Structural movement

acealfa

I went yesterday to sign contract and agreed to exchange next week. I had a phone call a few hours later to say contracts have been exchanged and a letter in the post this morning to confirm it.

I don't understand how I can get sued though because I've done nothing wrong?

The lender arranged the valuation survey who said it was suitable for a mortgage & I was told by solicitor I didn't need to sort insurance before signing. If they have jumped the gun how can I be held responsible?

If I do tick the no box why would they cancel the policy?

It does really concern me if the lenders insurance won't cover me though because that surely will ring alarm bells?

dc197

acealfa wrote: »

I was told by solicitor I didn't need to sort insurance before signing

Careful, do you mean signing or exchanging contracts?
You don't need to insure at signing the contract, but most lenders require insurance (from exchange) on the house. Your offer will detail this.

wwl

on the survey report it stated there is evidence of structural movement, landslip or heave in the property but it appears to be long standing and is unlikely to be progressive.

This is not subsidance.

MM64

I will try to clarify. - When EOC has taken place it is the purchasers responsibility to ensure the property is insured. If the house burnt down and the vendor had no insurance you would still be legally obliged to buy the burnt out shell.

With regard to being sued - If your mortgage provider withdrew funds and you were unable to complete AFTER EOC you would get sued by the upper and lower chain. This is extremely rare but the last thing you want to do at this stage is make your lender aware of any potential problems.

acealfa

dc197 wrote: »

Careful, do you mean signing or exchanging contracts?
You don't need to insure at signing the contract, but most lenders require insurance (from exchange) on the house. Your offer will detail this.

I was told I didn't need to sort insurance before signing. While signing I was told I will need to sort insurance before exchanging next week and even mentioned about the structural movement and was told my policy will probably be a bit more expensive. Half an hour after I returned home I was told contracts had been exchanged.

The letter received this morning states "It is ESSENTIAL that you ensure that your buildings insurance cover for the property starts from the date of exchange of contracts. You should therefore, contract your insurance provider, to arrange cover to be placed on risk immediately".

The surveyor is going to give me a call and I will ask what he actually found.

There isn't a chain and I'm confident the seller would be understanding but hopefully not something I have to face.

Hoploz

wwl wrote: »

This is not subsidance.

That's what I was windering. perhaps you should ask the insurance co what their definition is. They may mean proper, diagnosed, subsidence ie the house has been subject to a claim in the past, or remedial treatment.

Many many houses have evidence of slight historical movement, could be caused by all manner of things, eg bomb damage ... It's got to be with asking how they define it before telling them you think it's got it!

Mrs_pbradley936

acealfa wrote: »

I went in yesterday to sign ready for exchange on 24th but had a phone on same day to say contracts have been exchanged and completion is now on 24th. I used the same solicitor as the seller.



Yes they ordered the survey to be done but it was only a valuation report. Once they were happy they formally sent me the mortgage offer.

It seems most brokers want a full detailed report about subsidence which I don't have.

It seems all brokers need a full detailed report

They ought not to represent the buyer and the seller! Are you sure that they are not just in the same building?

acealfa

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

They ought not to represent the buyer and the seller! Are you sure that they are not just in the same building?

My apologies I should have worded it better. Same company/building, different solicitors. Obviously this is the reason why the exchange took place so quickly.

Just a case of watch this space at the minute now.

davidmcn

wwl wrote: »

This is not subsidance.

I agree with this. Surveys of older properties seem to invariably include comments along the lines of "some indication of historic structural movement but not significant and does not appear to be progressive". This doesn't mean you need to bring in structural engineers or warn insurers about it.

caliew

Hi,

I have worked in insurance for a number of years and have just left due to childcare, with regards to the insurance the subsidence, heave and landslip have you gone down the route and looking at measures to getting underpinning work done and works recommended in the survey?

Possibly if you can display to the underwriters that you are getting work carried out by authorized repairers and give them your deadlines on when this is getting carried out perhaps one of the underwriters may take you on as you are addressing the risks, however I expect they will want to see copies of regular papers on the work you are carrying out. Unfortunately I cannot recommend any individual company the reason being is if I point you in the direction of an underwriter and it turns out you were in a claim situation and you got knocked back I would feel bad for saying that company is the bees knees, however check out the star ratings on comparison sites and then phone or webchat the company direct and ask to speak to a specialist team that deals with subsidence properties.

Good luck and I hope this helps.