Would you buy it? Please help!

Hotgoblin

Hello MSE!

I am really helping someone might be able to give me some impartial advice on our purchase and am going to sum up where we are at! Please excuse the length but wanted to give relevant detail!

We made an offer on a circa 1900 period first-floor leashold one bed in November, slightly under asking price, great area. As it was a period we paid for a full RICS survey which flagged a few issues (yellow for rendering, chimney repointing and the only red being for gas/electric as it's old wiring/boiler and no service history so expected) but nothing major, it also said didn't see any reason for concern, was a viable purchase and no reason it wouldn't resell under normal market conditions.

But (there's always a but!) we have discovered via the seller's property forms (which were filled in very poorly) that there was a claim for clay root shrinkage in 2015. Nothing mentioned at viewing and pre offer. We asked to see further info on this and received a cert of structural integrity which doesn't cover anyone but the current freeholder and our solictor said doesn't meet building regs (not much info really) just says vegetation removed and repairs made to the superstructure... the surveyor suggested getting more info due to the lack of detail but we are really struggling to get this from the sellers and it is dragging on (I don't think they realised how much this might impact them selling in the future at the time and just paid up and took the cert given)

What we do know is that the building is insured and has been since the work, this is managed by the Freeholder even though we would pay it so unlikely to involve much shopping about even if that is possible and it's fairly high as there has been a claim - up from £300 annually to just under £600 the year of the work (something else the seller didn't disclose stating no change to premiums!) but the excess for subsidence is still 1k which I understand to be fairly standard. Our lender has this week confirmed they will still lend based on the paperwork we have and out broker says they are a cautious lender.

I feel like we have done all the checks we possibly could. The area is mid-high risk for subsidence anyway and I believe tree roots (as long as the work was done well) isn't the worst subsidence case? You might even say it's better to buy it after the trees have been removed and the work is done?!! Am I missing anything? I feel incredibly nervous but can't think what else we can do as buyers to mitigate the risk. We have already ploughed money into surveys searches etc and are currently couch surfing with contents in storage due to bad timing with landlords wanting their flat back but of course no amount already spent is worth a bad long term purchase that might have more issues or that we might struggle to sell.

Does anyone have any advice on if there is more I should/can do? Anyone with similar experience or just general advice? Should we reduce our offer just based on the fact we didn't know about the history or extra insurance pre offer? Especially as they pushed us up from our inital offer.

Thanks so much to anyone that can help!

Hotgoblin

Just bumping in case anyone looking at the forum today has purchased a similar property or has any experience? Thank you :-)

Mnd

I would think that if your lender is still happy, and you think the insurance premiums acceptable, with the 1000k excess. Then I don't see what else you can do...in the end trust your instincts

Hotgoblin

Thank you :-)

Carlos77

As long as the 'root' cause (if you'll pardon the pun) is fixed, then, you may still get some minor cracking while the property settles, but nothing that should be too worry about if the structural survey okays it, and the bank are still willing to lend, and insurer still willing to insure it. We are actually in a similar position, our new (Edwardian) house had movement from a tree, which has since been removed, now the house been monitored and is not moving, and the cause has gone so I'm happy, got a 15k reduction for it. Insurance is still a little more, along with the excess but that's to be expected.

Hotgoblin

Thanks, Carlos, this is really helpful. I agree that we have done what we can and had a full survey. We aren't sure what trees caused the issue as the certificate doesn't say but based on some google searches the downstairs garden had loads of trees that are now all gone so would assume it to be them. As we the seller didn't disclose the past subsidence at the viewing and we only found out when we got the forms from our solicitor we had already made our offer which after negotiation settled at only a couple of grand off the asking price. I do wonder if we should reduce it at all? They may not say yes of course...

ChasingtheWelshdream

I have no knowledge of subsidence from tree roots, but wondered if our past experience may help.

Our first house had previously been underpinned due to subsidence from a collapsed drain, as well as wall ties from damage caused by a WW2 bomb nearby (house was 1907). Work was completed in 2002, via insurance, and our surveyor was happy everything was fine.

All the work was very obvious as a corner of the house had been rebuilt (poorly) and rendered, so we knew when we viewed.

We were FTBs and had no problems with a mortgage from a mainstream lender (Nationwide), and insurance premiums didn't seem overly excessive compared to other houses. Admittedly we were advised to stick with the same insurer, as they couldn't refuse us, so we didn't shop around. There was a £2k excess for future subsidence claims.

When we sold, the buyer's solicitor questioned absolutely everything, convinced we were hiding something and it would be unmortgageable. We ended up funding their full buildings survey to give them peace of mind and it all went through fine in the end.

I suppose all I'm saying is, historic subsidence - correctly remedied - need not necessarily be a problem. Whether prospective buyers would be put off is another matter, but we were not. Oh, and both buying/selling prices were on a par with other properties.

Hotgoblin

ChasingtheWelshdream wrote: »

I have no knowledge of subsidence from tree roots, but wondered if our past experience may help.

Our first house had previously been underpinned due to subsidence from a collapsed drain, as well as wall ties from damage caused by a WW2 bomb nearby (house was 1907). Work was completed in 2002, via insurance, and our surveyor was happy everything was fine.

All the work was very obvious as a corner of the house had been rebuilt (poorly) and rendered, so we knew when we viewed.

We were FTBs and had no problems with a mortgage from a mainstream lender (Nationwide), and insurance premiums didn't seem overly excessive compared to other houses. Admittedly we were advised to stick with the same insurer, as they couldn't refuse us, so we didn't shop around. There was a £2k excess for future subsidence claims.

When we sold, the buyer's solicitor questioned absolutely everything, convinced we were hiding something and it would be unmortgageable. We ended up funding their full buildings survey to give them peace of mind and it all went through fine in the end.

I suppose all I'm saying is, historic subsidence - correctly remedied - need not necessarily be a problem. Whether prospective buyers would be put off is another matter, but we were not. Oh, and both buying/selling prices were on a par with other properties.

Thank you. This is helpful. I would be happy to share our survey with any buyers in the future which showed the flat to be structurally sound and re-sellable in his opinion and paying for their survey would be an option I guess. We don't plan to sell anytime soon, this will be out home for at least the life of our fix term mortgage. The excess is set at 1k for future subsidence which I understand to be fairly average.

Thank for your response.

Carlos77

Hotgoblin wrote: »

We aren't sure what trees caused the issue as the certificate doesn't say but based on some google searches the downstairs garden had loads of trees that are now all gone so would assume it to be them...

Mine was a little easier to trace back, as the house is in a conservation area, and the tree in question had a conservation order on it, so they had to get permission to remove it, and as such all the documentation was on the councils planning portal. Have you checked with your local council incase this information is available?

Hotgoblin

Carlos77 wrote: »

Mine was a little easier to trace back, as the house is in a conservation area, and the tree in question had a conservation order on it, so they had to get permission to remove it, and as such all the documentation was on the councils planning portal. Have you checked with your local council incase this information is available?

I haven't done that and wasn't aware that I could but will speak to my solicitor about it. Thanks!

novelty-socks

Hello! Just wanted to chime in as I've been through a similar experience very recently. Me and my girlfriend had an offer accepted on a flat. During the conveyancing process we learnt about subsidence which had occurred in 2011, been properly fixed and monitored for a year to ensure no further movement.

The seller declared this openly, but it was not mentioned by the agent when we viewed. In hindsight, we should have asked during the viewing (and I always will in future).

We really flip-flopped on the purchase for a couple of weeks, but after a positive survey, various discussions with our solicitor and others, we concluded that the risk was low enough for us to proceed. We negotiated an extra £10k off the property, but the mortgage was fine and insurance is reasonable.

I think what persuaded us to continue was a very positive conversation with our surveyor, the realisation that our part of north London is particularly prone to subsidence, and the fact that the flat was otherwise everything we wanted. We've completed and are about to move in, so hopefully there aren't any other surprises awaiting us!