Survey Identifies Structural Movement

minikila

Hello, 

First time poster with a slight bit of confusion about something that has come up in our Building Survey. We have had an issue listed as structural movement underneath the two corners of the upstairs bay window which were renewed in the early 2000s. The report appears to be written rather cryptically meaning we are unsure how to proceed. 

"(Condition Rating 3) There is evidence of movement in the form of vertical cracks to either side of the front bay and we recommend these be monitored with a digital calliper to ensure they are not progressive. As per BRE digest 251, the cracks have a category of damage rating 2. Where there is evidence of previous movement to the property, it would be prudent to maintain insurance cover to ensure there is cover in the event of any future claim of movement."

Category 2 according to BRE 251 appears to be an aesthetic issue and we are unsure if this constitutes a major crack or subsidence. 

We are looking at comparator sites for insurance and trying to be as honest as possible with them however, how the report is worded we cannot honestly state it is subsidence as there has been no treatment etc for it that we are aware of however we can neither confirm it is historic and not progressive?

How best should we proceed with the vendor as we are unsure if we should renegotiate or ask them to carry out monitoring considering this risk; we are also unsure how to declare this for insurance purposes too. 

Any advice would be welcome! 

Section62

minikila said:

We are looking at comparator sites for insurance and trying to be as honest as possible with them however, how the report is worded we cannot honestly state it is subsidence as there has been no treatment etc for it that we are aware of however we can neither confirm it is historic and not progressive?

How best should we proceed with the vendor as we are unsure if we should renegotiate or ask them to carry out monitoring considering this risk; we are also unsure how to declare this for insurance purposes too. 

If there has been movement you'd ideally want the vendor's insurers to agree to insure you so you'd be able to make a claim.  If you went with a different insurer and you are aware of this problem then the insurer is likely to decline a claim on the basis it was a pre-existing defect.

There's a reasonable chance the ground floor bay window was replaced by one which didn't have adequate structural strength, allowing the bay wall above to sink relative the the main wall of the house.  This is quite a common defect and relatively easy to fix.  Technically it isn't subsidence as the movement is within the structure rather than movement in the ground/foundations.

But if you are going to proceed with the purchase you really need to get a structural engineer to take a look.

minikila

Thank you for this @Section62

I've just spotted that further down in the report it states the below which I think shouldn't change the above advice?

"Structural movement: There is evidence of movement in the form of vertical cracks to the front bay and we recommend these be monitored to ensure they are not progressive. We can offer this service. Where there is evidence of previous movement to the property, it would be prudent to maintain insurance cover to ensure there is cover in the event of any future claim of movement." 

 Looking at various insurance comparison sites we were looking at declaring it as a crack but were unclear as to the subsidence point. On our previous property we had something similar with the window so thought it might be the same thing but how the surveyor has presented it in the report has obviously got us rather worried!

If it is the window without sufficient strength what is it we would need to do for us to rectify it?

Section62

minikila said:

If it is the window without sufficient strength what is it we would need to do for us to rectify it?

The usual is to replace the windows with ones containing either aluminium or steel loadbearing reinforcing in the vertical members.

In bad cases it may be necessary to remove the widows and the wall between them and rebuild the bay.

movilogo

Have you actually spoken with the surveyor? They often write pessimistic reports but also explain verbally what the real risks are. If you not happy with the purchase, you should always walk away. 
Houses may have cracks, if it has got extensions, extended part may settle differently compared to rest of the house. These are common issues and not alarming.

minikila

movilogo said:

Have you actually spoken with the surveyor? They often write pessimistic reports but also explain verbally what the real risks are. If you not happy with the purchase, you should always walk away. 
Houses may have cracks, if it has got extensions, extended part may settle differently compared to rest of the house. These are common issues and not alarming.

Thanks, we are awaiting a response from them at present. We are hopeful that it is just risk aversion! 

Section62

minikila said:

movilogo said:

Have you actually spoken with the surveyor? They often write pessimistic reports but also explain verbally what the real risks are. If you not happy with the purchase, you should always walk away. 
Houses may have cracks, if it has got extensions, extended part may settle differently compared to rest of the house. These are common issues and not alarming.

Thanks, we are awaiting a response from them at present. We are hopeful that it is just risk aversion! 

Unfortunately "evidence of movement in the form of vertical cracks to either side of the front bay" is more than just risk aversion.

It is quite common for houses to have cracks, but whether or not they are something to be concerned about requires rather more analysis than that post suggests.

minikila

So we've had some feedback from both our surveyor and the seller (they bought two years' ago so their survey is fairly recent). 

Ours:

“It is common for vertical cracks to the bay window on the first floor to appear when the windows are replaced, this happens when the upper level of the bay is improperly supported whilst removing the windows from the ground floor. Alternatively, vertical cracks which are wider at the top may also indicate that there has been foundation movement as bay windows are more prone to changes in climate and subsoil conditions.”

Theirs:

External Walls section: There is a hairline vertical crack at the abutment of the first floor bay with the front elevation (and matching internal cracking). This indicates very slight separation of the bay. This is not uncommon for the age and type of the property. Significant further movement is not expected but slight cracking may recur (see “Internal Walls”).

Internal Walls section: Walls are in fair condition and without evidence of significant cracking / movement. As discussed there is hairline vertical cracking at the abutment of the bedroom bay with the front elevation. This illustrates slight rotation of the bay away from the house and is usually simply due to a less substantial foundation than the remainder of the house. Further investigation is not warranted.  You should allow for stitching across the cracks with “Helifix” bars or similar if stripping lining paper to prevent re-cracking. 

We are certainly going to go down the structural engineer route and hoping it is nothing too serious to worry about. Looking at the historic building images from circa 2-5 years ago it appears that the cracks are about the same size and I suspect their surveyor reported it as hairline instead of actually measuring it however, using BRE terminology it would seem to suggest growth.

It does surprise us somewhat that in two years' two surveyors come up with different recommendations and reasons to go from further investigation not warranted to investigation required. 

 Any further advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Olinda99

One thing to.consider is would this cause problems selling when you eventually come to sell - it might put people off