Buying a house with a crack in the wall, serious? (Picture)

bigadaj

phill99 wrote: »

It's not a crack. It's a cable. If you look closely you can see cable clips.

A crack doesn't behave that way. Cracks always take the path of least resistance, which is typically through the mortar bed. There are many cases where cracks can go through bricks, but typically through the centre of a brick. If you look at the brick that is 'cracked' on the very top course in the picture as well as the brick on the 5th course from the top, the 'crack' is only a half inch or so from the end of the brick. There is no way a brick would crack so close to the mortar. It would simply pull away from the mortar.

Also look at the bottom of the 'crack'. It suddenly stops about 3 courses above the grass. This is where the cable disappears in the house.

Additionally, if it was subsidence, the crack would typically be wider at the top than the bottom. This 'crack' is exactly the same width from top to bottom.

No, the crack is on the left hand side and is evident from the new mortar.

There is no absolute in terms of crack dimensions indicating subsidence, they can be wider or narrower at top or bottom, it depends on the relative movement and which side is moving up or down relative to the other.

traineepensioner

"It was auction cheap, similar houses on the same street are valued at around 400K, and this property was on for 240K but I got it for 160K." .....The OP has already bought the house. Title should read "Bought house with crack in wall, serious?"

poppysarah

sgtpepper wrote: »

It was auction cheap, similar houses on the same street are valued at around 400K, and this property was on for 240K but I got it for 160K.

So what you actually need is a builder or two out doing quotes?

ruggedtoast

Unless its built on top of a mine or caves or something I've never heard of a house collapsing from subsidence so as long as he is ok with his crack and happy to have got a cheap house he'll probably be ok.

phill99

phill99 wrote: »

It's not a crack. It's a cable. If you look closely you can see cable clips.

A crack doesn't behave that way. Cracks always take the path of least resistance, which is typically through the mortar bed. There are many cases where cracks can go through bricks, but typically through the centre of a brick. If you look at the brick that is 'cracked' on the very top course in the picture as well as the brick on the 5th course from the top, the 'crack' is only a half inch or so from the end of the brick. There is no way a brick would crack so close to the mortar. It would simply pull away from the mortar.

Also look at the bottom of the 'crack'. It suddenly stops about 3 courses above the grass. This is where the cable disappears in the house.

Additionally, if it was subsidence, the crack would typically be wider at the top than the bottom. This 'crack' is exactly the same width from top to bottom.

Ignore this. I've been an idiot and am looking at the wrong thing!

Road_Hog

SG27 wrote: »

Yep looks like everyone else was scared of the crack too!

Get a structural engineer and work out if any work needed would cost up to the full value, don't forgot the full value will be lower than similar properties nearby.

Ignore the lightweight fairies on here. Get a structural engineer to you a report and be there when he does it and have a chat with him, to get some man to man feedback - always better to have a discussion than just reading a report.


I wish people would MTFU and stop saying run away - all properties can be sorted, it is only a case of what it cost plus repairs, against what it is worth.

Doozergirl

Road_Hog wrote: »

Ignore the lightweight fairies on here. Get a structural engineer to you a report and be there when he does it and have a chat with him, to get some man to man feedback - always better to have a discussion than just reading a report.


I wish people would MTFU and stop saying run away - all properties can be sorted, it is only a case of what it cost plus repairs, against what it is worth.

^^this.

If you've seriously bought at £160k where the comparison is £400k then you could rebuild the while house and still be quids in. You don't need to do that, btw, just illustrating that there is no need to run.

The fact there are so many people here that are frightened only shows the reason it is cheap. Fortune favours the brave

My own feeling is that it is either a new frontage (single skin or non-standard construction?) or there was originally another building attached, since demolished. It may just be a case of putting in some stronger strapping for the corner or underpinning the front, depending on what the cause is - bad strapping or inadequate foundation to the front.

bigadaj

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Unless its built on top of a mine or caves or something I've never heard of a house collapsing from subsidence so as long as he is ok with his crack and happy to have got a cheap house he'll probably be ok.

I've seen a few for various reasons, also it doesn't need to collapse, there is something called a serviceability limit by which point it won't be safe, air and watertight to be habitable.

On the basis of the OPs stated potential value and cost then it's worth a punt. I would expect rebuild costs to potentially be in the order of what he paid, so even if it needed to be rebuilt it still wouldn't be a bad purchase all in.