Extending a house with some movement history

Cheesecakes

Hi

Looking for advice from anyone who has extended their house which has had some movement due to subsidence. I have made an insurance claim on my current house for subsidence related movement and damage - it was mainly minor cracks. The cause for subsidence, an oak tree, has been removed.
I am planning to extend the house and need advice on whether the insurer will cover the extended part/ house after it has been extended. Appreciate your help.

paddyandstumpy

Cheesecakes wrote: »

Hi

Looking for advice from anyone who has extended their house which has had some movement due to subsidence. I have made an insurance claim on my current house for subsidence related movement and damage - it was mainly minor cracks. The cause for subsidence, an oak tree, has been removed.
I am planning to extend the house and need advice on whether the insurer will cover the extended part/ house after it has been extended. Appreciate your help.

Your best bet is to ask the insurer if they would insure any extension. You'll be stuck with them for a while in all likelihood!

Whilst the cause of the subs has been removed (incidentally has the void from the removal of the tree roots been filled?) only time will tell if that was the sole cause and whether further movement occurs.

How are they correcting the movement? Underpinning? Do you plan on (or need to) underpin the extension? A surveyor should be able to answer that for you. Or the architect for the extension?

Cheesecakes

Hi, yes the tree has been removed and they are monitoring for any further movement. The insurer didnt think, looking at the extent of movement and damage that underpinning will be required.
One of the architects we have consulted for extension has advised that we will need to go for 'pile' foundation.
I am also unsure about what happens to the rest of the existing house foundation and whether having a pile foundation only for the extended part could lead to more movement related issues later on.

eddddy

Cheesecakes wrote: »

I am planning to extend the house and need advice on whether the insurer will cover the extended part/ house after it has been extended. Appreciate your help.

The insurer should cover damage caused by subsidence - unless it was contributed to by poor workmanship.

Poor workmanship would include inappropriate foundations on the extension, or an inappropriate joint between the original house and extension.

So your architect would probably instruct a structural engineer to specify that kind of stuff.

All extensions tend to 'settle' (whether or not they have pile foundations), so that may cause some cracking - and that isn't usually covered by insurance. Often, any movement in the first 10 years is considered to be 'settlement'.

EdGasket

After my house subsidence was repaired by the insurer to the 'correct standards', they wouldn't insure it for subsidence going forward without an extortionate premium. hence I am now without subsidence cover This seems a complete con; it's like saying they don't trust their own repairs!
Can't say about an extension; have you found out how much they want to insure your existing house without the extension?
Generally I would have thought that your extention foundations should match those of the rest of your house; subject to building regs of course. Thats what they did with my underpinning on the subsiding part of the property i.e. made the foundations the same type and depth as the rest of the property.