I bought a house 6 days ago and now its got subsidence - please help me!!

27col

As someone has already said, the "survey" is only a cursory look around the house to make sure that it will fetch enough to cover the mortgage. It is for the benefit of the lender, not the borrower. I find it amazing that someone making a huge financial commitment like this does not have their own survey done, or even notice for themselves that there are subsidence cracks, and then not make them a deal breaker. Obviously, the insurer is not going to accept the risk on a house with a pre-existing problem.

Tucker

Why are people surprised the Co-op have washed their hands?

The subsidence hasn't occured in the last 6 days, so the Co-op have no responsibility here. In fact, they've provided cover without the correct information, so this is far different to some of the Watchdog matters.

No one can seriously expect them to pick up the tab here if the OP has bought a house with an existing subsidence problem.

As much as it is not what anyone wants when moving into a new house I suspect you are going to have to dig deep and spend to rectify the movement or do what the previous owners did and stick it on the market and hope some one takes it without bothering with a survey and then run like hell...

Leif

macman wrote: »

A home buyers report is simply a cursory inspection (usually done by a building society to ensure that the value covers any mortgage advanced on the property).

HBR is the middle survey of the three I know of. The most basic is the minimum required by a mortgage lender, and it might be no more than a Google survey. The HBR is more complete, but to be honest mine was not much better than a drive by survey. The structural survey is the most complete, and the one I would probably go for next time. A HBR can miss a LOT of issues as they just walk through the house, and do not pull up carpets, or look under wall paper.

Yorkie1

A structural survey doesn't pull up carpets or look under wallpaper either.

spannerzone

No reply from the newbie OP I see.... all seems rather odd to me for something so potentially disasterous

:exclamati

rising_from_the_ashes

baldelectrician wrote: »

It depends where you are, but in Scotland you usually have a week to pick up problems at the previous owners expense- unless you knew about them and chose to continue

Ahhhh but have you ever tried to do this / done it successfully?

I bought a flat and discovered the hot water wasn't working on the day completion happened & I moved in.

Contacted my solicitor, did everything properly - and I never got a penny of the £400 it cost to fix it back...:mad:

I'm also not surprised the Co-op cancelled the insurance as there is no way the subsidence could suddenly have happened in 6 days (unless there was an earthquake or similar!;)).

It looks like the OP has sadly failed to have a proper survey done before purchasing the property and will now have to pay the price - sorry.

Leif

Yorkie1 wrote: »

A structural survey doesn't pull up carpets or look under wallpaper either.

In that case it only finds obvious big issues, but can miss a lot.

iamcornholio

Leif wrote: »

In that case it only finds obvious big issues, but can miss a lot.

The purpose of a structural survey is to comment on visible problems with the structure, or to report on the absence of visible issues.

It is not the type of survey that looks at everything - that is a building survey

milliebear00001

I am intrigues as to whether the Co-op are within their rights to cancel the insurance (or to refuse the claim).

Presumably, the question is asked on the insurance application as to whether there is a history of subsidence at the property. Presumably, the answer from the buyer is 'no'. What they actually mean is 'to the best of my knowledge, no'. What if there had been subsidence, but the results of it had been 'made good'. It would not be obvious that subsidence had occurred, and so the buyer is not in a position to answer the question correctly.

So, who would be liable should the subsidence become a problem again? Similarly, what if subsidence had occurred mildly, not been spotted, insurance taken out on the basis that the property had not experienced subsidence, then become worse at a later date?

It seems a bit of a minefield to me, and a situation where it is difficult for a buyer to show they have answered in good faith.

nickj_2

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I am intrigues as to whether the Co-op are within their rights to cancel the insurance (or to refuse the claim).

Presumably, the question is asked on the insurance application as to whether there is a history of subsidence at the property. Presumably, the answer from the buyer is 'no'. What they actually mean is 'to the best of my knowledge, no'. What if there had been subsidence, but the results of it had been 'made good'. It would not be obvious that subsidence had occurred, and so the buyer is not in a position to answer the question correctly.

So, who would be liable should the subsidence become a problem again? Similarly, what if subsidence had occurred mildly, not been spotted, insurance taken out on the basis that the property had not experienced subsidence, then become worse at a later date?

It seems a bit of a minefield to me, and a situation where it is difficult for a buyer to show they have answered in good faith.

if you buy a house and then notice a few days later it has subsidence then they would have to assume that unless there had been an earthquake the faults were there at the time of purchase and should have been informed as such when the policy was taken out .