Getting to the bottom of subsidence claim - help?!

acreed

Dear Forum

I have found some similar topics but nothing which quite answers my questions, so here goes.

My wife and I have had our offer on a bungalow accepted. The Vendor noticed some cracking under a rear window after his mother moved out of the house and had a structural engineers report done. He then contacted his insurers.

The Vendors insurers sent someone out to view the cracks and the engineers report and they sent the following letter (anonymised):

“We refer to our recent meeting and confirm our appointment on behalf of your Building Insurers with regard to your claim for possible subsidence. Following our visit to your property, we report as follows.

We were shown the crack damage located adjacent to the rear right hand corner and front left hand corner of the main property. From our visual inspection we tend to concur with the observations and conclusions drawn from the Engineer's Reports and note that the damage appears to be historic in origin and may have resulted from longstanding settlement. We would also concur with their recommendation to carry out an inspection on the rainwater drainage pipework located adjacent to the rear right hand corner and front right hand corner of the main property and to carry out any necessary repairs. We also recommend that the crack damage is repaired which will in itself act as self monitor should further movement occur but we feel this unlikely.

We have provided your Insurers with a report highlighting the circumstances surrounding the claim and concluded that on the basis of our inspection, an insured peril such as subsidence does not appear to have operated. A claim cannot, therefore, be accepted under the terms of the policy at this time. However, we see no reason why insurance cover could not be continued with any respective new owners subject to a satisfactory proposal form being accepted by Insurers.

We are now in the process of closing our file.”

We initially understood that there was no outstanding claim on the property and hoped that we would be able to reinsure with any one we liked. It was on this basis that we made the offer. However, our surveyor has suggested that we need to keep on insurance with the Vendors insurance company to be sure that we don't have disclosure issues. I am not entirely comfortable about this.

We contacted the Vendors insurers who confirmed that they would insure us (because they are obliged to do so) but that we needed to get “the claim” signed over to us and ensure all repair works were completed within 28 days of the completion date. We were not aware that there was a claim outstanding and the Insurers would not tell us what repair work is required as we are not the policy holders.

We have had sight of the initial engineers report (but we do not have a copy to rely on) which mentioned certain repairs. One thing we did notice was that the report suggested that the cracks be repaired using a “Brik Bond” method. The Vendor proceeded to have the cracks repaired after our offer but before our surveyor got out to the house. He did not use this recommended method as his builder told him that it was OTT.

I have a few questions:

1) How can we find out if there is actually a claim outstanding;
2) How can we find (reliably) out what repair work is needed;
3) How do you get a claim “signed over” – our solicitor does not seem to know;
4) How can we know if the repair work already undertaken by the Vendor is acceptable to the insurers;
5) Will we be stuck with the current insurers for ever, even though the reports seem to state that there was nothing wrong?

Any other comments/advice appreciated as I am frankly a bit nervous about the position.
Thanks Al

courtjester

Your text refers to the drainage being inspected for possible leaks - this is quite a common cause of minor movement, but you don't say if this testing and /or repair to drains was done.

The assignment of the claim is done by the policyholder and their insurers (in other words the vendor).

Not sure what Brik Bond is, although generally cracked brickwork is best repaired by resin bonding method as this strengthens the joins and avoids re-opening up of simple cement 'pointing' repairwork (this may be what brik bond is - a proprietory name for the resin).

The loss adjusters /surveyors letter states that they don't think the cause is subsidence - although if the movement /cracks *are* due to leaks from the drains, it will be due to subsidence (which is basically movement of the ground on which the foundation sits). The main point is that they are advising that the movement appears to be old - in other words not moved in recent years and not moving now.

This may be only an opinion in the absence of more detailed monitoring and sub-soil investigations that are not recommended at this time - so the actual cause is not really established because the appearance of the structure is not such that there is obvious signs of current movement, so no problem to rectify or investigate as such.

You appear to be left with a situation that there is no definite research to confirm that there is or is not subsidence, but it is not worth investigating until such time as the problem shows itself. If the movement is old as suggested and there is no problem with drainage, once the cracks are repaired they may never move again.

However, if the cracks re-open, this will be cast-iron evidence of current movement and a full investigation would be required.

Richard_Webster

Your solicitor asks the seller's solicitors to provide the necessary answers and if they don't you walk away.

Anyone buying a house where there is this sort of thing going on should basically be saying to the sellers that they want it all documented/certified/ explained and if something doesn't stack up you walk away.

A bit confusing as to whether there is an on-going claim. If there is, even if you could get it signed over to you, you don't know what the result of the claim will be so you are still in the dark.