House with minor subsidence

cecoo

We have had an offer accepted on our ‘forever home’ and since found out there has been a very recent subsidence damage claim (in the last two years). They lady is moving to a retirement home and I think it’s a genuine reason to sell now.

There have been small cracks only to the ground floor extension that was added in the 70s (house was built early 60s). Monitoring was done over 18 months and a problem with the drains was identified and fixed (they ended abruptly in the garden and had to be connected to a proper drain at the side of the property). There has also been some minor cosmetic work to the brickwork. She has removed the trees in her garden listed as a risk. One tree listed as a possible cause is a large oak in the neighbours garden, 25 metres away. The neighbour has apparently been told separately that the tree isn’t a problem and will not take it down.

In the Certificate of Structural Adequacy, the oak tree is listed as the cause of movement due to clay soil shrinkage - and not the drains.

We can’t get insurance with the seller’s current insurer (big brand) but have found insurance with a specialist insurer, meaning a higher premium and £2,500 subsidence excess.

She is apparently ‘very relaxed’ about the situation and ‘believes’ it to be the drains. The EA is of the same mindset so not sure if he is advising her or if they both think it’s all fine.

We asked if she would be prepared to discuss a reduced offer, given that we have since been made aware of the subsidence and insurance issues - and possibility resale problems later - and we’ve had a flat no. I do think it’s the right price without any subsidence issues.

We’re pretty confused about what to do next. We love the house but have concerns. I’d love a crystal ball right now! My questions are at this stage: what are the chances of more movement if the neighbour’s large tree is still there but seller’s trees are gone and the drains are fixed? Would the insurance company have done the work and issued a CSA if they thought there could be more subsidence or does that mean they think it’s probably okay? Is a large oak tree 25m away a real threat or is it possible loss adjusters are being overly cautious? How useful is a structural buildings survey at this stage? Is it best we pay for this ourselves? Do you think it’s unreasonable to expect a lesser offer, as ours was made not knowing the full picture? If she won’t budge, does this suggest they are confident it’s fine and will sell, or they are deluded?! All potential buyers will face the insurance issue we have and it’s been a hassle to be honest.

We don’t want to walk away just yet (knowing we’re quite cautious people) and regret buying a lovely home. But we are also wary of paying market value for a home that has recent subsidence and while one of the possible causes is still there.

Sorry, a long post but it’s a fairly complicated issue! I’d be really grateful for any answers or similar experiences you’ve had.

chunkytfg

cecoo wrote: »

We have had an offer accepted on our ‘forever home’ and since found out there has been a very recent subsidence damage claim (in the last two years). They lady is moving to a retirement home and I think it’s a genuine reason to sell now.

There have been small cracks only to the ground floor extension that was added in the 70s (house was built early 60s). Monitoring was done over 18 months and a problem with the drains was identified and fixed (they ended abruptly in the garden and had to be connected to a proper drain at the side of the property). There has also been some minor cosmetic work to the brickwork. She has removed the trees in her garden listed as a risk. One tree listed as a possible cause is a large oak in the neighbours garden, 25 metres away. The neighbour has apparently been told separately that the tree isn’t a problem and will not take it down.

In the Certificate of Structural Adequacy, the oak tree is listed as the cause of movement due to clay soil shrinkage - and not the drains.

We can’t get insurance with the seller’s current insurer (big brand) but have found insurance with a specialist insurer, meaning a higher premium and £2,500 subsidence excess.

She is apparently ‘very relaxed’ about the situation and ‘believes’ it to be the drains. The EA is of the same mindset so not sure if he is advising her or if they both think it’s all fine.

We asked if she would be prepared to discuss a reduced offer, given that we have since been made aware of the subsidence and insurance issues - and possibility resale problems later - and we’ve had a flat no. I do think it’s the right price without any subsidence issues.

We’re pretty confused about what to do next. We love the house but have concerns. I’d love a crystal ball right now! My questions are at this stage: what are the chances of more movement if the neighbour’s large tree is still there but seller’s trees are gone and the drains are fixed? Would the insurance company have done the work and issued a CSA if they thought there could be more subsidence or does that mean they think it’s probably okay? Is a large oak tree 25m away a real threat or is it possible loss adjusters are being overly cautious? How useful is a structural buildings survey at this stage? Is it best we pay for this ourselves? Do you think it’s unreasonable to expect a lesser offer, as ours was made not knowing the full picture? If she won’t budge, does this suggest they are confident it’s fine and will sell, or they are deluded?! All potential buyers will face the insurance issue we have and it’s been a hassle to be honest.

We don’t want to walk away just yet (knowing we’re quite cautious people) and regret buying a lovely home. But we are also wary of paying market value for a home that has recent subsidence and while one of the possible causes is still there.

Sorry, a long post but it’s a fairly complicated issue! I’d be really grateful for any answers or similar experiences you’ve had.

The fact there has been subsidence makes the house worth less in the same way a previously written off then fixed car(Cat *D/C) is also worth less!

If they wont move on the price then i'd walk without question.


*Yes I know its no longer D

csgohan4

drop the price or walk, simple

I assume you have had a structural survey done if you really want the house?

hazyjo

I'd walk too. Not even sure if it's been clarified what's caused it.


It might have once been 'lovely' or your 'dream house', but I can't see how you can still call it that. Maybe (just maybe) with a hefty discount or if I knew what I was getting into in the first place, but this would tarnish it for me.


Good luck. There will be others if you walk...

Badger51

The safe distance for an Oak is 30m. I don't think I would buy a house that I thought would be difficult to sell if I ever wanted to move. Disregard what the seller and EA say - they can't be expected to be impartial. If you really want to proceed get independent professional advice.

Cat_Mum

i wouldn’t be entirely put off by a house with history of subsidence but as others have said, I’d want to know that the cause was remedied and I’d want it to be discounted given that insurance will be higher. I think if you are really in love with the house I would get a structural engineer out to specifically give their opinion on the potential issue of the tree etc. We’re in the process of buying a 1970s house with external cracks which we’ve had to get checked out and in future I would get a structural engineer rather than a buildings survey like we did. We also had to get a drainage survey done for our lender (everything looked ok and cracks were deemed likely to be caused by expansion/contraction). We did have to jump through hoops a bit to get a mortgage.

Davesnave

The price paid ought to be somewhat lower than comparables to reflect the stigma the house will carry for the foreseeable future, but it doesn't sound particularly high risk.

I can't understand your statement that the drains "ended abruptly in the garden and had to be connected to a proper drain at the side of the property." I'd guess you mean surface water drainage, as sewers wouldn't do that, but there again, it's now against regulations to connect surface water to the main sewerage system. Sounds like Chinese whispers, from the agent /vendor, which is par for the course.

I agree with others that you need a structural engineer's independent advice to base your final offer on, and maybe patience while the vendor runs into this problem again. By then, she may be more flexible on price, but equally, you may have found another property.

Tom99

Do you have access to all the reports which will have been undertaken as part of the claim?
Is there an arboricultural report? This would specifically address the issue of nearby trees and whether they were the cause of the damage. Soil and root analysis would also be taken into account and a list of recommendations for each nearby tree produced.

cecoo

Cat_Mum wrote: »

i wouldn’t be entirely put off by a house with history of subsidence but as others have said, I’d want to know that the cause was remedied and I’d want it to be discounted given that insurance will be higher. I think if you are really in love with the house I would get a structural engineer out to specifically give their opinion on the potential issue of the tree etc. We’re in the process of buying a 1970s house with external cracks which we’ve had to get checked out and in future I would get a structural engineer rather than a buildings survey like we did. We also had to get a drainage survey done for our lender (everything looked ok and cracks were deemed likely to be caused by expansion/contraction). We did have to jump through hoops a bit to get a mortgage.

Thanks for this. We have booked a ‘full structural’ buildings survey. Now think we ought to get a structural engineer as you said. And did you flag this to your mortgage company or did they notice it? The cracks aren’t big in the house we’re looking at but I think there are signs they’ll spot. Lots of hoops is how it feels with this!

cecoo

Davesnave wrote: »

The price paid ought to be somewhat lower than comparables to reflect the stigma the house will carry for the foreseeable future, but it doesn't sound particularly high risk.

I can't understand your statement that the drains "ended abruptly in the garden and had to be connected to a proper drain at the side of the property." I'd guess you mean surface water drainage, as sewers wouldn't do that, but there again, it's now against regulations to connect surface water to the main sewerage system. Sounds like Chinese whispers, from the agent /vendor, which is par for the course.

I agree with others that you need a structural engineer's independent advice to base your final offer on, and maybe patience while the vendor runs into this problem again. By then, she may be more flexible on price, but equally, you may have found another property.

Hi, apparently the builders ran the water from the flat roof extension into the garden and the ground was soaked. They had CCTV etc and have now connected them to a drain round the side/near the front of the house that takes the water from the dishwasher and washing machine. They’ve supplied photos of the drain work showing how water logged the ground was around the extension. However, the final Certificate of Structural Adequacy says the cause is clay shrinkage as a result of the Oak tree in the neighbours garden...

cecoo

Tom99 wrote: »

Do you have access to all the reports which will have been undertaken as part of the claim?
Is there an arboricultural report? This would specifically address the issue of nearby trees and whether they were the cause of the damage. Soil and root analysis would also be taken into account and a list of recommendations for each nearby tree produced.

Yes, we’ve got them all. They cite a handful of trees nearby. The seller has removed hers and only the Oak tree in the neighbours garden remains. They found the clay soil had high plasticity levels (23%ish) and there is evidence of oak tree roots. If it is the oak, would you see movement in other parts of the house? The original kitchen is actually closer to the oak tree but the cracks have only appeared in the flat roof extension to the other side...