Subsidence and a mansion flat block - should I still buy?

joshlyman

Hi - slight variant on the many questions on here about buying houses with subsidence.

I'm the process of trying to buy a flat within a large Victorian mansion block in London. The conveyancing process has revealed that the building was underpinned 10 years ago, after a number of large cracks appeared in the walls of the flat

The buildings insurance is covered by the freehold company, and premiums appear to have been stable for a number of years. Hence there shouldn't be any problem securing the mortgage , as there is clearly a willing insurer, which is normally the main risk buying somewhere with subsidence.

The management company appear to be reasonably professional, and I have no reason to doubt that the underpinning work was done properly, or that there has been proper monitoring since ... so the risk of future subsidence is probably low, though clearly not zero.

The flat is somewhere between "fair value" and a bit cheap, at least relative the probably overpriced London market.

It's a slightly unusual flat compared to the rest of the housing stock in the area, so it is somewhere which will have a more limited resale value anyway.

So - the big question... If you were a buyer, would you still run a mile when you heard the word underpinning, even though - in practice - the usual reasons to worry (getting a mortgage and getting insurance) are not actually likely to be a problem here?

Despite all the issues, the flat is very nice, and so it's not quite like I can just wait for another similar one to come along, as it's quite unlikely to do so.

Any thoughts from the wise souls of MSE are much appreciated!

propertyman

The common advantage of underpinning in a Victorian property is that the new foundations are a vast improvement on the original.

You need assurance from your Surveyor or an Engineer that the cause of the movement was understood and remedied and matched agaisnt potential (new) risks of re- occurrence. No further movement is a good indication that the underlying cause was addressed but not an entire one until the cause is understood.

For example mature trees were the cause, and may have been thinned pruned and some removed- you would want assurances that this is being monitored to prevent a occurrence with say a tree pruning program and drain testing for root invasion.

joshlyman

Thanks. The movement was apparently caused by interior structural work. Internal door openings were widened, and a couple of rooms opened up. In both cases steel beams were put in place, and this seems to have led to a redistibution of the weight, movement and cracking.

Presumably at very least I need to get structural engineer to give an opinion as to whether the movement has stopped.

propertyman

joshlyman wrote: »

.

Presumably at very least I need to get structural engineer to give an opinion as to whether the movement has stopped.

Yes , that's as posted, absolutely do that.

You might ask the agent if they, the insurer or their client have had any subsequent monitoring done.

alibalic99

We are considering buying a first floor flat in London primarily for our daughter and students friends to live in while studying. It is also meant as an investment property for us. It has emerged that the building was underpinned in 2006 due to subsidence caused by roots from a local authority tree very close to the property. A certificate of structural adequacy has been issued, but I am concerned about
a) the possibiity of reccurence and
b) the stigma attached to previously underpinned property when it comes to selling.
The surveyor from the bank was happy to recommend the property for a 80% mortgage.

We are quite keen on the flat, as it is in a fantastic location, near to excellent transport links and various parks etc, but don't want to take too much of a risk. The flat is in a small development of 30 flats built in the 1930s on the edge of a council estate and also near to all the new developments at Canada Water, so it is difficult to value, as there are few similar properties.

It is the responsibility of the leaseholder to insure the building, so this isn't an issue for us, but considering that it may be more difficult to sell in the future than a similar property which had not been underpinned, would we be justified in reducing our offer, as we did not know about the subsidence when we put in the initial offer? Or should we run away? To be honest, if it were a house, I wouldn't go ahead with the purchase.

cattie

If the flat was not priced accordingly when it was put on the market, then yes, you will be justified in reducing your offer. The vendor is going to have the same problem with other buyers getting a bitty itsy about it's remedial work and it is going to limit his market.

You say the price is between cheap and fair, so it may well be priced to sell with the remedial works already taken into consideration.

The main concern when buying a property that has had remedial work is that is remains insurable, so as long as insurance is in place and will continue to be offered to any new owners, there is not a lot else to really strike it out as a possibility.

London is built on Clay soil, so such problems with tree roots are very common.

As propertyman points out, a property that has had such work carried out tends to be far more secure than neigbouring properties that haven't had remedial work.