Historical movement, non existent reports, near exchange!

Parties03

Hello all,

I'm new to this forum but would appreciate any help!

I am a first time buyer buying on my own but with a sizeable deposit of about 30%. The house I am looking at is a Victorian terrace (1890-1910 ish) mid terrace and has been extended into the alleyway to provide an extra shower room and storage. This was done by the vendors who have lived in the house for 4 years and previous owners 20.

The hallway adjoins to this extension and has a very obvious lean towards it. In that, the floor is not flat. The above bedroom is the same but everything else appears fine. There's also been an extension to the back of the house of the whole width which is the kitchen done 2 years ago. It's all to building regs and fine.

I had a structural survey carried out and it showed that the house has had 'stitching and tying rods and remedial works for the past movement which is significant but historical with no evidence of any recent movement or works carried out'. My surveyor has recommended that he can't tell if the house has been underpinned or not but suspects so. There appears to be no paperwork at all eluding to this nor has it come in searches - it would have been around 1988 or before if it was done I guess.

Issues:
- surveyor has recommended that an engineer comes to look and possibly carry out trial pit inspections to see if there was underpinning.
- he said not to proceed without paperwork as to what work was done and the info around this.

I contacted the estate agents today and they are of the opinion that there is not any underpinning or it would have shown in searches. But surely so should have any remedial works too which haven't either?

Any advice on how you would proceed next?

Thanks in advance

Thanetia

Hi

Presuming the other 70% of finance is on a mortgage, what does your lender say? Have you had a valuation and what did that come out at? Not at all uncommon for there to be some movement in houses of that era - key is confidence from the survey that is is historic and not current - which your survey does appear to confirm.

So depends on your lender's attitude, and your confidence. Quite likely that you wil not uncover any paperwork if done some time ago.

Bear in mind that if/when you come to sell, the same issues will most likely come up which might limit your pool of buyers somewhat.

dc197

The other thing to consider is insurance.
Don't bother trying to use a high street or comparison website insurer. They balk at the mention of movement, subsidence or underpinning.
Instead you should use a specialist insurer experienced in the field. They will want to know how old the issue is, and if more than 10/15/20/whatever years old they will insure you on standard terms (i.e. as if there were no issue). There are dozens of threads about this on this forum, just search.

You MUST find out how old the issue is in order to obtain insurance without having to bend the truth.
What makes you guess 1988?

Parties03

Hi Thanetia, thanks for the reply!

Yes the other 70% is a mortgage and they have been sent this part of the survey and are happy to lend what we have asked. The solicitor even asked them if they wanted to further survey the house but they said they were confident with what their surveyor valued it at (which was 17k more than what my surveyor valued it at!). So from that aspect, we are ok.

I spoke on the phone to the surveyor after he did the inspection and he was quite happy that it was all historical and to the best of his ability reassured that he was not concerned the house will move any more. He was of the thinking that any movement and subsequent work carried out was done 25-30 years ago at least and there doesn't appear to have been anything since then.

Absolutely agreed, and the issues that may come up when I want to sell in 10 years time are really what are making me wonder. What would be the equivilent of having the paperwork from the time? Is this why a structural engineer would be sensible?

Parties03

Hi DC197 - sorry I'm trying to figure out how to format properly on this forum but thanks for your reply!

I am still looking into insurance. As far as we know theres not been any subsidence on the property so we don't need to claim about that. The current owners have a normal home insurance which is around £300/ year apparently as I asked. I don't think they mentioned any of this as from what I can tell, they only had a valuation survey carried out on the house when they moved in. I went for the full structural as I was concerened about movement and the house is in a part of the city known for being built over chalk mines so I didn't want to take any chances!

Ok that's helpful to know that we need to know how old the issue is so thanks for that. I said 1988 (seemed random didn't it!) because the vedors found a document today - funny timing - saying there had been "some work carried out" in that year but apparently the paperwork doesn't state what. They may well actually have this information and have witheld it up until now though... apparently building control and the council don't keep records dating that far back and so they can't confirm. I don't know if that's true but it certainly is not helpful!!

dragonsoup

My main property has tie bars - probably from the 1970s but there is no documentation relating to them.

I've had no problems insuring the property even though our insurer didn't accept properties with tie bars(!) We had had a full structural survey carried out and let them have a copy of it and they agreed cover at normal rates I've had no problems since either even though we are now with a different company.

Parties03

dragonsoup wrote: »

My main property has tie bars - probably from the 1970s but there is no documentation relating to them.

I've had no problems insuring the property even though our insurer didn't accept properties with tie bars(!) We had had a full structural survey carried out and let them have a copy of it and they agreed cover at normal rates I've had no problems since either even though we are now with a different company.

Thanks! good to know we won't have a nightmare with this. do you know why your house had tie bars if you don't mind me asking? Is it always subsidence?

dragonsoup

The property originally had a demolition order on it! It was originally a terrace of 4 small cottages with one of the cottages in very poor condition and the rest weren't great. We have some pictures of it prior to the previous owners starting work but not at that end of the house.

They removed the upper floor of the end cottage which was in a dangerous condition and installed the tie bars. It's now the garage ( but still has its original cast iron range in the old fireplace!). There was no sign of on going movement and the surveyor put that in his report.

Since then we've done further renovation and nothing is moving at all which is why we were able to switch insurers. It very nearly scuppered our exchange though as I wasn't prepared to go ahead if an ordinary insurer wouldn't cover it.

Parties03

There's been a development! Some how today the vendors managed to call the previous owners who have confirmed that there was indeed underpinning carried out due to the leaking drain! Supposedly the current vendors were cash buyers and had no idea about this until now. It was done 29 years ago and the only probable paperwork we will have to confirm this is a receipt (but not a schedule) and the previous owners testimony.

Now, my surveyor was very clear that from his point of view the house hasn't moved in the last 25-30 years and no new work appears to have been done since then.

Is this a house to walk away from? Even if it is underpinned but stable? Is this something we can use to negotiate the price lower? As I said before, the surveyor valued the house 17k less than what we have agreed to pay. That offer was based on thinking all was hunky dory and nothing like this going on plus the market in this area is very competitive. Now surely the dynamic has changed?

Thanks for any help!

dc197

The house probably has better foundations than its neighbours now. If no movement in 29 years then no more is likely unless a new issue developed (as it could were there no history). Will be fine for insurance too.

Parties03

dc197 wrote: »

The house probably has better foundations than its neighbours now. If no movement in 29 years then no more is likely unless a new issue developed (as it could were there no history). Will be fine for insurance too.

That's reassuring. We may not have a guarantee for the work - they claim the council have destroyed all old files. Does this sound legit?

i'm quite annoyed that the vendors haven't disclosed this. I've had other emails in the last two weeks from their solicitor "confirming" no underpinning was done...!

I have currently offered 2k over asking price. I'm going to lower this to what the surveyor has valued it at in light of the new Info.

The current owners haven't insured with respect to this which is shocking!