Moderate to high risk ground subsidence

Oneeyebrow

Me and my gf are buying a house and it's shown a moderate to high risk of ground subsidence on the ground search. It shows a 1000 meter radius and it's modest to high within about 95+% of the whole area.

My solicitor says inform the buildings insurance as this can void the insurance so will check this. I am guessing a higher quotation on the 48 a month. Hopefully not, perhaps they take that into consideration already? I will find out.

I have read that much of London is a moderate to high risk?
Unsure how true that is. This is in Essex

SG27

Is this search from Landmark?

Our house also in Essex showed as high. "A high ratio of valid subsidence claims, for the postcode compared to the rest of great britain." None of the houses in this street have been underpinned and only a few in the entire village, the most recent being 2006.

I am not all concerned by it and neither is our mortgage lender. Home insurance comes out nice and cheap too.

[Deleted User]

You can have a survey completed. Called a 'Sulphate attack survey' it only costs about £225 but can save you in excess of £20k.

We had to pull out of a sale because the subsidence caused £30k worth of damage to the properties foundations.

Better to be safe than sorry!

Good luck!

cattie

Having owned a house that had once had £18k's of remedial work through subsidance a few years before I bought, I'd never risk buying a place with any warning of a strong likelihood of the dreaded subsidance.

Although my buildings insurance didn't shoot up compared to my previous house, I found it was essential to keep with the same insurance company as vendors had to ensure that any similar problems would be fully covered.

I spent a lot of money refurbishing the house (stuck in a 70's timewarp)
but when I came to sell, the dreades S word did turn some potential buyers off, I ended up having to sell at around £25k less than comparable properties that hadn't had remedial work carried out.

SG27

cattie wrote: »

Having owned a house that had once had £18k's of remedial work through subsidance a few years before I bought, I'd never risk buying a place with any warning of a strong likelihood of the dreaded subsidance.

Although my buildings insurance didn't shoot up compared to my previous house, I found it was essential to keep with the same insurance company as vendors had to ensure that any similar problems would be fully covered.

I spent a lot of money refurbishing the house (stuck in a 70's timewarp)
but when I came to sell, the dreades S word did turn some potential buyers off, I ended up having to sell at around £25k less than comparable properties that hadn't had remedial work carried out.

The problem is these local search results will show a moderate or above risk of subsidence for most of London and the South East of England due to the soil type.

I lived in the same village im buying in for over 5 years and never heard of any of my neighbours or anyone else locally experience any subsidence problems. Yet we are apparently in a "high" risk area.

Obviously if the property had been previously affected then thats a different story...

Filo25

Oneeyebrow wrote: »

Me and my gf are buying a house and it's shown a moderate to high risk of ground subsidence on the ground search. It shows a 1000 meter radius and it's modest to high within about 95+% of the whole area.

My solicitor says inform the buildings insurance as this can void the insurance so will check this. I am guessing a higher quotation on the 48 a month. Hopefully not, perhaps they take that into consideration already? I will find out.

I have read that much of London is a moderate to high risk?
Unsure how true that is. This is in Essex

Not sure why you would have to inform the insurers about this (unless they have a specific question on it), they would already know I suspect, presumably a clay soil area.

Obviously you would have to tell them if there had been any evidence of subsidence, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.

teddysmum

My mother-in-laws (Victorian ?Edwardian?) terraced house (in a mining area) was fine for about 5 years and then her and neighbours' houses developed floor to upstairs ceiling cracks which were a few cm wide (I couldn't really tell as wallpaper hid the crack).


My brother-in-law, who has a phd in geology, managed to obtain copies of local maps/plans and proved that the cracks were the results of subsidence caused by mine workings and the then NCB had to underpin and make good the decorating in all the row, housing the owner-occupiers while work was done.


This was some 35 years ago, so don't know how this would stand nowadays.

Davesnave

cattie wrote: »

but when I came to sell, the dreades S word did turn some potential buyers off, I ended up having to sell at around £25k less than comparable properties that hadn't had remedial work carried out.

The essential thing is to buy more cheaply if the house is underpinned. Then, when you sell, you have no loss.

Meanwhile, you have a stronger house than your neighbours.

bouicca21

Anything on London clay is theoretically high risk. That's pretty much all of London and substantial swathes of the home counties, including Essex.


The thing to do is to use due diligence - are there visible cracks? What does the surveyor say?


40 odd years ago the ex and I pulled out of a purchase because the surveyor said the whole area was subject to subsidence because of London clay plus underground springs. That house is still standing, hasn't been underpinned and if we'd bought it we'd be millionaires (on paper). I console myself that I really wouldn't have liked living so close to a major A road.