first time buyer

swmat

Hi please help me with this problem. We have been planning to buy a house since 2 years, thank god at last we found a house, but couple of days ago we had a message from our solicitor saying that environmental report shows property is in an area of natural subsidence ,hazard potential ,low risk. we did the home buyers survey which shows no problem. Is it ok to proceed? Will it make any problem in the future to resale? We contacted insurance and they are happy to insure ,as the property is not being affected.

We really need some helpful information as we are confused a lot
thank you

brit1234

I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Doozergirl

brit1234 wrote: »

I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Ridiculous. Not only is the comment completely uneducated, you can't even be bothered to explain why you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

The whole of London is built on clay which provides a hazard risk for subsidence as are many towns and cities across the country. As long as your house is not subsiding and your surveyors report is clear, then there is very little to worry about.

You rarely get an environmental search that comes back totally clear. I've bought houses with flood risks from rivers without defences (never flooded and not my new house that some people seem to think is in the middle of the river Severn!)), sat bang the middle of a potential contaminated land area, one with a radon risk of 1% (woopdedoo) and several built on clay with natural subsidence a possibility.

Unless the report says 'high risk' then you've little to worry about and even with 'high risk' it just means that further investigation would be necessary to assess whether there was actually a problem. The environmental search is generally there for the purpose of you being able to rule the potential hazards out, rather than giving you a definate answer on whether the property is affected by some environmental issue.

All surveyors look for subsidence.

neas

Its not exactly the best time to buy a house... but go ahead if you feel its personally right for you.

phil_b_2

Doozergirl wrote: »

Ridiculous. Not only is the comment completely uneducated, you can't even be bothered to explain why you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

What else do you expect from someone who constantly blasts hyped up scaremongering statements and uses cartoons in 90% of posts?! Brit was well on form there.

It sounds as though you have spent a long time searching and found a house that finally that ticks the boxs? Do you love this house? At the end of the day it sounds as though there may a small risk but if you can get insurance no problems then you are covered. Just make sure there isnt any easy get-outs in the insurance contract and that they will cover in full, just to be safe?

brit1234

Doozergirl wrote: »

Ridiculous. Not only is the comment completely uneducated, you can't even be bothered to explain why you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

In fact the complete opposite. Sorry but I did risk/disaster a management at university. Where I work and live I try to reduce risk for the best outcomes but this is balanced. In the case of this house we have been given specific information "message from our solicitor saying that environmental report shows property is in an area of natural subsidence ,hazard potential, low risk." Now common sense says if it is a cheap thing you are buying then the risk doesn't really matter you can most likely weather the costs. But this is a house, your most expensive thing your buy. So when you have a lower risk on something really expensive if it does go wrong you are still potentially in trouble. Especially if you go to an insurance company with a knowledge of a specific risk. The company's aim is to get out of any liability by any means possible.

Its simply not worth the risk and better to choose a different property for ease of mind and financial protection.

Snooze

brit1234 wrote: »

In fact the complete opposite. Sorry but I did risk/disaster a management at university. Where I work and live I try to reduce risk for the best outcomes but this is balanced. In the case of this house we have been given specific information "message from our solicitor saying that environmental report shows property is in an area of natural subsidence ,hazard potential, low risk." Now common sense says if it is a cheap thing you are buying then the risk doesn't really matter you can most likely weather the costs. But this is a house, your most expensive thing your buy. So when you have a lower risk on something really expensive if it does go wrong you are still potentially in trouble. Especially if you go to an insurance company with a knowledge of a specific risk. The company's aim is to get out of any liability by any means possible.

Its simply not worth the risk and better to choose a different property for ease of mind and financial protection.

I agree. Granted, it does say "low risk" but that's still some risk and I'd rather my house stayed in the same place it was built on thanks, not go wandering off down the garden! :rotfl:

Rob

Doozergirl

All houses move. All of them.

The risk to any house of significant movement is real, whether it be from natural subsidence, broken drains, tree roots, burst water mains, dry weather, wet weather, earthquakes or bomb damage! Regardless of where you live. The risk would be deemed to be 'low' just like the risk of getting run over by a bus is 'low'.

As I said, the whole of London is built on clay, so everyone should sell up and move out, just in case... And find out where the wise man who built his house upon the rock lived. BTW, sand is also great to build on provided it's contained. But if you don't move out, then insurance companies do cover subsidence, even in places considered 'low risk'

Conveyancing solicitors are not qualified to interpret the results of an enviro search. No doubt the OP's letter will mention that.

neverdespairgirl

Doozergirl wrote: »

As I said, the whole of London is built on clay, .

It so isn't. Quite a few bits of London are chalk outcrops, and places such as Blackheath, Lewisham, Greenwich Park and Telegraph Hill are pebbles or chalk. Sutton, Croydon etc are chalk, the edge of the Downs. Ally Pally is a gravel terrace as well. The hills in the centre of London are gravel deposits from Thames terraces, and there is a ridge of sandy soils which form Hampstead, Highgate, etc.

poppy10_2

Oooh, doozer got pwned!

Zammo

Doozergirl wrote: »

Ridiculous. Not only is the comment completely uneducated, you can't even be bothered to explain why you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

I'd take any advice from this poster with a large pinch of salt as it's coming from someone who has not only bought at the top of the market, but bought a bungalow with subsidence that sits on a flood plain.

!!!!!! there's not even an upstairs to put all the furniture for when the monsoon season arrives, that's assuming it hasn't sunk into the swamp ground it's built on by then.

I get the feeling that she doesn't want to be the only one who's up !!!!!! creek without a paddle.