Insurance cover for extension built without bridging sewer

Karmabuyer

Hi all,

I think I put this in the wrong topic area - doh, newbie! Anyway, I am in the process of buying a property (not exchanged yet) but have a few concerns and wondered if anyone has any experience of this situation or advice to offer? 

The house is a small terrace built c.1900. The drainage search shows a combined public sewer running under the alley and then across the back of the house touching the corner of the kitchen extension before it runs on next door. There are no records of the extension lodged with Building Control, suggesting it was built before 1977 or never got approval. Either way, I'm led to believe by the people at Building Control that both outcomes are likely to mean it probably wasn't correctly bridged over the sewer. 

My understanding is that without a build over agreement (which won't be possible to get if built before 1985), and without bridging in place, I need to have an insurance policy. My solicitor has sourced one (vendor won't pay or put one in place), but it's a bit vague. It seems to cover me for legal costs; damage to sewer caused by water company, or the cost of "altering, demolishing or reinstating all or any part of the Property, to comply with a court order or injunction". But nowhere does it state it would cover me if the kitchen had subsidence or started to slip down into the sewer due to a lack of proper bridging. I have tried calling a few insurance companies but boy it's impossible to get to talk to anyone!

My question is - is this normal (i.e. not insurable) or could I expect to get a more comprehensive policy from a specialist provider?

Second query - the Gov flood risk map shows medium risk in the road where the property is. If it's a combined sewer that takes rain water as well as sewage, does anyone know if medium risk means it may not cope with heavy downfalls?

I've never come across any of these types of issues when buying before and am doing this one completely alone, so any help and advice is HUGELY appreciated!

In advance - thank you,

Kay

user1977

Indemnity insurance would be similar to what you've quoted, and only cover work done if you're forced to by the authorities. Normal buildings insurance would cover subsidence, but that's about as far as you're likely to get - you can't generally get insurance against fixing inherent defects in the construction. 

Though bear in mind that the rest of the house isn't going to be built to modern structural standards either! If the extension has been there for 50-odd years and your surveyor hasn't spotted any actual problems, you may decide to take a view on it.

doodling

Hi,

Insurers are generally wary of covering bad workmanship and if the extension subsided then it would almost certainly fall.under that category.

To be honest, if it hasn't subsided for the last 50 years then it is unlikely to do so now.

The flood risk map won't take account of specific drainage issues so it is impossible to infer anything about the sewer from the map.  You might do better to ask neighbours whether there have ever been any issues with flooding from sewers.

housebuyer143

doodling said:

Hi,

Insurers are generally wary of covering bad workmanship and if the extension subsided then it would almost certainly fall.under that category.

To be honest, if it hasn't subsided for the last 50 years then it is unlikely to do so now.

The flood risk map won't take account of specific drainage issues so it is impossible to infer anything about the sewer from the map.  You might do better to ask neighbours whether there have ever been any issues with flooding from sewers.

But, if the drain collapsed and the property subsided then surely that's an insurable event? The insurers are not going to be asking for proof it was adequately built over the drain over 50 years ago surely? This question certainly doesn't come up when you apply and I'm sure they have to ask the question when you take it out. 

Karmabuyer

housebuyer143 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Insurers are generally wary of covering bad workmanship and if the extension subsided then it would almost certainly fall.under that category.

To be honest, if it hasn't subsided for the last 50 years then it is unlikely to do so now.

The flood risk map won't take account of specific drainage issues so it is impossible to infer anything about the sewer from the map.  You might do better to ask neighbours whether there have ever been any issues with flooding from sewers.

But, if the drain collapsed and the property subsided then surely that's an insurable event? The insurers are not going to be asking for proof it was adequately built over the drain over 50 years ago surely? This question certainly doesn't come up when you apply and I'm sure they have to ask the question when you take it out. 

That was my initial assumption - that there's no way to prove how it was built so I had assumed subsidence would be covered. However, since posting this I've read on another conveyancer site that it is not insurable at all if the Water Authority have been made aware of the issue (extension over sewer, no Build Over Agreement). I've obviously inadvertently made them aware?

Albermarle

housebuyer143 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Insurers are generally wary of covering bad workmanship and if the extension subsided then it would almost certainly fall.under that category.

To be honest, if it hasn't subsided for the last 50 years then it is unlikely to do so now.

The flood risk map won't take account of specific drainage issues so it is impossible to infer anything about the sewer from the map.  You might do better to ask neighbours whether there have ever been any issues with flooding from sewers.

But, if the drain collapsed and the property subsided then surely that's an insurable event? The insurers are not going to be asking for proof it was adequately built over the drain over 50 years ago surely? This question certainly doesn't come up when you apply and I'm sure they have to ask the question when you take it out. 

I would think the same. Although home insurance does not cover issues arising from poor DIY/building work, the time scale here would surely mean they could not fall back on that as an excuse not to pay.

user1977

Karmabuyer said:

housebuyer143 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Insurers are generally wary of covering bad workmanship and if the extension subsided then it would almost certainly fall.under that category.

To be honest, if it hasn't subsided for the last 50 years then it is unlikely to do so now.

The flood risk map won't take account of specific drainage issues so it is impossible to infer anything about the sewer from the map.  You might do better to ask neighbours whether there have ever been any issues with flooding from sewers.

But, if the drain collapsed and the property subsided then surely that's an insurable event? The insurers are not going to be asking for proof it was adequately built over the drain over 50 years ago surely? This question certainly doesn't come up when you apply and I'm sure they have to ask the question when you take it out. 

That was my initial assumption - that there's no way to prove how it was built so I had assumed subsidence would be covered. However, since posting this I've read on another conveyancer site that it is not insurable at all if the Water Authority have been made aware of the issue (extension over sewer, no Build Over Agreement). I've obviously inadvertently made them aware?

Think you're getting confused - the indemnity insurance (against action by the water company) wouldn't be enforceable if you "tip off" the water company by telling them about the apparent problem. That wouldn't be relevant for your buildings insurance.

loubel

How old does your surveyor believe the extension is? Does he believe it was built poorly? It seems an odd assumption that the sewer hasn't been properly bridged just because there is no paperwork.