Property underpinned in the 80's no documents

LouAirra

Hi everyone,

We have found a Victorian property in the UK. The vendors have informed us that the property was underpinned in the 80's but they do not have documentation for these works. I have contacted the council to see if they had any information with no luck, they advised they do not keep documentation before 1990 .
I am waiting on information about the current vendors building insurance.

Its based in the heart of Cardiff, built late 1800's so has the potential of becoming a rental in the future so our main goal wouldn't be to necessarily sell it. We see ourselves  living here for at least the next 10-15 years.

So my question is if the building survey comes back with no issues, would you consider buying this property?

lookstraightahead

Why don't you get a structural engineer in to do a report, rather than a building survey (I presume though your building survey is a level 3?)

House13

I would have thought that any work over 40 years ago, documented or not, should no longer be taken into consideration.

LouAirra

lookstraightahead said:

Why don't you get a structural engineer in to do a report, rather than a building survey (I presume though your building survey is a level 3?)

Building Survey will be a level 3 yes.  Building survey is more in depth than anything a structural engineer can do as they cant obviously check the underpinning as its the foundations (information I've received after speaking to a few companies) I think they are called to a property if there is some obvious serious structural issues which I cant see being the case because there are no cracks not even in the old render which has been there at least 30 years and nothing around the stairs.

Wondering if anyone has a little experience in buying a property like this? 

lookstraightahead

LouAirra said:

lookstraightahead said:

Why don't you get a structural engineer in to do a report, rather than a building survey (I presume though your building survey is a level 3?)

Building Survey will be a level 3 yes.  Building survey is more in depth than anything a structural engineer can do as they cant obviously check the underpinning as its the foundations (information I've received after speaking to a few companies) I think they are called to a property if there is some obvious serious structural issues which I cant see being the case because there are no cracks not even in the old render which has been there at least 30 years and nothing around the stairs.

Wondering if anyone has a little experience in buying a property like this? 

Yes - I've just bought a house that was underpinned and the vendors had a structural engineers report available for me that the level 3 building surveyor could use when doing his survey.

So we had both, that why I mentioned it. In fact, our building surveyor found it extremely useful. 

if it's underpinned it may have had historical movement and a structural engineer can check whether it's still ongoing. A surveyor will potentially report that it needs to be checked out, which is the job of a structural engineer. 

I'm no expert though, just what I'm learning. 

tooldle

Yes, I've bought and sold an underpinned property. We had a level 2 survey as the underpinning was recent and documentation confirming the works was available to us. To my mind an underpinned property is a safer bet. In our case the problem was caused by a collapsing culvert in the street.

LouAirra

Ok great, ill have a word with a building surveyor see what they advice with regard to a structural engineer report.

I have a feeling the mortgage valuation is going to come back lower than our accepted offer which seems to be a common occurrence at the moment with the housing market being so crazy

LouAirra

tooldle said:

Yes, I've bought and sold an underpinned property. We had a level 2 survey as the underpinning was recent and documentation confirming the works was available to us. To my mind an underpinned property is a safer bet. In our case the problem was caused by a collapsing culvert in the street.

Yes seems to be the case actually, I don't know why people and insurers are scared of the word underpinning when like you said its safer than an older properties without it.

eddddy

LouAirra said:

I am waiting on information about the current vendors building insurance.

Some insurers ask a question like "Has the property ever suffered from subsidence?" - and if the answer is "yes", they'll either refuse to quote, or ask for an engineers report - and might charge higher premiums.

Other insurers won't be bothered about subsidence/underpinning in the 1980s because it was so long ago - and will insure on normal terms, with a normal premium.

Obviously, you want to go with one of the latter insurers.

 

LouAirra

 Hi,
Thank you for the information, I have actually spoken to Halifax Home insurance who do not care about historical subsidence. So that's good news and these are the ones the current vendor uses.

eddddy

LouAirra said:

 Hi,
Thank you for the information, I have actually spoken to Halifax Home insurance who do not care about historical subsidence. So that's good news and these are the ones the current vendor uses.

Yep - any banks in the Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds, Halifax, Bank of Scotland) aren't bothered about historical subsidence for their buildings insurance. Their policies are all underwritten by Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited, and the policies are more or less identical.

In "the old days" you could cycle round between the 3 of them to get a new customer discount every year - but the new regulations probably prevent them giving new customer discounts any more.


Having said that, in general, there's no real benefit to using the same insurance company as the seller.