Like this house, but its been underpinned...

gibson1

The house I'm interested in has been underpinned 35 years ago.

Very happy with the house itself and the area is special. We've discussed price(before underpinning was mentioned), and he is prepared to accept my offer, which is 12% below the asking price.
But having searched around online, I come to the conclusion that underpinning might be an issue.

First thing I did was to get an insurance quote, Marks and Spencers told me that there would be no additional premium, as the work was done 35 years ago. But if I were to make a claim as a result of subsidence, my premium would then go up.

I understand that many houses in the 80's in London were underpinned due to the summers of the 70's. I remember my father underpinning his house.

However, this could be a potential headache. I might want to sell 5 to 10 years later, and resale could be difficult. Especially if further subsidence occurs.
Its a headache for me now as a buyer, I now have to factor in a full structural survey which isn't the cheapest.

The house itself was built in the late 40's. I'm asking the agent if I can see copies of all the paperwork relating to this, including the structural survey done 10 years ago when the vendor moved in, and will inform the agent that this is something that I must take into consideration.
If they are not forthcoming I'm going to walk away.

Thoughts much appreciated.

Davesnave

Yes, you should read all the existing paperwork, the previous survey and have a structural engineers report carried out, but if these throw up nothing alarming, will that satisfy you?

I sense that nothing will be quite good enough, even with the discounted price.

If you are baulking over the cost of a survey, this lends weight to the idea that in the back of your mind, beyond rationality, you still believe you'll walk away, whatever the result.

Doozergirl

It was 35 years ago!

If you buy any house and make a subsidence claim on it - and I do mean you and any house - your premiums will go up. It has nothing to do with the previous subsidence on this house which M&S have no issue with. This house is irrelevant as far as that conversation goes.

M&S will not be looking for high risk business either, so you'll have little trouble insuring at this point.

An underpinned house is solid. Engineered to withstand the previous pressures put on it, it essentially gives foundations to houses that have no foundations. Period houses have very little in the way of foundations. It was standard construction.

Some people are afraid of subsidence and increased premiums or not being able to move insirers but you have none of those issues with this house.

Every house is a risk for future subsidence, you're not buying something special in a house that hasn't suffered before. This house is easily arguable to be less at risk.

The problem is usually a lack of education (worh respect, it certainly sounds like it with you) and for anyone ready to walk away, there are still plenty willing to buy.

At 35 years, the risk is as negligible or less than any other similar property.

Not sure why a 10 year old structural survey is thought relevant at all or even if the vendor has it. You should have your own survey on any house. Building regulations in their present sort of form were introduced in 1986 so paperwork may well be irrelevant.

gibson1

Doozergirl wrote: »

It was 35 years ago!

If you buy any house and make a subsidence claim on it - and I do mean you and any house - your premiums will go up. It has nothing to do with the previous subsidence on this house which M&S have no issue with. This house is irrelevant as far as that conversation goes.

M&S will not be looking for high risk business either, so you'll have little trouble insuring at this point.

An underpinned house is solid. Engineered to withstand the previous pressures put on it, it essentially gives foundations to houses that have no foundations. Period houses have very little in the way of foundations. It was standard construction.

Some people are afraid of subsidence and increased premiums or not being able to move insirers but you have none of those issues with this house.

Every house is a risk for future subsidence, you're not buying something special in a house that hasn't suffered before. This house is easily arguable to be less at risk.

The problem is usually a lack of education (worh respect, it certainly sounds like it with you) and for anyone ready to walk away, there are still plenty willing to buy.

At 35 years, the risk is as negligible or less than any other similar property.

Not sure why a 10 year old structural survey is thought relevant at all or even if the vendor has it. You should have your own survey on any house. Building regulations in their present sort of form were introduced in 1986 so paperwork may well be irrelevant.

I do have a lack of knowledge on the subject, that's why I'm on a forum asking for other thoughts. Wouldn't be here otherwise.

The structural survey he did might have some information relevant to my purchase, and I definitely will have a survey done also.

I don't feel there's anything wrong in requesting to see paperwork on an issue, otherwise I've just got someones word to go by.

I need to ascertain what the problem has been, and what has been done to solve it. I can't just presume that everything ok as some work has been done.

True, someone would buy it. if I walk away. But if there are two houses for sale, one with a history of subsidence and one that doesn't, a buyer may well prefer the house with no historical issues. If you went to buy a car with no knowledge of cars would you go for the one that has run near perfectly, or the one that's had a big repair?

gibson1

Davesnave wrote: »

Yes, you should read all the existing paperwork, the previous survey and have a structural engineers report carried out, but if these throw up nothing alarming, will that satisfy you?

I sense that nothing will be quite good enough, even with the discounted price.

If you are baulking over the cost of a survey, this lends weight to the idea that in the back of your mind, beyond rationality, you still believe you'll walk away, whatever the result.

I believe in being as careful as possible with a big purchase. And a more expensive survey is more expense, that's something a buyer would take into consideration should I wish to sell the house later.

I need to establish as best as I can what the problem has been, and factor in extra expenses.
It would be irrational to make a purchase without taking this into consideration, and asking others what they think.

Yes, the price has been reduced but it was overpriced to begin with.

Doozergirl

I didn't say not to request it, but it isn't the most helpful paperwork after all these years and not having it doesn't actually mean it's a bad thing at all. They have been open and honest with you and have no further reason not to be.

And yes, you have asked but you also just seemed to imply that you were walking away anyway, especially because of paperwork that may not exist but isn't that helpful. If it were underpinned 5 years ago, let's grab all the paperwork but your most important measuring tool now is the test of time. A current survey.

Ulitmately, it boils down to the same as any other house at this point. Bearing in mind that *all* houses move, is the house you want to buy structurally sound right now?

And here's the curve ball. Would you choose a house with or without foundations? Because this house does and most period houses in London do not.

davidmcn

If you were simply buying a 35 year old house, you wouldn't expect any sort of reassurance about its structural integrity beyond a surveyor looking at it and telling you if there appear to be any defects. So I wouldn't be too concerned about this.

Davesnave

gibson1 wrote: »

I believe in being as careful as possible with a big purchase. And a more expensive survey is more expense, that's something a buyer would take into consideration should I wish to sell the house later.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me

The house was built in the 1940s and it must represent a considerable spend for any buyer, so why wouldn't they go for a full survey as a matter of course?

The difference in cost between that and a homebuyers' survey is tiny compared with the purchase price.

BJV

TBH I would have the structural survey done no matter what. Why risk a massive chunk of money trying to save a couple of pounds.

Yes it will cost more but for the sake of a couple of pounds do you want to risk it. A report done 10 years ago could be a good starting point but I would still want to make sure that there has been no movement since.

If not then why not. If you love the house it could be argued that it is a much lower risk because it has been done. I would speak to a structural specialist. Should not affect the price but then you have managed to get 12% off so it sounds as though you got a good deal, no reason to suggest that the next buyer may equally want a good deal.

M&S would and quiet right too put your insurance up if you made a claim but then they would also if you had a break in or flood.

david1951

gibson1 wrote: »

The house itself was built in the late 40's. I'm asking the agent if I can see copies of all the paperwork relating to this, including the structural survey done 10 years ago when the vendor moved in, and will inform the agent that this is something that I must take into consideration.

What paperwork? If there is paperwork, how will you tell if it's genuine, or even what it means? If it says that the underpinning complied with regulations (if any existed in 1980) would you be happy?

Ultimately you are going to need someone who at least knows what to look for. As a starting point, this would be contacting a surveyor in your area with relevant experience and letting him know what you want comments on. He can then direct you further, if necessary.

gibson1 wrote: »

If they are not forthcoming I'm going to walk away.

You may have to walk away anyway if you aren't willing to pay for the full survey.

Doozergirl

Davesnave wrote: »

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me

The house was built in the 1940s and it must represent a considerable spend for any buyer, so why wouldn't they go for a full survey as a matter of course?

The difference in cost between that and a homebuyers' survey is tiny compared with the purchase price.

Exactly. A more expensive survey is a better survey. It is being as careful as possible.

Paying for a mortgage valuation or a homebuyers and then crossing your fingers just because no one has declared previous movement is not being careful at all.