Another ‘structural movement’ and house insurance question

aliby21

[FONT=&quot]Hello all, sorry for another question on this topic. My brain is in house buying stress mode and not functioning properly, so would welcome your advice on this. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The building survey on the house I am buying (17th century timber frame) has come back identifying a small amount of old structural movement. I’m not worried about the movement (more details below for those interested), but I am worried about the impact on insurance. From searching previous threads, I think I have two options:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) find an insurer that doesn’t mention the specific words ‘structural movement’ i.e. asks about subsidence or heave but not movement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) lie. On the basis that I / current owners will pay to get remedial work done, and I am prepared to take the risk that any further structural movement is minor and can be dealt with similarly, so would never to through insurance for it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What do other people think?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](The more extended version is that this is a timber frame property renovated in mid 1980s so old infill between beams removed and replaced with modern stuff, and whole re-rendered. The surveyor noted ‘evidence of old structural movement associated with possible tree root damage’. There is cracking to the brick plinth (old but he doesn't indicate how old) and rendering above (more recent - has to be within last 25 years when house re-rendered). Possible cause either ivy that was growing up the wall until about 12 months ago, or trees that are very close to that edge of the house. Surveyor not worried (a 2, although he does recommend getting formal quotes for remedial work before committing to purchase). Builder is not worried (what he’d expect in this sort of property). Tree surgeon is looking next week. I am not worried – repairs seem minimal, will probably get trees taken out anyway as they really are d**n close to edge of house. But I don’t want to get stuck with huge insurance premiums because of this.)[/FONT]

poledancer49

It's tough isn't it. Will follow your thread with interest and hope you get some good advice.

ruggedtoast

I would be surprised if a property that age hadn't had movement at some point. Sounds like it wouldn't recur.

It's up to you if you lie or not. Worst case scenario you make a claim and they subpoena the survey. Likely, no, unprecedented, no.

Tancred

People buying older properties should familiarise themselves with what they are like before buying. you can't expect a house built in 1800 to be like a brand new one.

aliby21

thanks poledancer. I've read your thread through several times! really hard isn't it. will likewise be interested to hear how you get on.

Tancred wrote: »

People buying older properties should familiarise themselves with what they are like before buying. you can't expect a house built in 1800 to be like a brand new one.

hmm, don't you mean 'insurance companies should familiarise themselves with what older properties are like. if it has been standing for 300 plus years it's unlikely to collapse tomorrow'

to me this sort of minor structural movement is something for regular maintenance, one of the maintenance issues you expect with older properties. Not an insurance thing, but insurers seem to just bring out 'computer says no'. or computer says yes, but at eyewatering premiums.

olias

Don't forget, there could be potential further movement once the trees are removed as the ground heaves and settles.....See below from RHS:

'It is not always the case that removing a tree that is contributing to subsidence problems will make the problems disappear. Although the soil usually swells each winter, a permanent moisture deficit can build up under certain circumstances that will result in significant swelling of the soil after the tree is removed and soil gradually returns to its previously moist state. This is called ‘heave’ and can result in serious damage unless it is controlled by careful soil management. Potential heave is very hard to detect and predict. For this reason, professional advice should be sought when large trees are being removed in cases of serious subsidence.'

Olias

aliby21

yikes, thanks Olias, I hadn't realised that. Hopefully tree surgeon will be able to give advice when he has a look today.

desthemoaner

I've had three houses so far and all of them have had some movement.

The first one, which was built round about the end of WW1, had settled so the two ends sloped downwards towards the middle. Sold it with no problems at all, the surveyor classifying it as "longstanding movement".

The second one--built in the 1920s-- had minor settlement on the corner of a kitchen outrigger, probably due to collapsed drains, but that was never picked up. Probably because it was sold during a housing boom and at the time, surveyors weren't being particularly fussy about minor movement issues.

My current house, which was built in 1897, has settled at the gable end but so have all the other houses in the street. The surveyor at the time of purchase described it as "historical movement which is within acceptable tolerances for a building of its age and type, and not indicative of any significant issue with subsidence." I had a full structural survey a year after we moved in, just for peace of mind, and the house was given the all clear.

The point of all this waffle is that in my opinion, some people, and insurance companies, get a little too fixated on the issue of settlement when in fact, its simply due to the age of the building. However, I understand that yours is a little different because trees are involved. Good luck.