Anyone done DIY underpinning?

Steve_xx

Doozergirl wrote: »

If you knocked down the entire 19 year old extension, complete with it's insulated cavity walls, broke up all it's existing foundations, carried them all away and then dug a nice new hole and poured some nice new concrete in, built another almost identical cavity wall in it's place but taller, could I avoid insurance problems then? :wall: It's perfecly normal to strengthen existing foundations to carry a heavier load, like it is normal to replace the existing joists in the loft for bigger ones to distribute the new weight of a loft conversion. It's just that the new job is different to the one they were designed for originally. It doesn't mean they are inadequate for the job they currently do.

If you have subsidence or heave, that is an issue. Insurers will sit up and take notice of those words because there maybe a potential issue with moving ground that may reoccur. The ground underneath the property is not going to move any more than it might have done once the foundations are strengthened correctly to take the weight of the new extension. Underpinning in these circumstances is not an issue for insurers, it just saves knocking the whole house down to create new foundations.

Yes, I understand the logic of your explanation. However, to reiterate the point yet again, a potential insurer may not be so understanding.

The word "reoccur" does not exist. I think that you mean recur?

Canucklehead

Good morning: The Planning Portal has useful and accurate advice on underpinning among other building works projects.

HTH

Canucklehead

Doozergirl

Steve_xx wrote: »

to reiterate the point yet again, a potential insurer may not be so understanding.

"May not be so understanding" is a long way from "hell of a job getting buildings insurance", "Most insurers will not want to know about it", "The premium will be hiked".

A call centre operative or an automatic quoting system may not understand the difference but as soon as you provide a full explanation, a qualified person would be able to differentiate between foundations suitable for a two storey extension and underpinning due to ground movement.

Steve_xx

Doozergirl wrote: »

"May not be so understanding" is a long way from "hell of a job getting buildings insurance", "Most insurers will not want to know about it", "The premium will be hiked".

A call centre operative may not understand the difference but as soon as you provide a full explanation, a qualified person would be able to differentiate between foundations suitable for a two storey extension and underpinning due to ground movement.

You may be right - but then again, you may not be.

t_r

I suppose the thing is to get a quote assuming the work has been done. Then you will if buildings cover is a problem.

Bungarm2001

Steve_xx wrote: »

I can assure you that the mention of the word "underpinning" to an insurer will present a problem in obtaining insurance. With reference to your comment "uneducated madness" I would inform you that I have personal experience of underpinning and I reiterate the fact that once mentioned to an insurer that there will be difficulty in obtaining cover.

I agree that underpinning is a solution rather than a problem. However, to a potential insurer an underpinned property is indicative that there has been a problem and therefore there may be an increased risk. Insurers do not like risk.

Sorry stevexx but not in my experience.

I have never had any problems with getting an underpinned property insured, nor did the neighbours of the property (NOT the one that I am asking questions about on here, but a property we owned years ago) Nor have friends of mine who recently had the whole front of their collapsing house underpinned. True, the cost of the insurance went up, but not by very much and was down to 'normal' after 3 years.

I think as another poster put on here you are confusing underpinning as in 're-inforcing existing footings to safely take the weight of adding another storey' to underpinning as in 'supporting a house collapsing due to subsisdence.'

I can see perfectly well why an insurer would get edgy about the subsisdence thing mainly because of the effect it could have had on neighbouring properties and the rest of the house if it was only partly underpinned (inner leaf only etc etc) but can see absolutely no reason why they would use underpinning in this kind of scenario to get as uptight as you think they will. True, insurers need little excuse to hike their prices, but we are well prepared for that anywa due to the nature of the whole project.

Perhaps we should just ditch the word 'underpinning' and use 'reinforcing foundations' instead!

sarah_elton

Doozergirl wrote: »

"May not be so understanding" is a long way from "hell of a job getting buildings insurance", "Most insurers will not want to know about it", "The premium will be hiked".

A call centre operative or an automatic quoting system may not understand the difference but as soon as you provide a full explanation, a qualified person would be able to differentiate between foundations suitable for a two storey extension and underpinning due to ground movement.

That's exactly what would happen. My mum's a senior household underwriter, meaning that any request for insurance which has something odd about it gets referred up to her by the call centre bods. She will look over the paperwork in detail, surveyors reports or whatever as necessary and make the decision about whether to underwrite, at what (if any) additional premium/excess, what exclusions to add, etc. For a newly constructed extension they may ask to see any relevant paperwork you have (buildings regs and the rest of it) which will help get the premium down.

I agree with Doozergirl that really this is reinforcement of foundations because the house is getting fatter and heavier! It's not the same situation as a house being underpinned because it's suffered major subsidence. However, you may find that insurers at the lower end of the market who minimize the number of referrals up to proper underwriters don't make the distinction and you have to go to a more upmarket one who'll look at it properly.

Just a thought - have you spoken to your household insurers already and checked your property is covered while the work is going on? Not something I know anything about, but I would imagine you're meant to keep them informed as you go.

Bungarm2001

"Just a thought - have you spoken to your household insurers already and checked your property is covered while the work is going on? Not something I know anything about, but I would imagine you're meant to keep them informed as you go."

Yep! Done already! He will have to inform them as and when the work actually statrs, but they seem pretty much unalarmed by the whole thing. Thanks for the reminder though...:D