Subsidence- should we risk it?

financially_gaga

Evening all,

We've been looking for a house near the kids s chool for over 2 years now and one has finally come on the market that ticks all the boxes.

We called up for a second viewing and estte agent then tells me that these is a subsidence issue affecting the extended part of the house. Cause is a tree which is on the neighbouring grounds. Agent said the vendor's insurance is covering everything and it will all be sorted before it is sold.

Questions:
A. How will this effect future insurance?
B. they have stated the cause is the tree - what if they are wrong and some other part of the house is affected? Is the work and report guranteed?
C. Will the underpinning and/or removal of the tree help to keep future premiums down?

Houses are so few and far between in the area. Would you risk it? It is just within our financial budgeting but we couldn't afford any big costly issues after we buy it. We'd obviouly opt for a full structural survey before we bought.

Thank you in advance, all help appreciated.

rob404uk

hi, I know a bit about this as we were about to buy a house that had historical subsidence for the same reason. the house was sound. people told me that because it was underpinned it had deeper foundations. however insurance companies do jot see it as that. you need to have the vendors insurance. if that changes then you would need a full structural survey untill anyone would listen and give a quote. hence I asked for a reduction in price, they refused, the purchase fell through. it put me off so would put others off. insurance I was quoted was about 3.5 x the non subsidence rate. even though this was 20 years ago could not proceed. it will make your property harder to sell in the future

moneyistooshorttomention

If there is any extra insurance cost because of the neighbour, then would you personally be the one that had to pay it? I ask this because I honestly don't know whether the person responsible for any higher bill could be made to pay compensation to cover this (ie the neighbour that caused the problem).

Perhaps someone else might be able to tell you whether they have been able to make a neighbour pay costs that are their responsibility or no - eg by suing them for a lump sum of money to cover the damage they caused and incidental resultant costs. I haven't heard of anyone trying to make someone pay compensation for extra costs of this nature that they have caused to happen - but maybe someone else has and knows what the result of this was.

TrickyDicky101

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If there is any extra insurance cost because of the neighbour, then would you personally be the one that had to pay it? I ask this because I honestly don't know whether the person responsible for any higher bill could be made to pay compensation to cover this (ie the neighbour that caused the problem).

Perhaps someone else might be able to tell you whether they have been able to make a neighbour pay costs that are their responsibility or no - eg by suing them for a lump sum of money to cover the damage they caused and incidental resultant costs. I haven't heard of anyone trying to make someone pay compensation for extra costs of this nature that they have caused to happen - but maybe someone else has and knows what the result of this was.

From the point of view of the OP, you wouldn't want to sue your new neighbour would you? Great start to the relationship.

Furts

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If there is any extra insurance cost because of the neighbour, then would you personally be the one that had to pay it? I ask this because I honestly don't know whether the person responsible for any higher bill could be made to pay compensation to cover this (ie the neighbour that caused the problem).

Perhaps someone else might be able to tell you whether they have been able to make a neighbour pay costs that are their responsibility or no - eg by suing them for a lump sum of money to cover the damage they caused and incidental resultant costs. I haven't heard of anyone trying to make someone pay compensation for extra costs of this nature that they have caused to happen - but maybe someone else has and knows what the result of this was.

You make an interesting point, but often it is not the owner of the tree that is to blame for the damage. Often the tree is there first, and it is the subsequent building that is at fault for not making reasonable, sensible precautions with the foundations, drainage, services and floor. This is often with extensions that have been built far closer to boundaries than the original house. Plus there is a tendency for these to be built on the cheap with corners being cut.

Furts

financially_gaga wrote: »

Evening all,

We've been looking for a house near the kids s chool for over 2 years now and one has finally come on the market that ticks all the boxes.

We called up for a second viewing and estte agent then tells me that these is a subsidence issue affecting the extended part of the house. Cause is a tree which is on the neighbouring grounds. Agent said the vendor's insurance is covering everything and it will all be sorted before it is sold.

Questions:
A. How will this effect future insurance?
B. they have stated the cause is the tree - what if they are wrong and some other part of the house is affected? Is the work and report guranteed?
C. Will the underpinning and/or removal of the tree help to keep future premiums down?

Houses are so few and far between in the area. Would you risk it? It is just within our financial budgeting but we couldn't afford any big costly issues after we buy it. We'd obviouly opt for a full structural survey before we bought.

Thank you in advance, all help appreciated.

Your proposed purchase is highly risky from a technical viewpoint.

Specialist systems exist for underpinning. If these are used they are smoke and mirrors - nobody can check and guarantee their success apart from the installers.

Underpinning just to the extension - what about the rest of the house?

One assumes the tree will carry on growing - what happens about the house in say 5 years time?

Underpinning is a con to suck in innocent purchasers. I will now explain why. It treats the foundations. It does not treat the floor, nor the services, nor the drains - all of which may be affected.

Finally put yourself in the vendors position - are they really selling because of all the potential problems and just looking for a quick exit? If you were in their position would you really and I mean really be concerned whether any repairs are carried out properly? Be honest with yourself...the answer is probably no!

Personally, as someone with knowledge of this....unless the price was really low I would run a mile away.

moneyistooshorttomention

Valid points Furts.

I would have thought, however, that even where the tree was there first that if its roots then intruded subsequently onto someone else's land that the responsible home-owner wouldnt be able to use the excuse of "Oh my tree is x years old and your house/extension is younger than that" as the innocent party could turn round and point out "That may be true - but you are now the owner of the tree and, as such, responsible for anything it does and you could have cut it down" (well bar one of those tree preservation orders). So an owner of a tree has no excuse whatsoever for not removing a tree basically if they "knew or could reasonably be expected to have known" that it might harm someone else if it was left there.

Furts

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Valid points Furts.

I would have thought, however, that even where the tree was there first that if its roots then intruded subsequently onto someone else's land that the responsible home-owner wouldnt be able to use the excuse of "Oh my tree is x years old and your house/extension is younger than that" as the innocent party could turn round and point out "That may be true - but you are now the owner of the tree and, as such, responsible for anything it does and you could have cut it down" (well bar one of those tree preservation orders). So an owner of a tree has no excuse whatsoever for not removing a tree basically if they "knew or could reasonably be expected to have known" that it might harm someone else if it was left there.

Sorry if we get technical. I will assume we are talking about clay, for arguments case.

It is not the roots that do the damage. It is the drying out and shrinkage of the soil.

All foundations are required to be dug to meet the mature tree /worst case scenario situation. (NHBC Technical Standards) Hence if the tree was there first, the onus is on the extension owner to ensure they have been responsible with their construction (and this includes floor, services etc). They cannot come back afterwards and blaim the tree.

Do not think the solution is to fell the tree. This is a myth and could cause numerous additional problems.

I am sorry if the message I send is not the one you would like to hear.

zzzLazyDaisy

I have a friend who this happened to. She contacted the house owners insurers who agreed to continue insuring the house. She bought the house - so far so good.

15 years on - she has never been able to get another insurer to insure the house because of the earlier subsidence (even though the house has been stable all that time) so she is locked into the current insurer with spiralling premiums and no way out. And no doubt when she sells she will have difficulty finding a buyer, and even then they will knock her down (if they have sense) because of the insurance issue.

Personally, having seen her situation, I would walk away. Just my opinion.

Dx

Richard_Webster

From a practical point of view you need to find out if the work has been done yet.

I suspect the estate agents think it will all be sorted next week!

If the remedial work hasn't been done then it will take months whilst the insurance company and their structural engineer deal with it, invite tenders for the work and commissiona builder to do the work. You could easily be waiting for them to finalise it all in 6 months time.

financially_gaga

Thank you all for taking the time to answer.

We'ew going to do some digging (excuse the pun) with regards to the points raised above. will let you know outcome.

However we really can't afford most of the extra expense outlined in the risks above so will prob walk away and just wait for the next house to come along...we're not n any rush anyway :-)

Thanks again!