Parents not told about subsidence when they brought.

markbarton

Posting here to see if anyone can offer the best way forward for claiming some form of financial redress for my parents.

They recently brought a bungalow which was built in 1980 and have decided to put an extension on it. In the process of determining there current foundations they have discovered that the house has been underpinned. Their architect actually managed to located the builder who did the work (its a small village) and he remembers doing it in 1986.

When they brought the house it wasn't declared and the previous owner only lived there for 5 years so there is a chance they didn't know anything about it.

The question is would a search have highlighted the work? Is the conveying solicitor to blame? Should my parents sue the sellers who in turn might have to sue there sellers?

Its put a bit of stress on my parents who have recently retired as they phoned up there current insurance company - Churchill who cancelled both there Contents & Building insurance there and then and basically accused them of lying on their quote form. Luckily I found in another part of the forum someone mentioning Axa & Legal & General for which I am very grateful.

The steps they have taken so far is to contact the local authority to ask building control to see if they have a record of the work and to contact the selling estate agent to see what impact it would have had on the asking price.

PasturesNew

What type of survey did they have?

Only a surveyor would have it in his potential list of things to look for.

Orpheo

Did they buy the property for cash and neglect to have a survey carried out? If they had a survey carried out then the surveyor should have identified this.

DannyboyMidlands

Sorry if I'm being dim but I can't really see the problem here. Is the house still subsiding? Why is there a need to blame somebody? For what?

I doubt anybody would be expected to keep records for over 25 years.

puddy

has it had any financial impact on them. have the new insurance company quoted them a much higher cost than churchill did?

DannyboyMidlands

PasturesNew/Orpheo

How would the surveyor have identified this? Slipped on his x-ray specs and looked through a couple of metres of soil?

stokesley

Unless they asked the vendor and it can be proved that the vendor lied, or there was a question on the pre-sale documents and the vendor can be proved to have lied, they have no redress there. If they had a full survey, there may be grounds for suing the surveyor. There is no onus on the vendor to point out defects, although deliberately (and literally) covering them up may be grounds for legal action.

The best of luck to your parents - they need to get a structural engineer out to check if there's been any further movement since it was underpinned; if not, they still have a decent property, albeit a few problems with insurance.

Edited to add: and even if they can prove that the vendor lied, or the surveyor was negligent, all that will be awarded will be the loss of value due to the underpinning. Probably nothing... And in litigation cases, even if they win, they will not be awarded all the costs (often 75%). Sorry to be so gloomy...

Orpheo

DannyboyMidlands wrote: »

Sorry if I'm being dim but I can't really see the problem here. Is the house still subsiding? Why is there a need to blame somebody? For what?

I doubt anybody would be expected to keep records for over 25 years.

Their insurance has been cancelled. They will find it difficult, maybe impossible to get insurance for the property in the future unless they go to a specialist insurer (such as Hiscox) whereby they can expect very high premiums.

Always get a decent survey done.

Orpheo

stokesley wrote: »

Unless they asked the vendor and it can be proved that the vendor lied, or there was a question on the pre-sale documents and the vendor can be proved to have lied, they have no redress there. If they had a full survey, there may be grounds for suing the surveyor. There is no onus on the vendor to point out defects, although deliberately (and literally) covering them up may be grounds for legal action.

This is correct. It is also why I always ask vendors whether or not to their knowledge the property has experienced subsidence or movement. This sometimes shocks and offends, but it is saving everyone time and money to give me a straight answer. I will have a proper survey done and if subsidence, past or ongoing, is found then I will pull out of the purchase.

G_M

Surveyor.
Even if they had a full survey, there may have been no visible evidence he could have seen. It may well have required exploration of the footings/foundations and / or a Structural Engineers report. I expect any survey would have had caveats in it (they all do!) to limit the surveyor's liability to things he could reasonably have seen

Solicitor
If he received documentation regarding the subsidence and ignored/failed to tell your parents, he is liable. If he received no documentation, he is not. He probibly should have asked a standard questions (in Enquiries / Home Information Report) "is the owner aware of any subsidence?" or similar. If he failed to ask, he could be liable.

Seller
If your parents can prove they
a) knew about the subsidence AND
b) lied in writing (ie by answering the solicitor's question above "No")

then there is a clear case against them. If they did not know (or cannot be proved to have known), or if they knew but said nothing either way, there is little that can be done.

Local authority searches would not show up subsidence unless a whole street was affected.

The outlook is not good I'm afraid. There are various specialist insurers so shop around or use a broker.

markbarton

Hi - thanks for the replies.

It was a homebuyers survey so wouldn't have picked that up.

Yes there was a question on the sellers questionnaire about underpinning etc which they stated No so there is a fraudulent answer. Though as I say this might not be there fault. Its going to get messy if you have to prove that they were aware of the underpinning.

Really it comes down to the fact that a house that has suffered subsidence is deemed to have a lower market value - particularly around the issue of insurance and this should have been declared, they might not have brought the property if they had known. I still feel the blame lies around the building control search but until we find out if there is a record we won't know.