Can you spot subsidence on a property viewing?

noisla

I've been tracking properties in a certain area of ~1880s terraced houses, waiting for a suitable one to come on the market. An otherwise fab property has recently come back on the market, due to the previous would-be buyer discovering subsidence from the survey.

I viewed one round the corner (50m away), and was puzzled that the (upstairs extension) bathroom floor dipped down towards the back of the house, as did the corresponding kitchen ceiling below. The estate agent explained this away as the area having historically been marsh land, all the houses being a bit higgledy piggledy. However, now I wonder if it could be subsidence.

Obviously if I was seriously putting in an offer, I'd get a thorough survey. But maybe the whole area is plagued by subsidence?! Is there any way I can check historic claims or other public data, to see this? On house viewings, can I spot subsidence myself (or could a builder paid £50 to join me on the viewing)? Or is the only option just to get expensive surveys done?

Thanks for your help

kingstreet

Sloping floors, badly fitting doors/jambs, tie-bars, bulging walls are all visible to the naked eye, before you go to the expense of a survey.

G_M

noisla wrote: »

..... The estate agent explained this away as the area having historically been marsh land, all the houses being a bit higgledy piggledy.....

What doyou think that means?

You think because it was marsh land they deliberately built them 'higgledy piggledy'?

Of course not. It means the properties have moved since being built.

And the definition of subsidence is........?

But that does not mean there is a problem. If a property shifted a bit in the first few years, and then settled and has not moved for the next 80 years, it's probobly pretty sound.

On the other hand.....

Davesnave

We rented a house on a fairly posh estate and soon noticed that large cracks in the bedroom wall were mirrored outside. Otherwise, it didn't seem too bad, but that part of the house was clearly in trouble.

When we spoke with others, we were told, "No one on the estate talks about it." We learned that a fair number of houses had needed gable or flanking walls re-built.

The whole area had been a spring field; not marshy, but with water that came to the surface after heavy rain. That water lubricated areas of clay causing parts of the hillside to slip over it. It was hit & miss which houses were affected.

So yes, you can spot subsidence yourself. Local people may clam up about it, however.

That house sold for £364k, but not to the people we showed around! :rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

There is indeed often a "conspiracy of silence" amongst people in an area that is (or might) suffer from a major problem. I've mentioned before that there is a location in my current area where such a "conspiracy of silence" exists about mentioning how at risk of flooding the location is and now recently having insurance companies impose HUGE increases in premiums on the houses there. The reason for this is obvious, in that houses there are still going on the market to this day at the same sort of price as similar houses elsewhere.


Google for images of subsidence and you will see some examples of what it looks like. One clue I know of is zig-zag type lines coming out from the corners of windows near the bit of the house that is subsiding (the third picture in on "subsidence images" when googling).

noisla

G_M wrote: »

What doyou think that means?

You think because it was marsh land they deliberately built them 'higgledy piggledy'?

Of course not. It means the properties have moved since being built.

And the definition of subsidence is........?

Thanks for the replies. I am a first time buyer and was not really aware of the full scale and (insurance-ability) dangers of subsidence before a lot of recent forum reading.

I have also googled a lot for images, but most properties I'm viewing have been spruced up either prior to being put on the market or prior to the last tenants, so you can't see cracks. "Sticking windows/doors" is also common with original wooden framed sash windows (when will they let you put energy efficient double glazing in an old property! grr). I do get suspicious of recently painted properties (especially bathrooms!), but most city centre places I'm viewing have been rental properties and subject to frequent cheap licks of paint.

It's a minefield! Is this why people buy flats? Or does the subsidence problem simply come back to haunt you via the management charge?

propertyman

In simple terms a house its doors and windows should be relatively straight and true, especially in modern homes post 1965.

Older homes were often built with much shallower foundations and tend to move and flex accordingly. New decorations and signs of making good are good indicators of masking movement, planed doors touched up with new gloss etc, and a good look at the street.

Unless ther are clear signs of ongoing movement and risk factors then you
a choose your home
b make your offer subject to survey
c have the survey carried out straight away, along with extras like drain survey electrical test and plumbing tests and timber and damp inspection

even if that mean paying again for the lenders valuation and bbefore you instruct solicitors and incur costs.

Most local firms of chartered building surveyors (RICS) with good local knowledge not the big factory firms can inspect with 2-3 days. Find one now so you are ready when you find the house you like.

Tancred

noisla wrote: »

I've been tracking properties in a certain area of ~1880s terraced houses, waiting for a suitable one to come on the market. An otherwise fab property has recently come back on the market, due to the previous would-be buyer discovering subsidence from the survey.

I viewed one round the corner (50m away), and was puzzled that the (upstairs extension) bathroom floor dipped down towards the back of the house, as did the corresponding kitchen ceiling below. The estate agent explained this away as the area having historically been marsh land, all the houses being a bit higgledy piggledy. However, now I wonder if it could be subsidence.

Obviously if I was seriously putting in an offer, I'd get a thorough survey. But maybe the whole area is plagued by subsidence?! Is there any way I can check historic claims or other public data, to see this? On house viewings, can I spot subsidence myself (or could a builder paid £50 to join me on the viewing)? Or is the only option just to get expensive surveys done?

Thanks for your help

Movement doesn't mean that a house is going to collapse immediately. Movement is not unusual in old houses, given that foundations are not as deep as with modern houses, and if the movement has stopped then it would be classed as 'settlement' instead of subsidence. Settlement does not require any action other than monitoring over time.

The bottom line is that yes, you do need to engage a qualified expert to investigate what is going on. Otherwise it's just assumptions.

G_M

noisla wrote: »

...
It's a minefield! Is this why people buy flats? Or does the subsidence problem simply come back to haunt you via the management charge?

Why would a block of flats suffer less from movement than a house....?

If remedial work is needed the freeholder (or their management company) will do it, but the leaseholders (flat owners) will pay.

noisla

Tancred wrote: »

Movement doesn't mean that a house is going to collapse immediately. Movement is not unusual in old houses, given that foundations are not as deep as with modern houses, and if the movement has stopped then it would be classed as 'settlement' instead of subsidence. Settlement does not require any action other than monitoring over time.

But would "settlement" (or "past subsidence") not still cause insurers to refuse to cover you and/or charge a small fortune,plus put off potential buyers in the future? I gather that subsidence is often (but not always) not that much of a bother nor always expensive to fix, but the main pain is sorting insurance/resale afterwards.

G_M wrote: »

Why would a block of flats suffer less from movement than a house....?

Clearly they wouldn't, but a management company might be better able to negotiate insurance, or have a fund set up to cover such costs.