Opinion on house survey comment confusion

lynsco

When we bought our house a year ago there was a comment on the report that there was some hairline cracking on the property however this was longstanding and non progressive. We insured with direct line who were fine with this. When it came to renewal time I tried a lot of other companies they said a flat no to insuring. We didnt query the comment on the report at the time of purchase as there was no concern noted or action required so we were not concerned and neither was the mortgage company (santander). Anyway, we realised the report does not state whether the cracks were internal cracking or external - the walls are skimmed inside so yes there are some hairline cracks in that which is nothing unusual as far as I know? I cannot see any cracks in the outside of the house whatsoever. Now I am wondering if I am declaring unnessesary information thus causing me to pay more to the insurance company, as surely small plaster cracks cannot be deemed structural movement? Just looking for opinions really as I have declared it to keep us on the right side of the insurance company of course, but its stopping me being able to shop around. Anyone got any advice?

Doozergirl

All houses move. They need to be able to adapt somewhat to changes over time.

The question relates to subsidence, heave or landslip. Hairline cracks are none of those and I'd defy anyone to find a house that didn't have hairline cracks anywhere, even a new build!

You answer 'no' to all of those questions. Your house hasn't moved in a bad way.

jim22

Hello Lynsco, when shopping around how are you describing this `cracking.`Are you ticking the box which says `subsidence.`

G_M

jim22 wrote: »

Hello Lynsco, when shopping around how are you describing this `cracking.`Are you ticking the box which says `subsidence.`

If so, why? Does the survey say "subsidence"?

What exactly does the survey say in relation to the cracks?

lynsco

Hi, its within the box marked structural and they have ticked yes to say it has had structural movement, however I have to say I disagree having lived here for a year! If there had been anything in the report that the mortgage company were worried about I'm sure they would have said also? I am thinking the only thing I can do is go back to the original company who did the home report for the seller, or get my own report done which is £££s??

lynsco

The question that the insurance companies has asked is has the property had any structural movement and I have said yes due to what the survey said, I was too scared to say no incase something happened and the company refused to pay out....

Doozergirl

lynsco wrote: »

The question that the insurance companies has asked is has the property had any structural movement and I have said yes due to what the survey said, I was too scared to say no incase something happened and the company refused to pay out....

That isn't the usual question. The usual question relates to subsidence, landslip or heave. Find that question and answer it

All houses will move. You won't find a Victorian house with a true vertical or horizontal and they just get wonkier as time goes on. It still doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with them.

So the answer to structural movement has to be no. If there is no ongoing movement and no evidence that the property has been treated for significant movement then it is perfectly insurable.

read your survey again. There should be an opinion against it. Did they suggest further investigation or dismiss it as historical? If you did ever have an insurance claim then you'd wave the survey in their face, but also the fact that you have lived in a house for a period of time where there has been no evidence of any ongoing problem. So whatever may happen is new.

DizzyDasher

Our house is Victorian, has quite a few hairline cracks and wonky floors, the lot! I think that's totally normal for a Victorian house.

All the online quotes we got asked about subsidence, rather than about movement, so we could say "no" without worrying. If I were you I would look for a firm that asks this question (I think we ended up with Axa, and their question was subsidence, not movement) - rather than the movement question -and then you shouldn't have a problem?

jim22

First of all I am not a surveyor. As I understand this the op's survey has suggested that there has been past settlement which is common in buildings. In other words there has been subsidence (because that is what foundation movement is) but that it is no longer ongoing or progressive. It is past settlement. My survey on my ex council house stated "there is no evidence of recent progressive movement but there has been some past settlement." Look around the estate and you will see many houses with cracks on the corners. But they don't fall down because the movement happended soon after construction and has since stabilised.

As to insurance companies mention the word subsidence and its like dracula being threatened with a cross! They run like the wind. Use the term settlement and things are often very different. They might ask to see the valuation report. Where houses stand where there has been past settlement, if new subsidence should rear its ugly head, not sure on that one. Wriggle room, who knows?

DannyboyMidlands

Why are you making such a big deal about some hairline cracks? EVERY building ever built has hairline cracks. Let it go.

ruggedtoast

Insurance companies ask if there is any history of structural movement. If the survey came back with 'cracks indicating past structural movement that seems to be longstanding and not likely to re-occur", you're supposed to say yes.

If it just said cracks, then I wouldnt mention it.