Neighbours house subsiding. How should we approach potentially claiming for subsidence?

superlight

DullGreyGuy said:

Negligence normally is doing something a reasonable person wouldnt do or failing to do something a reasonable person would do. In some circumstances a "reasonable person" is substituted with a reasonable XXX... for example you dont consider is a surgeon has been negligent by comparing them to the average man in the street but to what a reasonable surgeon would do. Certainly Councils have been found to have a higher duty of care in relation to negligence... never had to deal with a HA so dont know caselaw in relation to them. 

Hi thanks for the reply...

Looking at this the other way round...I am a reasonable person. If I knew my house had a subsidence issue, I would do everything possible to prevent the problem worsening, before potentially damaging my neighbours house via the partition wall.

The HA tell me in an email that 'A RICS surveyor and Structural engineer are overseeing the monitoring process' of their property with the subsidence. Yet when I ask for their S.E.'s findings i.e. the cause, apparently, they don't have the information. The tenant has been raising issues with interior and exterior cracks with them for several years now. They only began monitoring in Nov 24 although some clearly much older monitoring markers are still present on the house. This confirms that the problem has be known about for much longer. I've asked the HA to confirm when these were installed. They haven't answered.

DullGreyGuy

superlight said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Negligence normally is doing something a reasonable person wouldnt do or failing to do something a reasonable person would do. In some circumstances a "reasonable person" is substituted with a reasonable XXX... for example you dont consider is a surgeon has been negligent by comparing them to the average man in the street but to what a reasonable surgeon would do. Certainly Councils have been found to have a higher duty of care in relation to negligence... never had to deal with a HA so dont know caselaw in relation to them. 

Hi thanks for the reply...

Looking at this the other way round...I am a reasonable person. If I knew my house had a subsidence issue, I would do everything possible to prevent the problem worsening, before potentially damaging my neighbours house via the partition wall.

The HA tell me in an email that 'A RICS surveyor and Structural engineer are overseeing the monitoring process' of their property with the subsidence. Yet when I ask for their S.E.'s findings i.e. the cause, apparently, they don't have the information. The tenant has been raising issues with interior and exterior cracks with them for several years now. They only began monitoring in Nov 24 although some clearly much older monitoring markers are still present on the house. This confirms that the problem has be known about for much longer. I've asked the HA to confirm when these were installed. They haven't answered.

Most my claims days were done in Motor and whilst did touch on Home (eg when a policyholder had left the road and hit a house) it never involved subsidence claims for obvious reasons. Oddly I very briefly did Space insurance claims too but thats another story. So no hands on experience but have considered matters from a higher level through work since leaving claims. 

Having read some Subsidence claim files it very much depends on if it's known if the subsidence is active or historic. Sometimes you can tell it's active and sometimes it looks historic. If it looks historic or you believe you have fixed the problem it would be normal to start with monitoring, this can go on for some time obviously depending on what you find... if no signs of movement the checks get less frequent and normally ends at somewhere between 12 and 36 months. If there are signs of movement then it moves on to investigation. 

If after the full monitoring period there has been no movement generally they wouldnt bother spending time or money to try and workout why it had moved in the past. You could sink a fair amount of money and never find out especially if the prior cause of movement has already been fixed and the record of its fix has been lost over time. 

Its typically easier for a home owner to know about these things, landlords or commercial property owners (which HAs are technically) can go years between seeing the property, its often won't be the same person viewing it and its heavily dependent on tenants telling them what's going on whereas most people who see their home every day will spot problems and know if they are new or old. That said my mother claimed she had no idea of the existence of a 4' crack in the garage's outer wall when it was up for sale (an extension to the original building done before our purchasing it)

subsidence_expert

I deal with this sort of thing routinely as i specialise in helping clients resolve difficult subsidence problems. I am a structural engineer, building surveyor and subsidence consultant (former subs loss adjuster too).

I have had several cases exactly like this. What I generally advise clients to do (if the neighbour won’t stabilise their building) is to structurally tie the party wall back strongly to your property to prevent any pulling from the party wall causing tension cracking on your side. If there is further movement the cracking should then occur on their side only.

Such structural work to a party wall triggers the application of the Party Wall Act under which costs can be apporioned as the surveyors making the Award see fit. In your case (as with one of my clients) there might be a good case for arguing that some (or even all) of the costs should be defrayed to the adjoining owner if they are failing to take reasonable action to stabilise their property. The Party Wall Act might be your friend here, as an Award against the HA might spur them into being more open with you and taking more positive action to get their property stabilised asap.

As far as insurance is concerned, you need to look at the exact policy (and renewal) wording but traditionally the wording was “subsidence of the site on which the building stands”. “The site” was deemed (in an ombudsman decision long ago) to mean more than just the ground beneath the building footprint, so in that case the lateral pulling due to subsidence next door was deemed to be covered. It’s a point which is sometimes argued by insurers and loss adjusters though.

When it comes to disclosure, again it’s the precise wording which is all important. Direct Line for example now ask if your neighbours’ properties have had subsidence as well as yours. Another recent case I saw was where a person without subsidence had their insurance quadrupled due to a property further down their street having a subsidence claim! That would have been discovered on the CUE database probably.

If you report it though you do run the risk that the insurer might try to deny your claim then refuse to renew the cover. You might be able to push back on that if it were to happen.

UnsureAboutthis

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026963#Comment_82026963

It's not going to be a precise answer but guidance would help.

A few weeks ago a good friend of the family came to see us and we started chatting about the very hot 2026 and living on clays soil is the se England. There house was built in 63 a semi-detached place; they have lived there for 21 years and when they moved in they had no survey done as the did not get a mortgage. The house was empty and modern ie newely plastered wall it 5 years previously to their purchase, and all painted in white and nwe carpets throughout and had a concrete base and standard build cavity way. The house is on flat land, with no tress close other than one which was about 10 foot tall and 30 foot away in next doors garden. About ten years into their ownership, he noted slight gaps between the upvc fames and the decor strips he filled them in, all good. Now several years later he noted a gaps between the new flloring they laid about a number of years ago and new skirting of about 7,, which ws diffently not there. He looked around the house ll good but sone of the windows on the same walls, the party arll had dropp about 3/4mm ie opposite to the corner floor dropped. The widows are not jamming etc.

A specialist from the insurance visted them last week and banged on about the filling in of the small gaps and some hair cracks around the windwns they had seen some years ago and they too had widened to about 1mm.

he reported the problem as soon as he thought there was a problem where he needed to tell his insurance. He changed the insurance comapny a month ago been with someone else for 19 years got a better deal so changed.

He is worried his claim may be rejected but he is not an expert and did what many seasoned homeowners would have done, ie fill in small gaps and ignored hairline cracks on plaster until they had time to decor the place agai.

The so-called specialist, she also banged on about not reporting the hairline cracks but even now they are expanded and very notable on the light-colored paint; they are according to our friend less than 1mm

What are the chances his claim being rejected?

The house is currently worth about 300k, by how much would it be devalued and he is aware as its a nice location/spot. A buyer may see any repairs, i.e., underpinning, as a positive, as that part of England is known for stuff like this.

No extensions or major works for more than 10+ years. on the house. They did knock a door from the kitchen into the side garden no building reg paperwork as builder said it was not required this was done soon after the bought the house and door and frame is fine.ie no signs of movement

subsidence_expert

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095937#Comment_82095937

under an ABI agreement that most insurers subscribe to, the current insurer will bounce the claim back to the previous one, who should deal with it on behalf of both insurers. There is no issue of potential non-disclosure with the previous insurer I assume so it should be ok. If the current insurers q proposal questions were not answered correctly though they can potentially void the policy. It’s all down to the precise wording of the questions - people no longer have to volunteer any information - just answer questions honestly. So if the question was “have there been any cracks?” Then maybe the answer should have been yes, but if the question was “ has there been any subsidence” then maybe “no” was a fair answer as they didn’t know that it was the beginnings of subsidence. In that case the insurer wouldn’t be able to void the policy but might decline to renew it.