this, or we need to bridge.

Also needs general maintenance, wood at roof needs refurbished, gutters need overhaul, heating needs replace, fires, kitchen etc.

Obviously there's plus points - the house is in the area we want to buy in, looks nice from the outside. Price is lower than the going rate due to the amount of work needing done (not ideal in this market). We have the funds to do the work, that part is not the issue. I think my issue is that we dont NEED to move, our house is ok, we just think these other houses are nicer (if nice inside of course). My concern is that it will never be nice inside and that the unevenness will cause on-going annoyance (swinging doors etc, although that might just be normal in an older house).

If you don't need to move, then don't move - especially given the amount of work required to the house you want to buy. Walk away.

Jonbvn

OP,

I am a civil/structural engineer, although I do not work in the residential property business. The official engineers report will always take precedence over the opinion of the builder.

IMHO, you are looking for any reason to disregard the engineers report, since you have fallen in love with the property. However, any lender will be very unlikely to offer you a mortgage on the property as is.

Do not let your heart rule your head - walk away.

Debt_Free_Chick

madmax2 wrote: »

We have also been advised that if the house is underpinned then it goes down on a property blacklist which solicitors have access to?

I've never heard of any "blacklist" for properties that have had subsidence/movement etc.

and also hat the value is now 30% less? I suppose really we would probably be idiots to go ahad and buy it knowing all we know now.

What does the surveyor say?

Have to admit that I sold a house that had had leaking drains and was underpinned in the way you describe. It sold immediately after completion of the work, at full asking price, to the first viewers with no issues/delays etc.

There will be thousands of properties in the country that have had this type of issue/treatment. It's not "subsidence" in the sense that it's not the area in which the property is sited which has the problem - it's this house due to what they've idenified as leaking drains.

Arguably, the property will be improved by the treatment if the drains are leaking. Without treatment, it can only get worse, surely

there are no external cracks and if it is a leaking/broken drain which is goign to be repaired anyway why should it need to be underpinned?

Because the ground on which the house sits is sodden and there seems to have been some movement/settlement on the wet ground - at least that's the opinion of the structural engineer.

Is the vendor going to make a claim on their insurance?

dacouch

A house that has piles or underpinning under one side can have problems in later years on the other parts of the house as one part of the house will be much stronger than the others.

madmax2

Thanks for all your replies -

Debt_Free_Chick
the vendor is claiming on their insurance which is SAGA so the problem being if we are goign to buy the house we need to try and get the insurance transferred over which is proving very difficult. I have been told that SAGA are underwritten by Aviva/Norwich Union but they are refusing to quote me - most other insurnace companies wont quote unless the claim is 5 years or more old. How did you get round your insurance after the leaking drains/underpinning and how soon after did you sell the house?

dacouch
A house that has piles or underpinning under one side can have problems in later years on the other parts of the house as one part of the house will be much stronger than the others.

Do you have any experience of this if so please advise thank you.





Any other comments would be welcome

vegasvisitor

We're still not any further with ours yet either if it's any consolation. Structural engineer wants money for a report that's already been produced for the vendor. We have also discovered that the party wall has moved which has caused the problems inside, but the estate agent say it's been fixed. If fixed means replacing the floor it tried to take with it then yes, but I think fixed means stopping it happening again - and we've seen no evidence of this. The estate agent plans to come back to us with evidence....we'll see.

Am I also likely to have insurance issues then? Apparently the movement was caused by next door's underpinning. The house we're looking at doesn't need underpinning though (the are semi's and the next door one sits slightly lower on the slope of the hill, so maybe it's got more pressure on the base?)

jamesd

madmax2, walk away or get a large price reduction to cover your increased costs for insurance and such, assuming you're even able to get a mortgage. There are other places to buy without the risks.

dacouch

madmax2 wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies -
dacouch
A house that has piles or underpinning under one side can have problems in later years on the other parts of the house as one part of the house will be much stronger than the others.

Do you have any experience of this if so please advise thank you.

It's relatively common on properties that have only been part under pinned. In some cases the fact that one part of the house is no stronger can cause stresses on the non under pinned part of the house (Especially if there are other factors in play such as tree roots etc).

I deal with Insurance an have seen clients who have had subsidence again after only part of the house being under pinned. It's one of the reasons why it's best to remain with the Insurer who dealt with the subsidence claim.

Note underpinning one part of a house is not neccessarily a bad thing but as state it can in some circumstances lead to further subsidence, it depends on the exact situation