Structural Movement and Underpinning

ruggedtoast

ac427 wrote: »

Thanks Eddddy, i was thinking about a new thread but all these tales of woe seem to fit well.

It it is true i would be getting more than value for money than compared to the equivalent property without subsdidence.

I guess the $64000 question is how much discount should be sought?

I am thinking 10% but wonder what discounts others have gotten in the past?

It's impossible to say. That is why these properties are hard to value. A house is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

No one wants to buy an underpinned property but people do if it ticks enough other boxes and it seems structurally sound.

My main concern would be insurance and resale. A few years ago when I was looking at an underpinned place there were zero high street insurers who would even quote, which is why I walked away.

Now there are a few, but what will be the situation in a few years?

ac427

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It's impossible to say. That is why these properties are hard to value. A house is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

No one wants to buy an underpinned property but people do if it ticks enough other boxes and it seems structurally sound.

My main concern would be insurance and resale. A few years ago when I was looking at an underpinned place there were zero high street insurers who would even quote, which is why I walked away.

Now there are a few, but what will be the situation in a few years?

Thanks RuggedToast, Because the works were carried out so long ago i though it would be ok.

I was told that legally i do not have to disclose the subsidence or underpinning because it happened so long.

I have quotes from a couple of insurers that will insure the property.

The subsidence excess is £2500 instead of £1000

The premium (buildings only) is around the £660 instead of an approximate £400

dacouch

ac427 wrote: »

Thanks RuggedToast, Because the works were carried out so long ago i though it would be ok.

I was told that legally i do not have to disclose the subsidence or underpinning because it happened so long.

I have quotes from a couple of insurers that will insure the property.

The subsidence excess is £2500 instead of £1000

The premium (buildings only) is around the £660 instead of an approximate £400

Are your mortgage company prepared to accept a £2500 as many will only accept £1000 as the maximum

ac427

I did not realise i had to disclose insurance details to the mortgage company. Why is this required ?

Yorkie1

It's often part of the T&C of the mortgage that a) the property is insured (buildings), and b) the excesses are within the lender's requirements. Most lenders require a max £1K excess for subsidence.

Have you tried a quote from Aviva - I think they only ask for details of subsidence in the last 15 years? Or who are the present insurers - would they continue cover? If so, what is their excess?

dacouch

Yorkie1 wrote: »

It's often part of the T&C of the mortgage that a) the property is insured (buildings), and b) the excesses are within the lender's requirements. Most lenders require a max £1K excess for subsidence.

Have you tried a quote from Aviva - I think they only ask for details of subsidence in the last 15 years? Or who are the present insurers - would they continue cover? If so, what is their excess?

I don't think Aviva offer cover, last time I looked it was RIAS, Axa and L&G.

Although having seen companies go in and out of the market and in doing so causing massive and very expensive problems for the owner I would exercise caution.

ac427

Yorkie1 wrote: »

It's often part of the T&C of the mortgage that a) the property is insured (buildings), and b) the excesses are within the lender's requirements. Most lenders require a max £1K excess for subsidence.

Have you tried a quote from Aviva - I think they only ask for details of subsidence in the last 15 years? Or who are the present insurers - would they continue cover? If so, what is their excess?

Thanks Yorkie, I did try with HomeProtect (AXA) and you do not have to declare subsidence if it happened more than 15 years ago.

Sadly they do ask whether the property has ever had underpinning. So lets the cat out of the bag.

All seem to ask for £2500 excess.

ruggedtoast

ac427 wrote: »

Thanks RuggedToast, Because the works were carried out so long ago i though it would be ok.

I was told that legally i do not have to disclose the subsidence or underpinning because it happened so long.

I have quotes from a couple of insurers that will insure the property.

The subsidence excess is £2500 instead of £1000

The premium (buildings only) is around the £660 instead of an approximate £400

Who told you that?

The question is usually very clear on high street policies:

'has the property ever been affected by subsidence landslip or heave - Y/N'

They may never find out, but the consequences of trying to claim for subsidence later and them investigating would not be pretty.

ac427

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Who told you that?

The question is usually very clear on high street policies:

'has the property ever been affected by subsidence landslip or heave - Y/N'

They may never find out, but the consequences of trying to claim for subsidence later and them investigating would not be pretty.

Exactly what i thought. Subsidence would show in local searches anyway. So god know what my advisor was talking about.

i would not want to risk not being covered after paying through the nose for the privilege!

ruggedtoast

ac427 wrote: »

Exactly what i thought. Subsidence would show in local searches anyway. So god know what my advisor was talking about.

i would not want to risk not being covered after paying through the nose for the privilege!

My no purchase no fee solicitor said the same thing. They just want the sale to go through so they get paid. Its you that ends up owning the property.

I would imagine that if it hasn't moved for 40 years its not going to now but you must get your own survey done, dont rely on the vendor's.

They may well be expecting you to drop your offer.