Is this 'Subsidence'?

merc55

Hi, we're about to exchange on a house that I knew before had some minor remedial work following the removal of a nearby conifer tree. This happened in 1987 and for 20 months following the rectification the house was monitored and showed zero movement. The current vendors purchased the house in 1992 and were satisfied there were no issues with subsidence and went on to purchase and insure the house with their mortgage providers, Abbey.

It was only when I started to look for house insurance on the internet that I realised that each one asks "Has the property been affected by subsidence". If I answer "yes", I only get one insurance company that will protect it - Home Protect, for twice as much as the premium quoted when answering "no".

The vendor insists that she would answer "no" for these questions, but I'm not so sure.

I paid for a full survey and specifically asked the surveyor to comment on any issues with subsidence and in his report he only mentioned movement consistent with a property in this area and age (E London, 1905). He did not mention subsidence specifically.

My question is, does the incident in 1988 amount to causing 'subsidence'? Or can I say "no" to the insurance questions?

I am certain I can get insurance if I go to specialist sites, but I will pay more, and my main concern is when it comes to selling the house in future.

But we are days away from exchanging, a culminations of a process which has dragged on for months....

Any advice/suggestions?

betmunch

If you dont know how to answer the subsidence question then you shouldnt be doing the house insurance yourself.

Go to and IFA or mortgage broker that gives advice and recommendation so that you are covered if something goes wrong.

Why wasnt this set up when you agreed a price for the house? If there is an issue that needs investigating then this will delay your purchase further

Colincbayley

Sounds to me that the house have been monitored for subsidence and none was found.
Speak to an Insurance advisor and I am sure they will agree that the houses does not have a history of subsidence.

merc55

Hi - thanks for your responses so far. The reason I didn't go into this before is because my wife and I were so excited at the prospect of having our first new house and were reassured by the vendor. It was only when trying to take out insurance (I hadn't thought of doing this before) that I realised the S problem could be so complicated.

Below is an extract from the surveyor who was contracted to deal with the matter in 1987.

Does the below constitute subsidence?


"I confirm that having visited your house yesterday, and in light of the readings obtained from the markers placed to the front elevation, it is apparent that very little, if any, movement has occurred within the last three months, and over the eighteen month period of monitoring it is apparent that the gauge above the entrance door has remained in the zero position throughout this term and the movement either side of the bay window is about 0.5mm which represents the slight element of recovery which occurred following probably the removal of the conifer tree formally standing within the front garden.

It is apparent, therefore, that the previous settlement of foundations has not continued and it is probably that the reason as to why this movement occurred has now been removed. In the circumstances therefore it would seem that making good of the super structure above ground /floor level is all that is required at this stage."

betmunch

Once again, if YOU cant decide what to put in the answer then you need to take it to someone that will give you advice and recommendation.

merc55

Hi betmunch, thanks, that's fine, I will call some insurance brokers tomorrow. I just want to be sure that any enquiries I make about policies won't remain on 'file' and adversely affect future premiums.

merc55

I forgot to mention, that no insurance claim was made - the work was paid for privately by the owners at the time.

Surely this is significant?

Colincbayley

merc55 wrote: »

I forgot to mention, that no insurance claim was made - the work was paid for privately by the owners at the time.

Surely this is significant?

No, not at all.
The important thing with Insurance is the incident, not who paid for it.

LouiseK_2

Not sure if you've exchanged yet and solved the problem but I thought you might find the following useful:

We had a same problem with the house we are (still!) hoping to buy in that the surveyor picked up some historic movement (old house, 1920s). The current owner has never declared it to his insurer but we felt totally uncomfortably in not declaring it when applying for our own insurance. Our surveyor recommended that we ask the vendor to tell his current insurer his findings and then transfer the insurance to us. For some reason, the vendor did not want to do this. We then approached the market and found that most insurers would not quote, the exception being home protect who quoted £900 (this meant that we could not afford insure year on year and so would need to walk away from the sale). I then spoke with L&G who, although would quote, said they would not insure against any pre-existing problems and they recommended that we approach the vendor's insurers ourselves for our own quote (no need to explicitly mention the vendor). The current insurers are apparently obliged to quote. We did this and now have a quote for around £420 (much more affordable).

We realise that we probably won't be able to compare the market each year at renewal (aka money-saving style) but the house itself is great, the house is now affordable to insure and we feel happy that everything is above board and declared with the insurer. Just waiting to exchange ourselves....