Subsidence

hobbins

I bought a property 10 months ago with the knowledge that there had been a subsidence claim in 2007. The property is a first floor flat in a Victorian conversion. The buildings insurance is organised by the freeholder. The subsidence was caused by tree roots - the trees were removed and remdeial works carried out to some flats in the property (not mine). A certificate of structural adequacy was given.
However, it has just come to my attention that there have been a total of 4 claims for subsidence on the property in the last 30 years. This has been discovered by the company that provide my contents insurance through a simple 'Q search' where insurers share information. The vendors did not provide this information, the HIP, the survey and the mortgage valuation make no reference to subsidence at all.
Obviously I am concerned that I have bought a property that has a subsidence problem and have paid full market value not being aware of the facts. Is there a legal obligation for the seller to disclose this information? Should my solicitor have searched for this? Do I have any right for recourse?
Please help.

Milliewilly

Naughty - the Sellers Property Information form asks the Vendors if they have any policies in place and if they have considered making or have made any claims on them. I guess they must have volunteered the info from 2007 to you?

Before you go running to a Solicitor you have to be able to demonstrate a loss. This would mean getting a value of the property in its current state (I understand from your post the problem is fixed now the trees have been removed?) and a value if it had never had the problem.

It is going to be immensely difficult though as you bought the property knowing there had been a Subsidence issue that was remedied in 2007.

I personally don't see how you can claim for something that been fixed because basically you don't like the idea it happened more than once before you even took ownership??

Catbells

I had my house underpinned through subsidence 18 years ago and am in the process of selling it now. The buyers are aware of it and in fact the house is stronger now than ever it was. In addition to this the offending tree was taken down, the premiums on my insurance have gradually decreased and there is really no issue. I got pretty much what I wanted for the house price wise.

The fact that the trees near your building have been removed is a good thing. It may have been better if they had been removed when the first underpinning occurred, then there may not have been the need to repeat it.

It might be an idea to find out if the previous underpinning work was done as a result of the trees just to feel certain that it won't happen again now they are gone.

nightowl22

That's interesting because our house was underpinned because of subsidence about 18 years ago and our buildings insurance is so high that we're thinking of self-insuring. Certainly the cost of insurance in the years since the underpinning job has more than paid for the underpinning work. The tree that caused our damage was on the street and belonged to the local authority but they refused to keep it pruned despite numerous letters from us. After they had paid our claim our insurers sued the local authority but we have received no compensation for the diminution in value of our house or the cost of buildings insurance premiums over the years.

Can you tell me which company insures you as we find that most refuse when they hear we have had a subsidence claim, even though it was 18 years ago, the offending tree has now been removed and we have had no problems since.

lindos90

Might also be worth trying to find out if the other three claims were also 'tree subsidence' related, or if there is another subsidence issue going on, dont assume all claims are related to the tree.

Also have a look at the exact wording on the PIQ, does it say 'have you ever made a subsidence claim' or 'are you aware of any previous sunsidence claims'..the former being more easy to find evidence of as the vendor could easily say that they were not told of any previous claims, it would be difficult to prove otherwise.

Find dates for all four claims, what they were for and who they were made to. Also find out how long your vendor lived there before selling to you, that may help fit a few pieces of the jigsaw together.

Did your vendors just disclose the last claim on the piq, or did they provide additional paperwork about it (your solicitor should have chased this up for you) have they made a claim with 'full and final settlement'?

123robint

hi all

excuse me if this is piggy backing someone elese thread but i cant seem to start my own question thread on subsidence insurance

my querie is. Is it possible to get buildings insurance which specifically excludes liability for damage resulting from subsidence - so that one can benefit from all the other goodies of a normal buildings and contents insurance eg theft fire storm public liabilty etc provided you declare you want this exclusion

my experience - the minute you mention subsidence they pull down the shutters

Cannon_Fodder

You probably can, but unless you are buying cash, I suspect your Lender won't let you - it would jeopardise their ability to repossess, if it fell down...!

123robint

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

You probably can, but unless you are buying cash, I suspect your Lender won't let you - it would jeopardise their ability to repossess, if it fell down...!

Well i bought mine cash at auction for 2/3rds the market rate so i knew what i was doing and as its a simple bunglow, any foundation repairs will be relatively easy ie take wall down and rebuild with new foundations - not as drastic as messing about with underpinning and doesnt carry the stigma.

i probably wont do that but one of my front bay windows has sunk badly and looks bad - be interesting to take it apart and rebuild it next summer

Cannon_Fodder

As you've said yourself, people run a mile when subsidence is mentioned.

Few people will give you the chance to explain the technicalities of the fix, or even understand whether its better or not than underpinning, they will be running too fast to hear/think.

A buyer's insurer would not touch a pre-existing condition. You need your insurer to have covered it - or the previous owner's insurer to have maintained continuity of cover, transferring cover to you, in order to one day transfer it on to the next buyer.

No lender will lend against a partially covered house, which means you'd have to find another cash buyer to sell.

Catbells

nightowl22 wrote: »

That's interesting because our house was underpinned because of subsidence about 18 years ago and our buildings insurance is so high that we're thinking of self-insuring. Certainly the cost of insurance in the years since the underpinning job has more than paid for the underpinning work. The tree that caused our damage was on the street and belonged to the local authority but they refused to keep it pruned despite numerous letters from us. After they had paid our claim our insurers sued the local authority but we have received no compensation for the diminution in value of our house or the cost of buildings insurance premiums over the years.

Can you tell me which company insures you as we find that most refuse when they hear we have had a subsidence claim, even though it was 18 years ago, the offending tree has now been removed and we have had no problems since.

My current insurers are Saga who used to be underwritten by Aviva until last year. Cant remember who has taken over now. But my buyers are saying they are having trouble getting insurance though. Before that I was insured by Chubb who were too expensive so I switched to Saga and was surprised how easy it was to get insured by them.

123robint

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

As you've said yourself, people run a mile when subsidence is mentioned.

Few people will give you the chance to explain the technicalities of the fix, or even understand whether its better or not than underpinning, they will be running too fast to hear/think.

A buyer's insurer would not touch a pre-existing condition. You need your insurer to have covered it - or the previous owner's insurer to have maintained continuity of cover, transferring cover to you, in order to one day transfer it on to the next buyer.

No lender will lend against a partially covered house, which means you'd have to find another cash buyer to sell.

I bought the house because it was in a perfect location and suited my needs entirely. I dont intend to move ever again - this is my final resting place (Dun Roamin) and what happens after that is not my problem. So resale is not a consideration.

Interesting suggestion to contact the previous insurer (CIS) I will try that. I discovered there was an ongoing claim against the insurer for subsidence damage which not disclosed on the vendor enquiries form, I may have a claim against them?

In practice I am not bother about my castle being crooked, cos all the faults can be remedied, pull down wall and rebuild - its a simple bungalow 1939
but i would like to have house insurance cover.