'Historic movement'

calliopeviolet

Hi everyone

I've just pulled out of a house purchase because the mortgage valuation and the survey showed 'historic movement'. I know it's not the same as landslip, heave or subsidence, but insurance companies seem to treat it as such and I wasn't able to find a High Street insurer to cover me.

Having spoken to a load of people about this, the opinion seems to be that most old houses (this was built in 1900) will have some sort of historic movement. If this is the case, then do all properties of this kind require specialist insurance, or is it just a case of hoping that the insurers assumptions don't ask about it?

kingstreet

What exactly does the surveyor say in his comments?

Orpheo

calliopeviolet wrote: »

Hi everyone

I've just pulled out of a house purchase because the mortgage valuation and the survey showed 'historic movement'. I know it's not the same as landslip, heave or subsidence, but insurance companies seem to treat it as such and I wasn't able to find a High Street insurer to cover me.

Having spoken to a load of people about this, the opinion seems to be that most old houses (this was built in 1900) will have some sort of historic movement. If this is the case, then do all properties of this kind require specialist insurance, or is it just a case of hoping that the insurers assumptions don't ask about it?

Insurance companies are being very silly.

Doozergirl

The people you have spoken to are right, all houses move, even brand new ones. If they didn't have a little bit of give in them, then houses wouldn't last very long at all. You try and find a perfectly straight wall in a Victorian House!

'Historic movement' is a bit of a catch-all but isn't the same as subsidence, slip or land-heave. You should clarify with your surveyor than the movement is minor and that you an answer the subsidence question confidently, knowing that it hasn't suffered detrimentally from the movement it's suffered.

calliopeviolet

Thanks all. Both surveys said that the movement was historic and that any possibility of future movement was remote. However, insurance companies just heard the word 'movement' and that was that. . I've been able to confidently say 'no landslip, heave or subsidence' but I can't say 'no movement' because that's not true.

It seems crazy, to be honest and I'm worried that exactly the same thing will happen in the next place I want to buy.

kingstreet

When I get a case with "historic", "long-standing" or "non-progressive" movement reported on the valuation or survey, I routinely run it past the insurers to ensure there won't be any problems.

These are the likes of Paymentshield, Select & Protect and Towergate and normally they offer cover at normal rates.

Might be worth talking to a broker or two if you are only trying comparison sites and the likes of Direct Line.

CloudCuckooLand

Its not just whether its called "movement", "subsidence" or perhaps "settlement". More that the source of "it" has been spotted, dealt with and is not going to repeat. i.e. is it a design flaw, the house moving itself; or the ground settling, moving the house..? And what was done to stop it moving..?

Futher complicated by "historic" - i.e. are they using that phrase simply because they do not know how long ago "something" happened, or to suggest it was "over 50 years" ago..?

Yes, most properties have some "settlement" cracks, but if built in 1900, I'd be wondering why in 110 years there has not been sufficient decoration/repair etc to disguise "early movement"...

There was a thread on here last week, about paperwork pointing out movement/subsidence that a surveyor had completely missed...who can say for sure the surveyors are right that it won't repeat? Unless there was an insurance claim and remedial works..?

MegaMiniMouse

kingstreet wrote: »

Might be worth talking to a broker or two if you are only trying comparison sites and the likes of Direct Line.

Yes - if you have only spoken to call centres, then it is time to move up the scale

MMM

calliopeviolet

Thanks. It was actually an insurance broker that found the £70 a month insurance for me. That seemed like an awful lot and I was also worried about selling on when the time came.

Doozergirl

The questions relate to subsidence, landslip and heave though, not "movement". Some might possibly 'has it been monitored for movement?' but I don't think that is the question either.

in which case your answer is still "no" to all of the above. If the words 'historic movement' aren't on the majority of valuation reports on older houses, I'd be very surprised.

fuzzyrich

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this for a property I'm in the process of buying.

The structural report says:

"From our visual inspection at this time, it is our considered opinion that the subject property wall foundations are in a sound and stable structural condition.

Slight differential settlement has occurred between the two storey attached front bay and the main house front wall, which has resulted in the bed joints forming the diagonal side wall to the bay running back towards the main house front wall.

From the nature of the damage evident in the super structure at this time, it is our opinion that this movement is of longstanding origin, the lack of any recent damage would indicate it to be of a non-progressive nature and as the damage is within acceptable tolerances, then no remedial works are required."

So far I have received three different responses from insurers:

1. Let us see the report - they later provided a quote.
2. We don't insure properties with subsidence.
3. We'll exclude subsidence cover from the policy

Should I have mentioned the report or just kept quiet?