Underpinned House - Longmore Avenue, Southampton

Phil4432

As you now know, one of the first questions you should ask is if the property has had a history of subsidence.  When I purchased my present house, I asked that and other questions before making an offer.

Selling at market value, and now wants more?!  I'd wish him/her the best of luck and move on. 

Underpinned houses are probably more secure than houses that are not, but they generally do not go for market value, due to their history of subsidence. 

Chiglepig

I used to live in that area - assuming the underpinning was done properly (which your information of no subsequent issues, it was), I wouldn't see it as a problem. From an insurance perspective, my old house carried an excess premium for subsidence because of the postcode, but the insurance other than than was not expensive on a yearly basis.

The other issues are your call, but again, not unusual for a house of that age.

One thing you haven't mentioned, but is also common in the Woolston/Bitterne areas is that some of the '30s houses were built with concrete roof tiles that were too heavy for the wall construction, so roof-spread is not uncommon.

Slinky

We paid £30K over asking for our house, which was underpinned  27 years before we bought it. Our market for buildings insurance is a bit more limited, but plenty of options and we have a standard £1K excess on buildings subsidence.

We found it easier to get insurance quotes by not having combined buildings/contents cover so have 2 different policies.

stuart45

You don't always know if a house has been underpinned. My daughter bought an end of terrace in a block of 4 and none of the residents had any idea they had been underpinned. 
I only found out when I dug out the foundations for a porch.
The original stone footing is just about 18 inches down, then the underpin concrete comes out about 18 inches, then down much lower than that. Apart from the age of the property the giveaway clue is the smooth side to the concrete indicating where the shuttering was struck.

martindow

It always seems strange that underpinned houses have more expensive insurance when work has been done to remedy a problem.  You would think that neighbouring houses that have not been underpinned and are built on the same type of ground should be the ones with raised insurance.

amanda_p

Our house was underpinned over 25 years ago. I have no idea where you are looking for insurance quotes but they are certainly not 10x the normal. We stayed with our original insurers for approx 5 years out of loyalty as the claim was handled very well. After that we looked elsewhere. This year for a 4 bed detached on 1/4 acre plot we paid approx £320.

If the house has been underpinned you are in a better position than neighbours that haven't! Ours was due to being built in the very dry summer of 1976, in a wooded area where the trees hadn't been maintained  properly, clay soil and a dip in the water table due to being within 1 mile of gravel pits. Subsidence was dealt with far more thoroughly than it is today. Our house was monitored for movement over 3 years, we had bore holes dug around the house and massive soil testing equipment living in the garden for years. After all this and some aborted attempts to make good did they underpin. It is far more common these days and if the work has been done you should not see any significant movement in the future.

Slinky

amanda_p said:

Our house was underpinned over 25 years ago. I have no idea where you are looking for insurance quotes but they are certainly not 10x the normal. We stayed with our original insurers for approx 5 years out of loyalty as the claim was handled very well. After that we looked elsewhere. This year for a 4 bed detached on 1/4 acre plot we paid approx £320.

If the house has been underpinned you are in a better position than neighbours that haven't! Ours was due to being built in the very dry summer of 1976, in a wooded area where the trees hadn't been maintained  properly, clay soil and a dip in the water table due to being within 1 mile of gravel pits. Subsidence was dealt with far more thoroughly than it is today. Our house was monitored for movement over 3 years, we had bore holes dug around the house and massive soil testing equipment living in the garden for years. After all this and some aborted attempts to make good did they underpin. It is far more common these days and if the work has been done you should not see any significant movement in the future.

Interestingly our extension which has been underpinned was built in 1976 or 77. It was a probate property so we don't know the reason for the subsidence but we wondered whether the weather conditions in those 2 years were something to do with it.

stuart45

If it was built in 76 in shrinkable clay it would be likely to heave as the ground rehydrates and swells. 76 was a problem year on site getting attacked by ladybirds. Since then the NHBC has increased the foundation depths in shrinkable clay. 
This shows the difference in the foundation depth between one from the early 70's and one 10 years ago. Low shrinkable and trees close by. Clay boards needed on the inside as the ground rehydrates being cut off from the trees.
phpu7raujam-jpg.44798 (760×570) (contractortalk.com)

milkskae873

tooldle said:

I’ve previously owned a house that had been underpinned a year or so prior to our purchase. We found the existing insurer to be our only option. Once the works had passed 5 years the full market was open to us at competitive rates. Were you clear with the insurer about how far in the past the underpinning took place? 
To be fair to the vendor, a house underpinned 30 years ago with no ongoing movement, does not have subsidence issues. If the entirety of the ground floor has been underpinned the house is extremely unlikely to experience any further issues.

Toodle : you said you bought a house that had been underpinned. When did they underpinned???
Do you have any further subsidence??
Were you paid full asking price?? 
So too many question. 

milkskae873

Chiglepig said:

I used to live in that area - assuming the underpinning was done properly (which your information of no subsequent issues, it was), I wouldn't see it as a problem. From an insurance perspective, my old house carried an excess premium for subsidence because of the postcode, but the insurance other than than was not expensive on a yearly basis.

The other issues are your call, but again, not unusual for a house of that age.

One thing you haven't mentioned, but is also common in the Woolston/Bitterne areas is that some of the '30s houses were built with concrete roof tiles that were too heavy for the wall construction, so roof-spread is not uncommon.

Chiglepig said:

I used to live in that area - assuming the underpinning was done properly (which your information of no subsequent issues, it was), I wouldn't see it as a problem. From an insurance perspective, my old house carried an excess premium for subsidence because of the postcode, but the insurance other than than was not expensive on a yearly basis.

The other issues are your call, but again, not unusual for a house of that age.

One thing you haven't mentioned, but is also common in the Woolston/Bitterne areas is that some of the '30s houses were built with concrete roof tiles that were too heavy for the wall construction, so roof-spread is not uncommon.

Chiglepig:  Which insurance do you use then?