What to do when you notice movement in your house

comedyseeker123

I had the misfortune of buying a house that structural movement and the lender obviously wouldn’t lend.

However the owner used the home as a BTL and she apparently didn’t know about any cracks. So assuming she didn’t (and there is no way I can know if she did?) what would be the course of action? Would the owner contact her insurance company and they fix it?

Newbie to house owning and just asking for reference.

Doozergirl

Yes, that is what should happen.

System

Do you mean the previous owner had it as a BTL?

You say you’ve bought it but the lender wouldn’t lend. So did you buy for cash?

Did you have a full survey done then?

Who are you asking should be the one to contact their insurance company- you, previous owner?

All very unclear

Doozergirl

ritfor wrote: »

Do you mean the previous owner had it as a BTL?

You say you’ve bought it but the lender wouldn’t lend. So did you buy for cash?

Did you have a full survey done then?

Who are you asking should be the one to contact their insurance company- you, previous owner?

All very unclear

The OP was buying it, didn't buy it as it failed on the mortgage criteria.

G_M

comedyseeker123 wrote: »

I had the misfortune of buying a house that structural movement
I'm guessing this is not true and you have not bought the house?

and the lender obviously wouldn’t lend.

However the owner used the home as a BTL and she apparently didn’t know about any cracks. So assuming she didn’t (and there is no way I can know if she did?)
Whether she knew or not seems immatrial.

what would be the course of action?
For who? You?

Either purchase for cash and then fix the problem (not recommended for a FTB) or walk away.
For the seller? Really not your concern. They may or may not involve their insurer.May or may not re-market. May or may not fix themselvs.

Would the owner contact her insurance company and they fix it?
as above

..of course,if you have already in fact bought the property, then youroptions are more limited.
* do nothing and hope the movement stops
* involve your insurer and hope they accept the claim
* fix the problem using cash

comedyseeker123

Omg I’m sorry my wording was so lazy and the meaning was incorrect.

I was wanting to buy* I didn’t buy as the mortgage company wouldn’t lend (amongst other reasons).

My post is for future reference on my new (to me) home and also if it was visible that the owner (BTL) knew about the issues with the house.

Mistral001

G_M wrote: »

..of course,if you have already in fact bought the property, then youroptions are more limited.
* do nothing and hope the movement stops
* involve your insurer and hope they accept the claim
* fix the problem using cash

This is spot on. I would add that the insurer would only accept a claim if it could be proved that the movement was due to the insurance industry's definition of subsidence. That definition excludes most forms of foundation settlement and only includes settlement in the ground which is independent of the load from the building.

eddddy

comedyseeker123 wrote: »

My post is for future reference on my new (to me) home and also if it was visible that the owner (BTL) knew about the issues with the house.

If the EA knew about the subsidence (or should have known about the subsidence - e.g because of the presence of cracks) they should have told you about it at the outset.

Following your survey, I guess the EA definitely knows about it now, so must inform future prospective buyers.

Here's an extract from a ruling by the Property Ombudsman:

It should be noted that Agent B could be committing an offence for omitting information relating to the subsidence unless they were unaware of it due to the act or default of the seller who has hidden the fact, in which case the seller commits the offence.

Link: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/the-truth-and-the-cprs

Although I think the part about the seller committing an offence only applies if the seller is a business (but a BTL landlord might count as a business).

Mistral001

eddddy wrote: »

If the EA knew about the subsidence (or should have known about the subsidence - e.g because of the presence of cracks) they should have told you about it at the outset.

Following your survey, I guess the EA definitely knows about it now, so must inform future prospective buyers.

Here's an extract from a ruling by the Property Ombudsman:

Although I think the part about the seller committing an offence only applies if the seller is a business (but a BTL landlord might count as a business).

This was a particular complaint against an agent by another agent. Can it be applied to complaints by house buyers against agents?

When buying a property, if you want to determine whether there are any faults in that property, I would only rely on surveys and structural reports commissioned and paid for by you. I would not rely on estate agents divulging faults known or unknown by them.

eddddy

Mistral001 wrote: »

This was a particular complaint against an agent by another agent. Can it be applied to complaints by house buyers against agents?

Yes.

Mistral001 wrote: »

When buying a property, if you want to determine whether there are any faults in that property, I would only rely on surveys and structural reports commissioned and paid for by you. I would not rely on estate agents divulging faults known or unknown by them.

You're slightly missing the point.

If the EA knew (or should have known) about a subsidence issue, they should tell prospective buyers at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

Then the prospective buyer then can decide whether they want to spend money on surveys, legal fees, mortgage applications - or walk away.


If the EA doesn't tell a prospective buyer about subsidence, and the buyer spends money on surveys etc, then walks away because of the subsidence - the Property Ombudsman is likely to tell the EA to pay the prospective buyer compensation.

Mistral001

eddddy wrote: »

If the EA doesn't tell a prospective buyer about subsidence, and the buyer spends money on surveys etc, then walks away because of the subsidence - the Property Ombudsman is likely to tell the EA to pay the prospective buyer compensation.

A few of points here.

Firstly it might be difficult to prove that the estate agent knew about the subsidence.

Secondly, the case that you quoted is a special case between two agents. Have you come across a case where a potential buyer took a case against their estate agent after they did not tell them about a fault they they knew about?

And thirdly, how big must the fault be before the agent has to disclose it? A little condensation, a leaking gutter, a faulty electrical switch, a retaining wall that is leaning out, woodworm in the attic? An estate agent might have sight of quite a few survey reports and each might list several faults that need atention. Does he have to disclose all these to the next potential buyer who walks through the door.

Again I would get proper professional advice from someone whose fee/commission does not depend on selling the property and not rely on the EA informing you of faults or an Ombudsman's finding in your favour if they fail to do so.