House purchase: subsidence history

teneighty

In my opinion a Homebuyers report from any of the big national companies owned by the lenders and probably undertaken by a valuer is a complete and utter waste of time and money. Just get the bank's standard valuation report and commission your own independent full building survey.


Personally I try to avoid using structural engineers except for the design of complex steel or concrete structures or defects to complicated commercial buildings. With 1 or 2 exceptions I have found their diagnosis of domestic building defects to be very limited and the remedial works they recommend to be massively over engineered. Most good independent Chartered Building Surveyors should be able to report on subsidence cracking or other structural movement to a simple residential property, but I would suggest you speak to them first to confirm that, as some less able practitioners will just churn out the usual generic Homebuyers Report rubbish.


I would not bother with an expensive CCTV drain survey initially. A visual inspection of gullies, manholes etc. should give you a rough idea of age, materials and condition. The drains can be tested with a simple air pressure test that will take about 30 minutes and can be done by any plumber, groundworker or general builder (even some surveyors). If the drains fail this test then a CCTV survey may reveal the exact location of the fault if it is visible to the camera lense, not always possible.

kg1448

Right, we have arrived at the following plan:

- we are having a structural engineer's report carried out first, to establish there is no ongoing subsidence, we will also ask him to inspect the drains etc.

- then providing the results of this are ok, we have a Homebuyer Survey booked through Countrywide, the bank's valuation company.

I realise that these reports get slated a lot, however having contacted both Countrywide and Connells to ask if they think we should have a full building survey instead of a Homebuyer, both said they don't see the point. One said the full building survey 'would just tell you if there was a screw missing on a door hinge', i.e. give lots of unnecessary detail when we plan to modernise the house anyway.

Many people have advised me to just go with the standard valuation from the bank, however the Homebuyer is only £200 more and I feel it will provide more peace of mind ! Others have advised we should get an independent company to carry out a full building survey, but I'm not sure we will be getting that much more, for another £1000.

Any ideas on whether this makes reasonable sense?

Also we have been in touch with the current insurers and they have quoted us just over £200/year for buildings insurance...

Thanks again all for all the useful comments and advice.

patricia..xx

We had this exact issue on a house last year. The problems arose as they had changed insurer. When we tried to get insurance with the provider who paid the claim they refused (they only have to carry on insurance).

When we tried with the current provider they said they wouldn't insure us for subsidence at all, and that was how the vendor was currently insured (they insisted otherwise). Neither we, nor our mortgage company was happy with that.

I ended up getting quotes from a really helpful broker that I found I think linked through from British Insurers website subsidence section.

In the end we provided all the reports and current survey and they found us a reasonable quote.

It was all very stressful, mainly due to the vendors having changed insurers. It was sorted in the end, but the claim was a lot less that yours, and many insurers wanted a lot more detail than a structural survey - so I would recommend speaking to insurers first about what they need.

After much research we decided the value wasn't affected, just that you rule out many people who decide to buy a house without previous structural problems.

After all that we lost the house due to losing our buyers! Grrr!

kg1448

Hi there,

Yes, I've heard it's best to stick with the current insurer, in case a further claim needs to be made. This makes me a bit nervous however, as I suppose they can keep putting the price up.

Did the issue on your house relate to the same thing i.e. drains replaced? £10k does sound rather high, how much had the claim been on your house? Did you also have a structural engineers report, and was this reassuring? I am concerned this might not confirm one way or the other whether there is ongoing movement...

Sorry to hear you lost the house, but maybe it was for the best ! Hopefully you found somewhere better. We are not 100% sure we should take the risk !! But looking around at other properties, there is nothing else out there as good at the moment...

patricia..xx

Sorry just seen this reply. No the cost on ours was about £1.5k, why they put it through insurance was anyone's guess. Yes it was a drains problem too.

We didn't get any further reports, our structural survey said it was historic, and the paperwork the owners had was detailed. Many insurers wanted a further report, if we had not been able to find one that didn't we would have pulled out for that reason.

We still haven't found somewhere better though! Well we are waiting to exchange somewhere else, but not getting my hopes up ever again! Good luck whatever you decide

bigadaj

There's quite a bit of misinformation on this thread.

Subsidence is relatively common in london due to the swelling and shrinkage limits of london clay, however this isn't normally associated with cracked drains.broken drains normally result in washout of fine sands and silts and related settlement, so these points are being conflated.

A chartered surveyor won't be able to help with these issues normally, or will just refer onto a structural or geotechnical engineer to come up with a permanent solution.

Where there has been settlement then even where this has stopped there is often a need for some structural work, as ground movement can't be ruled out in teh future and some reinforcement is advisable, though specifics depend on the individual circumstances.

patricia..xx

bigadaj wrote: »

Subsidence is relatively common in london due to the swelling and shrinkage limits of london clay, however this isn't normally associated with cracked drains.broken drains normally result in washout of fine sands and silts and related settlement, so these points are being conflated.

Try telling that to insurers. I was as shocked as anyone that they don't care what caused the movement, movement = subsidence and drains = cause, and doesn't matter if they have been fixed you are still on the "no bl**dy way we will insure you" list.

I totally understood the causes and future risks, but insurance companies didn't! A few specialist ones did to be fair

bigadaj

patricia..xx wrote: »

Try telling that to insurers. I was as shocked as anyone that they don't care what caused the movement, movement = subsidence and drains = cause, and doesn't matter if they have been fixed you are still on the "no bl**dy way we will insure you" list.

I totally understood the causes and future risks, but insurance companies didn't! A few specialist ones did to be fair

That wasn't really my point, I was saying that the cause and effect don't seem to match in this instance.

With regard to your point there is a certain irony that a treated house is seen as more of liability than one which may still hold foundation problems in the future, but it's a function of insurers limited assessment of risk, flood risk is a similar issue as their information, from the EA database is notoriously unreliable on a local level.