Possible subsidence - How to get insurance

cattie

organised.retreat wrote: »

When you say,
"the existing insurer has to agree to continue to offer buildings insurance on the property to the purchaser"
Do you mean they are legally obliged or is it more a case of a general rule?

I know that the vendors have insurance with Halifax. When speaking to them should I explicitly identify the property and suspected faults or should I discuss it in general, hypothetical terms? I am concerned that once I identify the problem the insurance company will simply walk away.

Thanks for your help once again.

There is some kind of code in the insurance industry where an insurer is honour bound to agree to continue to insure the property with a new owner where there has been a claim for structural/remedial works on the building. I would imagine this will still be the case where any investigative process is in hand.

You could ring the Halifax & talk to somebody there, but not give the actual address of the property if you prefer. Halifax are the insurers of the property I mentioned in my other post & who are the insurers of my current property. Advice was offered to me without divulging the address, but as the vendors had agreed to me speaking with their insurers, giving the address or postcode wasn't actually a problem.

The simplest option for you really is to ask the owners to apply for the monitoring process to undertaken.

When a significant period has gone by after any structural problems have been sorted then it is possible to find an alternative insurance company. It might just take a bit more work to find a company agreeable at a realistic premium.

Debt_Free_Chick

It's not true that subsidence "takes years" to diagnose/remedy. It can do ... but not always. A decent structural engineer will work to eliminate the most obvious causes, first.

In a property of this age, one of the first things to be inspected would be the drains. Unless they've been renewed, the drains will be the original clay ones and could have been damaged or simply "worn out". Clay is prone to cracking over a period of time and unless there's an obvious cause e.g. ingress of tree roots, then it's "wear and tear".

If the drains are damaged, then it's likely that the ground is saturated and has caused "subsidence" - but not the ongoing type. In other words, fix the cause i.e. the drains and no further subsidence will occur (unless there's another, secondary cause!!!).

This is not the kind of work you can "do yourself" - you must use a structural engineer and it's exactly what insurance was intended for.

My claim was £26,000 in 2001 - which is more than the amount I've paid out on buildings insurance in my 23 years of house-ownership. If we're going to get too sensitive over future insurance premium rises, then there's no point in having insurance at all. After all, it's there for the big expensive claims!

Oh - and I sold in 2001, with the work largely but not fully completed for the full asking price. The property had only been on the market for 5 weeks (that was quick sale, back then!!). Any period property has either had some movement/subsidence or is at a higher risk than a newer property - you need to factor that in when property-hunting.

Debt_Free_Chick

organised.retreat wrote: »

If we convinced the current vendors to start the process and nothing was found (or maybe only slight rectification) would it be impossible to ever change insurance companies?

If there's nothing wrong, then there's no subsidence claim to declare in the future.

As Silvercar states though .... if there is subsidence, then you need to declare it in the future, whether you claim on the insurance, or not.

WaveyDave_2

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

If the drains are damaged, then it's likely that the ground is saturated and has caused "subsidence" - but not the ongoing type. In other words, fix the cause i.e. the drains and no further subsidence will occur (unless there's another, secondary cause!!!).

I would like to offer a flipside to this. When I was considering my purchase,the drains were one of the main suspects. It only costs about £200 to get a full CCTV drain survey, for which you'll then get a DVD etc of the run, along with a written report. Depending on how long the water has been seeping into the surrounding soil, the movement COULD be ongoing, even after repairing the drains. My structural surveyor was pretty certain the movement had been occurring over a prolonged period. His feeling was that even repairing the drain wouldn't remedy it, as fine particles in the surrounding substrate had been washed away. The only solution was underpinning.

What it comes down to, is your willingness to take a gamble. I thought I was willing, but events conspired against us. I am now very glad I didn't get saddled with a subsiding house. The house has now been sold to a young couple with kids. I hope for their sake that my surveyors and builder were being over-cautious, and there is not ongoing problem.

Debt_Free_Chick

WaveyDave wrote: »

The only solution was underpinning.

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that underpinning wouldn't be required, as it often is. My £26,000 claim wasn't just for the drains :rotfl:

What I meant though, was that once the property has been underpinned and the cause of the subsidence is remedied (i.e. drains fixed) then there is no ongoing movement.

Contrast this with land heave or slip ... where the ground continues to move and future subsidence can never be ruled out. That's a very different situation :eek:

Aiko_2

I have a very ancient house and one of the buttresses is a cause for concern but insurance hasn't been a problem. Each year or two the insurers come out and inspect it.

If you do go ahead I would ask Adrian Flux for a quote - we use them for our other house (not the one above) because of the percentage of flat roof and I know others that use them for subsidence-risk and thatched roof houses.

organised.retreat

Again, thank you all for your responses.

I have spoken with Halifax (as cattie suggests) and they were very helpful;

If there is evidence of subsidence and no currently progressing remedial works then they will not insure us.

If the current owner starts the work and then sells to us we can take on the policy and the process.

I have spoken with the vendor and they seem happy (or at least resigned) to begin the process of making a claim- as well they might considering the potential issues.

I have a new concern now though. It seems that we could take on the current policy due to the existence of a claim. However, when we come to sell then I would imagine that if we had not convinced the insurers that everything was now remedied then our potential buyers would be in the same position we are,

Debt_Free_Chick - you mention that heave is much worse than subsidence because it is difficult to rectify. I thought that subsidence is the opposite of heave...clearly I shall have to do more research.

organised.retreat

Aiko - you mention Adrian Flux. I have read some poor reviews of their service - I take it that your experience is a happier one?

rheme

I had a house which suffered from subsidence during the 1990's. It took a long time to sort out and a lot of hard work. Eventually it was underpinned and we had to move out for 6 months.

The house was sold some two years after the work was done for the full market value and with no insurance problems (or none that I was aware of).

I found the whole experience quite a strain and unless you are really prepared for this then be prepared to walk away.

Good Luck

Debt_Free_Chick

organised.retreat wrote: »

I have a new concern now though. It seems that we could take on the current policy due to the existence of a claim. However, when we come to sell then I would imagine that if we had not convinced the insurers that everything was now remedied then our potential buyers would be in the same position we are,

You don't convince the insurers - they appoint a structural engineer (or similar) to supervise everything; to recommend the remedial works; to appoint the contractors; and to sign off the work at the end. You sit back and let all these guys do it, with the insurance company paying them direct.

Debt_Free_Chick - you mention that heave is much worse than subsidence because it is difficult to rectify. I thought that subsidence is the opposite of heave...clearly I shall have to do more research.

I'm referring to any land movement, which you cannot stop. With the drains, you stop the cause of the subsidence - which is water leaking into the subsoil; or a tree with ingressing roots. With heave/slip .... it can keep going for decades and nothing you can do can stop it.

BTW apparently only 20% of subsidence claims are due to heave/slip. The remaining 80% are trees mostly ... and drains.