Underpinned house - HELP!

Pinkangel

Hi folks

Warning... This is a lengthy one!

My boyfriend and I are first-time buyers, and have been hunting for a place to call our own for a year and a half. After two attempted purchases that fell through, we've finally found our dream home. It's in the nice little market town where we currently rent, close to good schools, two-minute walk from work, and a good age (1979) - many of the other houses in the area are either massive new builds (completely out of our price range) or very old (1800s).

We had the offer accepted two months ago, and were on the verge of exchanging contracts last week when the husband of one of the sellers (three sisters) casually mentioned in conversation that the house was underpinned about 25 years ago. It's an ex-council house, and the work was done while it was in the council's possession and still within the 10-year buildings warranty period. He didn't know much, just that the house next door (ours is a mid-terrace in a row of three) had some issues, so the council had all three underpinned by pumping concrete underneath. The owners don't have any paperwork, and the council have no record of the underpinning taking place.

Given the lack of paperwork, we did spend a few days wondering whether to keep quiet and pretend we hadn't been told. But neither of us felt comfortable with the thought of the underpinning being discovered during our ownership, or lying to future buyers ourselves. So we did the honest thing and informed our solicitor. The sellers, when asked, have now gone on record as saying the house is underpinned, so our solicitor has had to inform our lender, and we're waiting to see if we can still get a mortgage. If not - that's the decision made. But if the mortgage is ok, we're in a real dilemma as to whether to go ahead. And obviously very angry that the estate agent didn't tell us, and that the seller said on the Property Information Form that no building work had ever taken place on the house.

We had a full structural survey done before we knew about the underpinning, which said there were no signs of historical or recent movement. We would only proceed if a structural engineer also confirmed there's no movement, so our concern isn't that the house would subside - I think that would have happened by now if it was going to. Insurance would be more expensive, but having got several specialist quotes, it's still affordable - £500 per year rather than £200. The MAJOR concern is resale potential. This is not a forever home, it's a 5-10-year home, and I do realise that the mere mention of underpinning would put the majority of buyers off. If we had known about it from the start, WE wouldn't have made an offer! BUT... We've been searching for quite a while, have invested a lot of money and emotions in the process, and just don't have it in us to go through it a fourth time. We're desperate to start a family, and had been postponing that until we owned a house. But if this one doesn't pan out then it's likely we'll be renting for the foreseeable future, as I can't ignore my biological clock any longer. So which is the 'least unappealing' option - spend thousands and thousands in rent over the next few years, paying off someone else's mortgage, or take on a house that we can happily live in, but could be unable to sell when we want/need to move?

I've read so many similar threads on this forum, and realise that the general consensus is 'run a mile'. But I was hoping to get people's views in relation to our specific circumstances. It's the not the case that if we drop out of this purchase, there are plenty more fish in the sea. Options are very limited in this neck of the woods because if we stray too much out of our desired location, the surrounding area is a massive flood risk! We are so lucky aren't we - flood risk AND clay soil to contend with

Thanks so much for anyone that has stuck with me and made it through to the end of this ridiculously long post. Any thoughts, good or bad, are much appreciated

ruggedtoast

I can sympathise with this.

We were about to exchange on an ex council semi and were just waiting for the searches to come back, which our solicitor had done last and late.

The home buyers survey had revealed potential blown wall ties on the gable end and one long standing diagonal crack to the front aspect that had been repaired some time ago and didnt appear to be of any more consequence.

The bank were fine with this and in many ways it was a 'dream house' in a road where property prices were spiralling.

Then the searches came back and revealed that the neighbours (the other part of the semi) had been granted planning permission to be underpinned to arrest movement in the late 80s.

Suddenly the diagonal crack and the blown wall ties didnt seem so benign.

The vendors and their dishonest, cheating estate agent (they had lied about other things before that point), lied pathologically about this and denied any knowledge.

I then showed them the survey and questioned whether I was really meant to believe that a crack had appeared in the entire front of the house, then been repaired overnight by fairies, without them noticing, considering they had lived there since it was built. They then admitted there had been movement.

A structural survey on that house would have told me nothing about next door, which was the part of the building that had been sinking, and like you we were worried about resale.

Insurance was a pain, most of the insurers literally just ended the call and said goodbye as soon as I mentioned what we were considering, and Adrian Flux told me think myself lucky we hadnt exchanged and to pull out and go and find a better house.

I actually dont think it was that bad but we wanted the nightmare to end by that point and pulled out, found a much better house in all respects a few months later and never looked back.

Through this the vendors were totally intransigent on the price. They had !!!!ed us around all through the bidding process as well, so I felt at least some justification where I see that every year he tries to relist property at £10k to £25k less than we had agreed and he still cant sell it.

I imagine we were not the first or last people to be stung by their dishonest about the history of the building.

dominoman

If it was underpinned 25 years ago and there is no sign of movement since then I don't think you have any concerns - and nor will most future buyers.

Even the insurance will normally not be affected by any underpinning over 10 years ago.

In reality an underpinned house is stronger than one that never had any problems.

I would go for it and not worry. In many parts of the country (e.g. South London) a huge proportion of the older houses have some signs of movement. It's just something you learn to live with - and so long as the cracks are not growing significantly it is just part of the character!

dimbo61

You could offer a few ££££ less to cover the extra building Insurance you will need to pay over the next 5/10 years

ruggedtoast

dominoman wrote: »

If it was underpinned 25 years ago and there is no sign of movement since then I don't think you have any concerns - and nor will most future buyers.

Even the insurance will normally not be affected by any underpinning over 10 years ago.

In reality an underpinned house is stronger than one that never had any problems.

I would go for it and not worry. In many parts of the country (e.g. South London) a huge proportion of the older houses have some signs of movement. It's just something you learn to live with - and so long as the cracks are not growing significantly it is just part of the character!

Didn't you buy an underpinned house?

I found very few policies that would cover a house that had moved. I think it's a bit sweeping to say it won't deter any future buyers.

Subsidence isn't exactly a selling point.

dominoman

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Didn't you buy an underpinned house?

I found very few policies that would cover a house that had moved. I think it's a bit sweeping to say it won't deter any future buyers.

Subsidence isn't exactly a selling point.

I was going to buy it - and had similar concerns initially. In the end I didn't get the house as the buyer pulled out (probably partially because of my concerns and questions about the subsidence) and I was very upset.

That house had subsidence 7 years ago. 25 years is a long long time and if it hasn't suffered since then it is really no higher risk than a house that has never suffered.

For insurance call a London broker - or stay with their existing policy.

Davesnave

The salient question is whether the house is priced to reflect its history.

Houses are cheap for many different reasons. I live in a property that would be out of my price range were it not agriculturally tied, but I accept that it will never be make me big money and it will always lag behind similar 'normal' property in price. I still have the enjoyment of living here!

My daughter has just bought her first house, which had major structural work done 20 years ago, including some underpinning, also shared with next door. She couldn't have bought in her area of choice without that 'stigma,' but she saw having a recent roof and floors as a distinct advantage.She has all the paperwork, and as there's now no structural issue with the house, presumably that's why there has been no big problem with insurance.

If you are getting a discount which reflects the somewhat lower saleability of the house, well & good. Otherwise, re-negotiate on the basis of the new information.

Pinkangel

Thanks so much everyone for your input so far


ruggedtoast - it sounds like you had a horrendous experience, and a very lucky escape! Our sellers seem like generally nice people, and we've got the impression that rather than intentionally deceiving us, they just didn't realise what a big issue the underpinning was, and therefore didn't deem it worth mentioning. The again, they could have just been trying to screw us for every penny! The estate agents on the other hand have been completely incompetent, and we've not had any contact with them in two months, we've just been dealing with the sellers direct (hence one of them accidentally mentioning in conversation about the underpinning). We haven't found any worrying cracks, and the surveyor said there's no sign of any type of movement, but like I say we would only proceed after a structural engineer had also given it a thorough inspection.


dominoman - Me and my boyfriend are also of the opinion that if it hasn't moved in 25 years, it isn't likely to, and accept it's probably now sturdier than another house down the street that wasn't underpinned. Unfortunately I fear a lot of buyers would have the same initial reaction as us, and would be very wary of taking on something with such a stigma attached to it.


dimbo61 and Davesnave - We were thinking the same thing actually, regarding price. The asking price did not take into account the underpinning. We were planning to buy the house for the asking price, but to us it's no longer worth that much. Even if the house is structurally sound, we would be forever stuck with higher insurance premiums and no doubt a difficulty selling it further down the line. We'd need some sort of financial buffer so that we could afford to reduce the price when we wanted to sell up and move on. Working out an actual reduction would be tricky - we've got a figure in mind that we would both be comfortable to offer, but I suspect it's much lower than the sellers would accept. Then again, if they were to put the house back on the market now, surely they couldn't get away with keeping the underpinning a secret again? Not now that the estate agent definitely knows, and they've officially declared it to be underpinned to their solicitor?


The fact that we have no paperwork relating to the underpinning troubles me, as I think that's something that future buyers may want to see, but it just doesn't exist. Then again, if there was a warranty it would have expired by now, and perhaps a structural engineers report stating there had been no movement in 25 years would be enough?!

flora48

Regular insurers will insure on underpinning that was done over 25 years ago. In a similar position myself and told that last year. We got regular insurance with Rias.

MysteryMe

If you had a full structural survey that came back with no issues of movement then it suggests that the underpinning has done its job. If the underpinning happened a couple of years back then fair enough but 25 years? What in reality will a bit of paper be worth. If the council were involved then they will have records I would have thought but really the pertinent information is that the house is still there and with no sign or movement. You never noticed it and neither did your surveyor. It might put future buyers off or it might not. You only need one buyer. You could buy a wonderful home with no underpinning and a month after you move in a travellers site springs up or neighbours from hell move in. No one knows what the future will bring.

franklee

Can you go back to your surveyor and ask for a valuation based on this new information or at least what further survey you should get? If you want the property no point in overpaying. I think lying on the property information form is not on. I do not believe they didn't think to mention it as it's a question directly asked and everyone knows a whiff of subsidence devalues property. If you it buy at the right price.