Extension underpinning

lawlie

We were ready to complete on our purchase this week when the local authority search came back to show that there was some underpinning done on the property as part of an extension that was carried out by the lower ground floor flat.

I’ve scoured the internet and of course, been overloaded with differing opinions, on the one hand, people saying not to go there at all, and on the other, saying that there is nothing wrong with underpinning and the foundations are probably even better than a flat that hasn’t been underpinned, but be prepared to pay more on insurance.

This is a Victorian house with a few stories. The underpinning work was carried out 2012/2013, and a building control certificate was issued in respect of the work. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), two other flats in the house have sold since the underpinning work has been done at market value for that street.

I’m in two minds about this. I am happy enough to pay more on the buildings insurance, particularly as its split between a few flats. My biggest concern is resale value. Whilst the intention is for us to still live in it in the long term (say 5 years at least), and for this to be retained as an investment property in the future when we move on to the next place, you never know what might happen and we may need to sell, and I would be interested to hear from anyone who has experience on this.

Thanks

Propertyauthor

The key thing is what effect it has on the insurance and whether a lender has any issues. If it's leasehold this will be buildings insurance organised by the freeholder. If the insurer is happy to insure and lender to lend that's a good sign from a future buyers perspective, but you are the one that still has the risk of the work if it needs re-doing.

Secondly there is the quality of work of the underpinning and whether the guarantees and warranties are of any value, even if the company goes bust - your legal company should check into this.

Finally the answer is it scares some off and doesn't others. I've bought several properties with subsidence and underpinning required. As long as I know what the cause was, if it's been fixed, what insurance I have if it happens again and then how much I want the property versus anything else on the market, then I make a decision whether to go ahead.

What I have done in some circumstances is secured a discount when problems have been found, so if I need to offer a discount to entice a buyer I can do when it comes to selling.

Hope that's useful.

lawlie

Thanks that's really helpful, we'll definitely ask about the warranties that were given at the time.

There is insurance in place atm but we queried if the insurer is actually aware of the underpinning and have asked for confirmation. The reason is that the freeholder who previously owned it and had put the extension in place also had put the insurance policy in place and when the freehold was sold to the leaseholders, everyone just carried on the same insurance, so it's not clear if the freeholder ever notified the insurance company that works were done and there was underpinning.

It just seems odd that none of the leaseholders genuinely seem to be aware of underpinning, particularly those that bought their flats after it was done!

If anyone else has any opinions please chip in!

lawlie

bumping this as I'm keen to get more feedback...

Doozergirl

Underpinning as part of an extension doesn't mean that there was ever a problem with subsidence or similar. In fact, it's far more likely to have been done to bring an element of the existing building up to modern building regulations to support the new extension.

Either way, we build in a much more future proof way than we did. It's hardly a surprise if buildings without foundations suffer when put under changing ground conditions. Underpinning to given them the same foundation as a modern building doesn't really make it special. It's a lack of technical knowledge and insurers putting premium rises on a building in just the same way they put your car insurance up if someone crashes into you. They want to recoup some of the cost.

The question insurers ask is whether the building has suffered from subsidence, landslip or heave - the answer for your question is likely to be 'no'. The question is not 'has the house been underpinned'. The building control documents for the extension will detail what was done.

lawlie

Whilst I entirely agree with this logic (and don't understand why insurers don't!), for example, if I go onto an insurance website, agree with the assumption that there's been no subsidence, but say yes there is a bay window, yes there is an extension, yes there is a tree within 25m of the building, the insurance is declined. Looking at the current policy premium and subsidence excess, I do doubt the insurer was notified of the works done at the time.