Impact on sale to to subsidence damage

jonnydeppiwish!

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

stuart45 said:

The good news is that those cracks would be easy to repoint and cover up.

Its not really good news because its been flagged as possible subsidence so if not declared it would be deemed misrepresentation. Best option now is to get it surveyed and fixed on insurance if necessary.

Not sure that would count as the owner has no copy of the report, and if it’s like any other survey, it’s quite possibly just the surveyor covering his backside.

Of course it counts, if you have been made aware of an issue you fix it and declare it as required. This is a quote from another site on guidance about declaring:

"Finally remember that misrepresentation isn’t confined to the Property Information Form. You can misrepresent your home by deliberating concealing major, progressive cracks that you know (or suspect) to be caused by subsidence, for example, or by lying to a viewer of your property, directly or through your estate agent.

No one wants to have to take a hit on the value of their property, but equally nobody wants to buy a home with a massive problem that was deliberately concealed from them."

But if all they’ve had is a buyer pulling out because possible subsidence then that’s surely like the surveyor saying they can’t rule out Japanese knotweed?

stuart45

I would say that the odds are that is subsidence. Leaking drains are a major cause of it. When the beds joints are opened up like that either the masonry units above are moving up, or the ones below are going down. In this
 case they are going down. 
An SE will look at that and tell you the same. He would probably fix a few tell tales to the bed joints to check if the movement had stopped. You could do that yourself.
The joints need repointing to stop any moisture getting through  and causing damp and freezing in the winter.

woodpeckerx

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

stuart45 said:

The good news is that those cracks would be easy to repoint and cover up.

Its not really good news because its been flagged as possible subsidence so if not declared it would be deemed misrepresentation. Best option now is to get it surveyed and fixed on insurance if necessary.

Not sure that would count as the owner has no copy of the report, and if it’s like any other survey, it’s quite possibly just the surveyor covering his backside.

Of course it counts, if you have been made aware of an issue you fix it and declare it as required. This is a quote from another site on guidance about declaring:

"Finally remember that misrepresentation isn’t confined to the Property Information Form. You can misrepresent your home by deliberating concealing major, progressive cracks that you know (or suspect) to be caused by subsidence, for example, or by lying to a viewer of your property, directly or through your estate agent.

No one wants to have to take a hit on the value of their property, but equally nobody wants to buy a home with a massive problem that was deliberately concealed from them."

But if all they’ve had is a buyer pulling out because possible subsidence then that’s surely like the surveyor saying they can’t rule out Japanese knotweed?

No, its not the same. A problem has been flagged by a surveyor as possible subsidence, it looks like subsidence so if you hide it or lie about it on a declaration you leave yourself open to be sued for misrepresentation. 

jonnydeppiwish!

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

stuart45 said:

The good news is that those cracks would be easy to repoint and cover up.

Its not really good news because its been flagged as possible subsidence so if not declared it would be deemed misrepresentation. Best option now is to get it surveyed and fixed on insurance if necessary.

Not sure that would count as the owner has no copy of the report, and if it’s like any other survey, it’s quite possibly just the surveyor covering his backside.

Of course it counts, if you have been made aware of an issue you fix it and declare it as required. This is a quote from another site on guidance about declaring:

"Finally remember that misrepresentation isn’t confined to the Property Information Form. You can misrepresent your home by deliberating concealing major, progressive cracks that you know (or suspect) to be caused by subsidence, for example, or by lying to a viewer of your property, directly or through your estate agent.

No one wants to have to take a hit on the value of their property, but equally nobody wants to buy a home with a massive problem that was deliberately concealed from them."

But if all they’ve had is a buyer pulling out because possible subsidence then that’s surely like the surveyor saying they can’t rule out Japanese knotweed?

No, its not the same. A problem has been flagged by a surveyor as possible subsidence, it looks like subsidence so if you hide it or lie about it on a declaration you leave yourself open to be sued for misrepresentation. 

So if there’s no copy of the survey available to the vendor, then hearsay is knowledge of it? No trying to be argumentative by the way, just trying to understand when there’s no evidence except a potential made up excuse from the buyer to pull out.

woodpeckerx

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

stuart45 said:

The good news is that those cracks would be easy to repoint and cover up.

Its not really good news because its been flagged as possible subsidence so if not declared it would be deemed misrepresentation. Best option now is to get it surveyed and fixed on insurance if necessary.

Not sure that would count as the owner has no copy of the report, and if it’s like any other survey, it’s quite possibly just the surveyor covering his backside.

Of course it counts, if you have been made aware of an issue you fix it and declare it as required. This is a quote from another site on guidance about declaring:

"Finally remember that misrepresentation isn’t confined to the Property Information Form. You can misrepresent your home by deliberating concealing major, progressive cracks that you know (or suspect) to be caused by subsidence, for example, or by lying to a viewer of your property, directly or through your estate agent.

No one wants to have to take a hit on the value of their property, but equally nobody wants to buy a home with a massive problem that was deliberately concealed from them."

But if all they’ve had is a buyer pulling out because possible subsidence then that’s surely like the surveyor saying they can’t rule out Japanese knotweed?

No, its not the same. A problem has been flagged by a surveyor as possible subsidence, it looks like subsidence so if you hide it or lie about it on a declaration you leave yourself open to be sued for misrepresentation. 

So if there’s no copy of the survey available to the vendor, then hearsay is knowledge of it? No trying to be argumentative by the way, just trying to understand when there’s no evidence except a potential made up excuse from the buyer to pull out.

You're going round in circles. Look at the facts. The op posted "A buyers survey has came up with possible subsidence". Photos show evidence of movement. So how do you determine there is no evidence when photos have been posted and why have you decided the survey is a made up excuse? You don't need any excuse to pull out, are you just trolling here?

jonnydeppiwish!

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

woodpeckerx said:

stuart45 said:

The good news is that those cracks would be easy to repoint and cover up.

Its not really good news because its been flagged as possible subsidence so if not declared it would be deemed misrepresentation. Best option now is to get it surveyed and fixed on insurance if necessary.

Not sure that would count as the owner has no copy of the report, and if it’s like any other survey, it’s quite possibly just the surveyor covering his backside.

Of course it counts, if you have been made aware of an issue you fix it and declare it as required. This is a quote from another site on guidance about declaring:

"Finally remember that misrepresentation isn’t confined to the Property Information Form. You can misrepresent your home by deliberating concealing major, progressive cracks that you know (or suspect) to be caused by subsidence, for example, or by lying to a viewer of your property, directly or through your estate agent.

No one wants to have to take a hit on the value of their property, but equally nobody wants to buy a home with a massive problem that was deliberately concealed from them."

But if all they’ve had is a buyer pulling out because possible subsidence then that’s surely like the surveyor saying they can’t rule out Japanese knotweed?

No, its not the same. A problem has been flagged by a surveyor as possible subsidence, it looks like subsidence so if you hide it or lie about it on a declaration you leave yourself open to be sued for misrepresentation. 

So if there’s no copy of the survey available to the vendor, then hearsay is knowledge of it? No trying to be argumentative by the way, just trying to understand when there’s no evidence except a potential made up excuse from the buyer to pull out.

You're going round in circles. Look at the facts. The op posted "A buyers survey has came up with possible subsidence". Photos show evidence of movement. So how do you determine there is no evidence when photos have been posted and why have you decided the survey is a made up excuse? You don't need any excuse to pull out, are you just trolling here?

I’m not trolling at all, just asking a question. Are you a structural engineer?

As I suggested in my first post, the op needs to get a structural engineer to look at this, not rely on what excuse their buyer used to pull out of the sale, which unless they have written evidence for, may or may not exist. 

Just because there is an issue, it doesn’t mean subsidence is the cause.

Section62

cts_casemod said:

I have contacted the offending company on this matter, who refuse to comment further and tell me to involve my home insurance.

There's evidence of movement/cracking on the pictures taken whilst the trench was open when they repaired/altered the sewer connection.  Was that the first time they excavated to that depth, or had they dug that deep before?

Do you have any earlier pictures, or can you see any cracking on older streetview images?

The worst of the cracking appears centred around the soil pipe connection, so there is a reasonable chance this is related to a poor or failing connection between the soil pipe and the sewer.

Were UU doing the work because it is a public sewer, or were they doing it because you have some form of insurance/maintenance contract with them?  The final connection they have made isn't likely to be public sewer - it may be relevant/important later whether what they were doing was as a statutory undertaker, or as a 'home repair service'.

Section62

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

So if there’s no copy of the survey available to the vendor, then hearsay is knowledge of it? No trying to be argumentative by the way, just trying to understand when there’s no evidence except a potential made up excuse from the buyer to pull out.

You're going round in circles. Look at the facts. The op posted "A buyers survey has came up with possible subsidence". Photos show evidence of movement. So how do you determine there is no evidence when photos have been posted and why have you decided the survey is a made up excuse? You don't need any excuse to pull out, are you just trolling here?

No need to accuse others of trolling - there are some reasonable questions in jonnydeppiwish's posts.

From what I can see there is evidence of movement, but the cause and whether it is historic is uncertain. Unless the OP has seen the survey then they have no way of knowing whether that is really what the surveyor said.  It is quite possible the survey said 'movement' and the buyer has converted that to "possible subsidence" either through a lack of understanding of the difference, or panic over the discovery of a significant defect, or wanting to make their reason for pulling out sound more plausible.  You don't need an excuse, but some people feel obliged to give one.

Whatever the other circumstances, those cracks now need looking at by a structural engineer.

aoleks

What some people say here is that if a buyer has very bad intentions and makes up a subsidence claim for whatever reason, you have to declare subsidence as a possibility.

I call bull…

Get a structural engineer to check and you’ll be fine.

woodpeckerx

Section62 said:

woodpeckerx said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

So if there’s no copy of the survey available to the vendor, then hearsay is knowledge of it? No trying to be argumentative by the way, just trying to understand when there’s no evidence except a potential made up excuse from the buyer to pull out.

You're going round in circles. Look at the facts. The op posted "A buyers survey has came up with possible subsidence". Photos show evidence of movement. So how do you determine there is no evidence when photos have been posted and why have you decided the survey is a made up excuse? You don't need any excuse to pull out, are you just trolling here?

Whatever the other circumstances, those cracks now need looking at by a structural engineer.

That was exactly my point, you cannot hide from it and not declare it.