Seller did not declare subsidence

km1500

you don't 100% know that the removal of the soil etc was related to substance - it could just as easily have been related to damp for example

stuart45

There's a lot of work involved in underpinning a building, so if it has been done it's to your advantage. 

AskAsk

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

Presumably you have a copy of the form? What was the relevant answer(s)? In these circumstances I’d expect a “not known, buyer should rely on their own survey” or similar.

They said No to everything as follows:

5.1 Does the property benefit from any of the following guarantees or warranties: (o) Underpinning - No

5.2 Have any claims been made under any of these guarantees or warranties? - No

6.4 Has any buildings insurance taken out by the seller ever been:

      a) subject to an abnormal rise in premiums? - No

      b) subject to high excesses? - No

      c) subject to unusual conditions? - No

      d) refused? If Yes, please give details: - No

So which of these answers do you think were incorrect?

None are incorrect as the form doesn't really lend itself to anything outside of what's been asked.  As a first time buyer I was foolish and should have walked away with the "sold as seen" statement.  I get it.  But as the seller had to have known there was subsidence (why would they have undertaken all of that work to carry out the repairs if not), don't they then have an obligation to state as such?  Where & when is a seller supposed to declare subsidence in the process of a sale?  I've learned my lesson - so go easy on me.  I'm just curious as to the "obligation to declare" which I read is a legal requirement.

"sold as seen" is not unusual and often applies to properties that are in a bit of a state.  it just means that the vendor is not prepared to negotiate and that you are buying what you can see.

the only proviso is that there are things that you can not see and that is where the TA6 and your survey comes in.

TA6 only identify subsidence if there was a claim on the buildings insurance so in this case it is difficult as the seller haven't owned the property long enough to have made a claim on subsidence.

I find the survey to be lacking in the sense that it may tell you there is a potential problem but the surveyor will often not advise that you instruct a structural engineer unless it was really obvious, like visible cracks.

When I bought my first house, the surveyor stated that the property was leaning slightly but that it is put down to settlement.  It turns out the floors support were rotten as it had a suspension floor so although it wasn't sinking, the floor support needed to be replaced and that would cost a fortune.  I only found this out when I sold the property to a developer and he got a structural engineer in.

The moral of the story is not to trust everything the surveyor says as they aren't good in my opinion and if they mention any leaning, then get a structural engineer in even if the surveyor thinks it is to do with settlement.

Bookworm105

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

Presumably you have a copy of the form? What was the relevant answer(s)? In these circumstances I’d expect a “not known, buyer should rely on their own survey” or similar.

They said No to everything as follows:

5.1 Does the property benefit from any of the following guarantees or warranties: (o) Underpinning - No

5.2 Have any claims been made under any of these guarantees or warranties? - No

6.4 Has any buildings insurance taken out by the seller ever been:

      a) subject to an abnormal rise in premiums? - No

      b) subject to high excesses? - No

      c) subject to unusual conditions? - No

      d) refused? If Yes, please give details: - No

So which of these answers do you think were incorrect?

None are incorrect as the form doesn't really lend itself to anything outside of what's been asked.  As a first time buyer I was foolish and should have walked away with the "sold as seen" statement.  I get it.  But as the seller had to have known there was subsidence (why would they have undertaken all of that work to carry out the repairs if not), don't they then have an obligation to state as such?  Where & when is a seller supposed to declare subsidence in the process of a sale?  I've learned my lesson - so go easy on me.  I'm just curious as to the "obligation to declare" which I read is a legal requirement.

 the "buyer should make their own enquiries" is a perfectly legal obligatory response

that said surveyors also very good with weasel words and would probably have caveated their comment with: should seek further professional investigation 
. 

Doozergirl

Bookworm105 said:

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

goggatijie said:

user1977 said:

Presumably you have a copy of the form? What was the relevant answer(s)? In these circumstances I’d expect a “not known, buyer should rely on their own survey” or similar.

They said No to everything as follows:

5.1 Does the property benefit from any of the following guarantees or warranties: (o) Underpinning - No

5.2 Have any claims been made under any of these guarantees or warranties? - No

6.4 Has any buildings insurance taken out by the seller ever been:

      a) subject to an abnormal rise in premiums? - No

      b) subject to high excesses? - No

      c) subject to unusual conditions? - No

      d) refused? If Yes, please give details: - No

So which of these answers do you think were incorrect?

None are incorrect as the form doesn't really lend itself to anything outside of what's been asked.  As a first time buyer I was foolish and should have walked away with the "sold as seen" statement.  I get it.  But as the seller had to have known there was subsidence (why would they have undertaken all of that work to carry out the repairs if not), don't they then have an obligation to state as such?  Where & when is a seller supposed to declare subsidence in the process of a sale?  I've learned my lesson - so go easy on me.  I'm just curious as to the "obligation to declare" which I read is a legal requirement.

 the "buyer should make their own enquiries" is a perfectly legal obligatory response

that said surveyors also very good with weasel words and would probably have caveated their comment with: should seek further professional investigation 
. 

A surveyor is like a GP.  If they see a potential issue they will signpost to a specialist - a structural engineer in this case - which they did. 

That's not backside covering, it's their job.