Buying a House With Minor Subsidence

dc197

I agree with G_M that nothing underhand appears to have happened.
The solicitor hasn't tipped you off, he's just passing on everything he's received.
Underhand would have been to lie and say that there had been no issues.

I disagree that the vendor should have told the EA who should have told the buyer on their viewing.
I think most people use the rule of thumb to honestly answer everything asked but volunteer nothing.

Subsidence caused by plants causing the soil to shrink is usually cured by removing the trees. That's been done, you've got the docs to say underpinning wasn't needed, and you have a valuable CSA. It sounds like it's cured.

The insurance WILL be an issue. Do not use the highstreet or comparison sites as they balk at the S word. Find a specialist broker, such as Endsleigh Brokers, who will find a specialist insurer, such as Midas.
Because the issue was 6 years ago, your premiums will be higher for the next 4 or 9 years, i.e. until it's been 10 or 15 years since the issue. After that the specialists will insure you on a regular rate, as if nothing has ever happened.

As for reducing the price, by all means try. But the vendor might say, "Here's the paperwork to show it's all cured, and your survey said no current issues, so no reduction in price".
If the issue were ongoing it might be different.

ChrisLowe

Thanks for all the comments and advice so far. Made a few calls yesterday:

Estate Agent - They didn't have a clue about the subsidence until two days ago. At least this means the house wasn't priced up with this in mind so a reduction is possibly easier.

Solicitor - She's less concerned than she sounded in the letter. The main concern is whether the property is easily insured as if not this will put off buyers.

Freind (Another local EA) - He's not concerned as it's a common problem in the area and the subsidence was minor and unlikely to be recurring. Other houses with similar problems have sold at asking price in the area providing it's been 10 years since the problem. He suggested £10k reduction as a minimum.

Surveyor - He was happy with the house, said the work had been completed to a high standard and the problem is no more likely to re-occur than other houses in the area. Suggests that the seller "isn't doing us any favours" with regard to asking price but it's not massively overpaying. He suggested selling the house would only be a problem in a bad market.

So I'm a bit more upbeat than yesterday. Need to speak to a few insurance companies and our solicitor needs to confirm that the Structural Certificate can be transferred to our names. I do feel that a reduction is needed though, especially since the estate agent wasn't aware.

The main concern is that if the house subsidence occurs again then we'll be in big trouble.

kilby_007

ChrisLowe wrote: »

The main concern is that if the house subsidence occurs again then we'll be in big trouble.

This is the main reason I'll always back away from a house with subsidence problems, I'd be constantly paranoid about it.

Mickygg

So you havent bought the house Atall, you have had an offer accepted which is totally different.
It depends on your personal attitude to subsidence and whether you want to risk potential further problems. I wouldn't, any even possible sight of subsidence and I'd do my very best forest gump impression.

teneighty

ChrisLowe wrote: »

I have a copy of the report and a copy of the Certificate of Structural Adequacy.

I should also state that the house was built in 2003.

I smell a rat. If it was built in 2003 it should almost certainly have foundations of a minimum at least 1 metre depth in clay.

1 metre deep foundations in shrinkable clay would not be affected by "shrubs". I would suggest something else has possibly caused the structural damage and could well happen again, possibly poor ground conditions when the house was first built.

My first port of call would be the inspection records by the building control department at the local Council to read the foundation inspection.

Landilly

Hi Chris, I know your post was a while ago now but wondering how things turned out for you with this house? Did you buy or walk away? If you bought, has the subsidence evidence grown worse?
We find ourselves in a very similar situation. Have fallen in love with a 300 yo cottage in an idyllic location. Vendor, in good faith, took advice on some minor cracks just before putting property on market and her insurance company have just completed work for cat 1 subsidence caused by tree roots of a shrub. No underpinning, just bracing and re-pointing inside and out to the corner of the property only.
To further complicate matters, our lender’s Survey has raised concern over other light cracks in other parts of the house but it’s possible they are being over cautious,-this is a very old house and some minor creaks and cracks are to be expected, surely?
Upshot is, insurance is proving a !!!!!! and it’s looking like our only option is taking over vendor’s insurance if we can but who knows what the renewal premiums will be following this claim?
What to do, what to do. Heads over hearts or hearts over heads.
Can we make this work, are there options..........
Thanks to you or anyone else in advance for their comments

Doozergirl

teneighty wrote: »

I smell a rat. If it was built in 2003 it should almost certainly have foundations of a minimum at least 1 metre depth in clay.

1 metre deep foundations in shrinkable clay would not be affected by "shrubs". I would suggest something else has possibly caused the structural damage and could well happen again, possibly poor ground conditions when the house was first built.

My first port of call would be the inspection records by the building control department at the local Council to read the foundation inspection.

I agree with you. I’m usually quite pragmatic about these things as older houses generally don’t have adequate foundations to deal with significant ground changes.

A house built in 2003, however? It should be sound and foundations built properly according to the ground conditions. If the ground isn’t stable then the foundations should be of an appropriate depth and design to be based on solid ground.

It is utterly unacceptable in my view that the house has moved to a degree of significance. It may well be that the ‘shrubs’ affected the foundations, but the key issue in this case is that they should not have done!

I would walk away.

My in laws have a 1996 house and it suffers. The street outside has subsided significantly, the driveway has dropped significantly, there is external cracking and doorways have racked. Next door had to be underpinned. NHBC were as much use as a chocolate teapot though and blamed broken drains, but the drains were broken by the ground moving away - the house is next to the edge of a quarry and has specially piled foundations - that aren’t exactly adequate. It’s not a good house.

Doozergirl

Urgh, caught out by an old thread being resurrected. I will leave my previous post there as it actually reinforces a salient point made by teneighty that others haven’t picked up on. There is a general lack of building knowledge.

Landlilly, you are not in exactly the same situation as the OP as they had a new house which really should not be moving. Some of the advice above isn’t quite right for them, but is more suitable for you.

The house you are looking at, being 300 years old, is almost certain to have virtually no foundation to speak of. If you want a period property, that is what you will be buying. Some areas have worse ground conditions than other. London is built on clay which is susceptible to significant expansion and shrinkage. It does not mean that every Victorian house in London is suffering a problem, but if every house were faced with the same issue of encroaching roots, then they would all suffer. The problem is not your house exactly, the problem is roots.

The house you are looking at has stood the test of time for 300 years and there will not be a “plumb” wall or floor in the house. It is to be expected. It will continue to move gradally, but that is exactly what charm and character is.

Provided that you maintain the house properly, keep an eye on the drains (I’d recommend a CCTV drain survey before you buy) and don’t have greedy shrubs and trees in an area that affects the moisture levels immediately around the building, it shouldn’t move to any significant degree. There does need to be a cause to ground movement.

I don’t really think it is a matter of heart over head. If you can deal with some increased premiums, then someone else will also, once you sell on. Some people will be scared off, but it’s a lack of knowledge and understanding on their part. As it stands, your particular house isn’t at any more risk than any other 300 year old house stood on similar ground.

But 300 years standing on no foundations gives you a pretty idea of the general ground conditions - stable.

alumende27

Landilly wrote: »

Hi Chris, I know your post was a while ago now but wondering how things turned out for you with this house? Did you buy or walk away? If you bought, has the subsidence evidence grown worse?
We find ourselves in a very similar situation. Have fallen in love with a 300 yo cottage in an idyllic location. Vendor, in good faith, took advice on some minor cracks just before putting property on market and her insurance company have just completed work for cat 1 subsidence caused by tree roots of a shrub. No underpinning, just bracing and re-pointing inside and out to the corner of the property only.
To further complicate matters, our lender’s Survey has raised concern over other light cracks in other parts of the house but it’s possible they are being over cautious,-this is a very old house and some minor creaks and cracks are to be expected, surely?
Upshot is, insurance is proving a !!!!!! and it’s looking like our only option is taking over vendor’s insurance if we can but who knows what the renewal premiums will be following this claim?
What to do, what to do. Heads over hearts or hearts over heads.
Can we make this work, are there options..........
Thanks to you or anyone else in advance for their comments

Current house had “historic” subsidence that the owners never fixed or made an insurance claim on, complicated our purchase no end. Required all manner of surveys (building, structuralx2, drains) and work underpinning part of the house (that was by tree roots and drains and had no proper foundations), strengthening a retaining wall which we made the sellers do before buying, not least because the bank wouldn’t lend on it until the structural engineers recommendations had been implemented. We also needed to get a section of the drains repaired which had suffered from root ingress.

Because they never made an insurance claim, their insurers were unwilling to insure us. It took THREE months to find an insurance company that was willing to insure, mostly because the underpinning had happened so recently and there was no certificate of structural adequacy (or whatever it is called when subsididence is fixed as a result of an insurance claim).

That said, there are a reasonable number of insurance brokers (search for home insurance subsidence) who will insure houses with past subsidence, and they’ll explain what paperwork your need to give them. Best to do that now and find out what you need from the sellers and what else might be required.

I use Woodstock insurance brokers, and the underwriter is Bennett, Gould and Partners. Insurance is approximately double what it would be without the subsidence issue and I have a subsidence excess of £1,500. I know that in another 7 years or so some of the major insurance brokers won’t care about the subsidence issues, at least with their current criteria.

If you’ve only had the lenders valuation, it is alsmost certainly worth getting a full survey (I always recommend FRICS qualified, they have more experience - and get one who is used to old properties such as the one you are buying) or a structural survey (needs to be done by a suitably qualified structural engineer),but I’d start with what the insurance company wants first.

Be prepared for a slog, my house purchase took 18months or so, mostly because of the structural issues, but was complicated by the home owner living in Australia and, at times, a useless estate agent.

Good luck!