subsidence?

Dird

I'm currently browsing home insurances & a lot of them are saying something along the lines of "The home has not suffered from subsidence" as a checkbox. The following is an exert from my homebuyer's report; would "past structural movement" class as subsidence or would the long-standing statement mean I could apply for normal insurance? I guess as long as I didn't do a subsidence claim then it shouldn't invalidate it?

The structural condition of the property appears to be generally satisfactory and we
found no evidence of significant cracking, subsidence or structural movement.
Some repairs are required to the wall surfaces as the pointing has perished.
The property has been affected by past structural movement, evidenced by old repointed
cracking to brickwork above and below window openings on the rear
elevation. From a single inspection the movement appears to be long-standing
and does not appear to be progressive.

Equinox85

I would class structual movement as a form of subsidence.

Dird

Equinox85 wrote: »

I would class structual movement as a form of subsidence.

But I read somewhere on here that pretty much all houses move slightly over time as they "set in" to the foundation? If that's true then basically nobody could go with mainstream insurers

Sally_A

We had a new extension built in 2006, it has cracks, it's not going anywhere - hence settlement.

We moved back into the family home, and I was aware the house was monitored for subsidence in the hot summer of 1976, so I still declare this, just to be safe. (Cracks in wall and exterior window cill, house built 1960).

Monitoring consisted of drawing a horizontal line across the crack, and looking for further movement - there hasn't been any more shifting.

Another simple check for subsidence, or movement is if the UPVC windows are hard to open/close, as this means the frames have distorted.

I declare everything, just to be on the safe side - truthfully, if it hadn't previously belonged to my parents, i wouldn't had a clue.

But to answer your query, I'd tick "NO" but when you get a chance to talk to them - advise that there are signs of settlement cracks.

rs65

Subsidence is a specific term meaning something like the motion of a surface (usually, the Earth's surface) as it shifts downward

I would say structural movement isn't subsidence (but subsidence could of course cause structural movement).

You need to be very careful though regarding questions asked and insurers assumptions.

Churchill for example assume:-
Has not been affected by subsidence or structural movement and is not in an area subject to subsidence.

huckster

The report says no subsidence which is the important bit. All houses have some movement, but insurance does not cover general movement anyway.

Commonsense applies. If people are concerned by surveyors comments, they should provide details to insurers before taking out insurance.

desthemoaner

The subsidence/ settlement insurance issue is a bit of a minefield, in my experience.


I had a structural engineers report done for my own benefit, two years after buying our last house, and the surveyor identified longstanding settlement with no ongoing movement (the house was over 100 years old). From then on I felt that it was necessary to declare this evidence of movement when seeking insurance, and found that in general, insurance companies would not quote, even for historical settlement, unless I was prepared to provide a structural engineers report which was less than six months old. The cost of doing this would obviously wipe out any benefit from changing insurer, so I ended up staying with my current insurer, who had agreed to continue providing cover when notified of the settlement, for much longer than I otherwise might have done.


I did subsequently manage to change insurers, twice, but on both occasions made sure that I had the insurers' acknowledgement, in writing, that I had notified them of the movement.

rs65

desthemoaner wrote: »

. From then on I felt that it was necessary to declare this

Remember things changed in April 2013 - a consumer only needs to answer the questions asked. The duty prior to that was to provide all information that a prudent underwriter may require.

desthemoaner

Does there not remain a general, all-encompassing duty to disclose any known material facts which may affect the provision of cover?

Quentin

No.

(How is the man on the bus supposed to know what is and isn't "material"?)

audigex

That's interesting, do you have information on the legislation for that to hand? Or any idea where I should look to try to find it?

It makes sense, though: how am I supposed to know what an under-writer might want to know, and what is/isn't material or relevant? Joe Public aren't underwriters or structural engineers, is makes sense for the insurer to ask the questions to determine their risk.