Considering to buy a Underpinned house

macgyver

There is property (built in 1930's) which interests us but the property was underpinned in early 1980's. It was partially underpinned (belt and braces method) in 1980 due to movement because of a problem with a tree and it’s roots (as the estate agent tells me). There has not been any movement since. So after viewing the property, we quite liked it. I sent an email to the EA inquiring more about underpinning the got the following reply:

1 The house was originally underpinned due to a problem with a tree and it’s roots.
2 So, no not due to subsidence
3 Partial underpinning – belt and braces method
4 Yes next door was done at the same time
5 Yes, the owners have the paperwork.
6 It was insured with the same company for 25 years subsequently (Norwich Union/Aviva), but then was changed when it was rented out (Homelet).
7 Was easy to insure and costs £781p.a. and that includes contents too.


My wife really likes the property but I am a bit apprehensive after reading many posts over here about underpinned houses.


I want to know about the thoughts of knowledgeable people on buying a underpinned house. And I do decide to buy, what are the other factors I should consider besides the high insurance, difficulty in re-sale.

Doozergirl

30 years is a long time. There are many, many newer houses than that that don't come with the guarantee that they will never move.

An underpinned house is far less likely to move than another 1930s house that hasn't.

There is no method called 'belt and braces'. That's just a phrase to say that they did more than they probably needed to. Tree roots can cause subsidence. If the house was underpinned as a result of tree roots, then it was causing subsidence. They can't say it wasn't because they underpinned as a result of movement.

Subsidence is a big scary word to people but underpinning a house is quite simply giving it the foundations that it needed, but wasn't built with. You go and buy another house the same age with no foundations, I don't personally see why that is so much more preferable! There will be trees growing nearer to old properties, there will be dry summers and broken drains in the future that could cause problems to any house...

With it being such a long time ago, I wouldn't personally be that bothered. I might try and knock the price down a bit, for the sake of it!

Vincenzo

My parents house is built in an area that is prone to subsidence (clay). The house next door to them was underpinned many years ago (I do not know when but must be over 30 years ago as that is when my parents moved there). It would seem whatever work was done previously is not sufficient today, perhaps due to a change in surface water run off, more/less trees in the area, building of a new development nearby etc (anything that might affect the amount of water in the soil at any given time).

My parents did an extension 10 years ago and the building inspectors insisted on 3m foundations due to the clay soil and known risk. The extension still moved (albeit very little but enough to result in an insurance claim for c.£30k). The point being, even where preventative measures are taken, there are no guarantees.

If insurance is in place (without exclusions - check the policy) this should give you some reassurance. Personally I would be happier with a structural engineer's advice.

Seanymph

I bought a house that had a history of subsidence - and insurance was higher, but achievable.

I am in the process of buying one that has been underpinned and I don't care a jot. I am prepared for slightly higher premiums, but OH has looked at some quotes and they don't seem to load them at all at the moment. We had no subsidence though, just underpinning (the original floors in the property (bungalow) weren't concreted adequately and were removed and relayed.

Some people worry about it a lot - but I'd rather know and have paperwork and the reassurance that all work has been completed.

Get a structural survey - check with some insurance companies.

flora48

My present home was underpinned in 1983, insured with Woodstock for a a liitle more than I was paying before but only have the standard £1000 excess for subsidence. They took the view that this was all done such a long time ago.

macgyver

Thanks everybody for the re-assurance but, I tried getting insurance quotes and was getting nowhere. Got a quote from a company homeprotect with lot of bad reviews. The insurance was costing about £700 more as compared to any non-underpinned house.
So decided not to buy.

Thanks anyway one and all.

CloudCuckooLand

You should have sought continuation of cover - was it Homelet? If you couldn't because you are not letting-out and its an all-in-one service, then the sellers should switch to normal insurance cover when their last tenants leave, then you could seek continuation of cover from the new company - assuming a new company will take it on as easily as Homelet did...

Though, I'd want to see all the reports and run them past a strucural engineer before committing to purchase.

Vincenzo

CloudCuckooLand wrote: »

You should have sought continuation of cover - was it Homelet? If you couldn't because you are not letting-out and its an all-in-one service, then the sellers should switch to normal insurance cover when their last tenants leave, then you could seek continuation of cover from the new company - assuming a new company will take it on as easily as Homelet did...

Though, I'd want to see all the reports and run them past a strucural engineer before committing to purchase.

Yes, but then you end up at the mercy of the insurance company's annual increases. Getting insurance on underpinned properties or even those in at risk areas is becoming increasingly problematic. Personally, I think the OP has made the right decision in steering clear.