Seller didnt declare subsidence

babyblade41

Sad you have invested in a property that hasn't gone ahead, but all the advice above is pretty much accurate.
If a house has been underpinned in an area which this is common, as long as I see all relevant docs it wouldn't put me off.

AdrianC

Subsidence happens because the foundations aren't adequate for the ground conditions.
Underpinning is simply adding to those foundations.

housegirl83

Davesnave wrote: »

Your advice about the strength of underpinned houses is interesting. If a house is underpinned and stops subsiding, surely it is 'stronger' than it was before in resisting movement? Perhaps 'stronger' isn't the best word, but I'm not going into semantics. In any event, this is why insurers wait to see if the movement has stopped before lowering premiums.

Hey there...if I'm really honest, I'm not sure why they don't agree a property is "stronger" for having work done on subsidence. There must be a reason why as even insurers will issue extortionate premiums and excesses (and some extreme cases will only allow you to insure with the provider that carried out the original work) for up to 25 years after subsidence issues have been resolved, so there must be some reason they simply don't trust it even after full works have been done!

AdrianC

Simple - just in case the underpinning hasn't been done adequately or properly, so the subsidence returns.

housegirl83

AdrianC wrote: »

Subsidence happens because the foundations aren't adequate for the ground conditions.
Underpinning is simply adding to those foundations.

That makes sense why they don't think it's "stronger"! Thanks for clarifying!!

AdrianC

housegirl83 wrote: »

That makes sense why they don't think it's "stronger"! Thanks for clarifying!!

It's stronger than the house not underpinned.
It's no stronger than the house if the foundations had been adequate in the first place.

housegirl83

Deleted_User wrote: »

Out of curiousity I checked with a local estate agent (big corporate so contracts will be watertight to protect them). Here is all the questions on the checklist the sellers signs:



Tenure

Ownership details (sole/joint/shared equity)

Connection of services

Any access rights over property

Any major alterations to the property

What type of windows

What type of doors

Is there a garage

Is the drive shared

Is there parking

What type of heating system is there

Are you aware of any health and safety risks in the property

Does the property have any current or potential issues





A few of these you could argue could be answered with the subsidence and underpinning but the question isn’t there so its up to the solicitors to find out

Different agents will have different wording but it's going to come down to the fact you didn't ask so thr seller didn't have to disclose. If it came up during the legal process then the legal process worked and you made a new decision based on new facts.

I know its horrible to be out of pocket. Surely your mortgage will be valid for the next property?
The survey fees is money well spent as you've avoided buying a property you wouldn't want
The solicitors fee is well spent as they found out the information for you

That's wierd...on the same questionnaires I've been privvy to there is a whole section dedicated to subsidence and structural defects which includes the below two questions:

• Are you aware of any current structural defects or issues with subsidence?
• Are you aware of any historical structural defects or issues with subsidence?

[Deleted User]

housegirl83 wrote: »

That's wierd...on the same questionnaires I've been privvy to there is a whole section dedicated to subsidence and structural defects which includes the below two questions:

• Are you aware of any current structural defects or issues with subsidence?
• Are you aware of any historical structural defects or issues with subsidence?

It will be different for every agent.

My own guesswork (not a legal professional) would be that the contract at that point is between the seller and the agent. So you can not sue for misrepresentation as you have no contract with the seller at that point. If the seller has omitted the information on the TA6 when specifically asked then its a different matter as that document is a contract between you and the seller.

I can totally understand your frustration though. A bit more honesty in the industry would make things go a lot smoother for sure but that's why we don't exchange contracts on offer.

phoebe1989seb

housegirl83 wrote: »

That's wierd...on the same questionnaires I've been privvy to there is a whole section dedicated to subsidence and structural defects which includes the below two questions:

• Are you aware of any current structural defects or issues with subsidence?
• Are you aware of any historical structural defects or issues with subsidence?

We've sold four houses between 2008 and 2017 - in completely different regions of the UK and never using the same estate agent - and we have never been asked to fill in such a form by our selling agent......

housegirl83

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

We've sold four houses between 2008 and 2017 - in completely different regions of the UK and never using the same estate agent - and we have never been asked to fill in such a form by our selling agent......

Hey there... so you've never had to complete any form or questionnaire with any estate agent when you're selling a house? Seems strange. Maybe those EAs are willing to accept the risk of not doing due diligence and having the information to hand. I thought these forms were part of the seller-EA contract. That's certainly what I've been advised previously.