Underpinning... a dirty word?

[jonessa]

During the searches process, I have uncovered that the property I had intended on purchasing was subject to recent (3 years) "precautionary remedial works to the foundations". Read - underpinning. Although no claim for subsidence, or evidence of subsidence has been (so far - i'm awaiting a missing structural report) made or uncovered, it appears "underpinning" is a dirty word. My current insurers refused to insure the property - as in - wouldn't even offer a quote.

Quotes so far for building insurance have been circa £1000, with a massive excess if any work with regards to subsidence is required. 1940's house.

We offered full asking price for the property. It's not cheap.

I'm also concerned at the level of deception potentially involved. The works have been documented by a chartered engineer. The work has been signed off by the local Building control etc. but NOWHERE is the work referred to as underpinning, despite (as I've now discovered), it is exactly that.

Advice?

Everything is on hold atm.

 

[jonessa]

My take on the OP is that the current owners didn't pursue a claim via insurance for remedial works, and everything was paid out of their own pocket - could be a reason they've been able to avoid classing the works as underpinning. If they did have to go via the insurance route, then the works would have undoubtedly been put down as underpinning.

Correct. The documentation of the planning, work being completed and signed off by the building inspectors is well organised and thorough. However, the word "underpinning" is omitted throughout the documentation, despite being exactly what it is.

They have also failed to provide a pre-work structural report which was referred to in the report detailing the work being carried out. I have now requested this as it appears to have slipped through the net.

Ask for money off asking price. In all honesty underpinned houses are probably more stable than houses without. It’s just that now there is evidence of subsidence there. What I’d ask is, has it been fully underpinned or just one part of the foundation?

Also in regards to insurance, ask to take over the policy of the current occupants. If that’s not possible go to a broker.

I can see the logic of it being "better than new", however, only 1 corner of the property has been underpinned, which reading, may cause problems in itself.

How do people who do a full renovation works of some run-down properties where foundations and even external walls have to be rebuilt then get insured?

A good question and a very grey area and one often skirted around. For example, if you are having an extension built above a garage, you might need to strengthen the foundations in order for this to happen. Amazingly, when planning permission is sought, it can all be contained within the request to "build a 1 storey extension above an already existing structure". The fact that it has been signed off as a extension can allow you to skirt around questions surrounding foundations as they are EXPECTED to be checked and potentially modified as pat of the extension process. When underpinning is done in isolation, it appears to be a different scenario.

i had a similar issue with the house i recently bought, a drain was broken and escape of water caused some movement. This was all fixed but trying to get insurance was a huge pain. as escape of water is considered as "subsidence" barely any insurance companies would pay.

We like the house - did you make your offer before or after having all of the information available. I've got no issue with the work being done, and am happy that is has been done to the required standard. However, this might not be our "forever" home and I am concerned this may cause issues when selling the property in the future.

 

[jonessa]

It's a tricky one in this situation, as the house could either cost you more in further remedial works if other corners of the house are at risk. Did you find out the causes of the subsidence in the first place?

Frankly if the vendors are going to be secretive about the causes, then i'd be very prepared to walk away.

Update. They have now sent the investigation report that I mentioned previously. The report states that foliage and a tree close to the property was removed 2 years prior to the investigation taking place. It also states a drain survey was carried out. I've fired back requesting the drain report and what changes to the property (since the removal of the tree/foliage) necessitated the need for investigative work to be carried out. This is the key issue I am still unclear about - what changes to the property came about as a result of the trees/foliage being removed that warranted further investigation.

No form of subsidence or structural issue was picked up by the homebuyers survey, other than some slight displacement to brickwork in the porch which is commented on as being not untypical of a property of this age. However, the surveyor was not aware of the underpinning having being carried out when the survey was completed.

Regardless of the responses to my further enquiries, would it seem fair to request a renewed structural survey be carried out at the sellers expense before proceeding?

Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts so far.

 

[jonessa]

Going on what you've said so far, it seems you've only had the home buyers report done. I would definitely argue for a structural survey carried out at the sellers expensive based on recent findings regarding the remedial works carried on the foundations of the property.

If i was to put myself in your shoes, the BIG RED flag to me is that this was something you had to uncover through searches rather than the seller being upfront about the works in the first place. I know people will say you never advertise the bad points of something you're selling, but for a house purchase, any issues will come out regardless of whether someone is upfront about them or not. My take personally is that if the vendor is upfront and honest about them, then we can consider actions moving forward from the beginning. By not mentioning them and relying on them being bought up from searches is in my view a little bit devious..

Thanks Semple.

It's a bit grey. I'm a bit of a layman and know nothing about construction per-se.

They haven't been completely dishonest and some naivety on my part is to blame. A lot can also be said for the role of solicitors; to clarify - the vendors did declare the work in the initial enquiries, and corresponding completion certificates were provided as (and considered a suitable response in the eyes of the solicitor to the enquiry) but as stated, the wording didn't mention "underpinning". As I've now discovered, solicitors are not capable to advise on work carried out in terms of context. They only exist to ask what work has been done and to check the associated documentation is in order. To summarise, it's completely my fault that the connection between "Precautionary remedial works to front elevation foundation" and the concept of underpinning was not made until now.

I will await the responses of my last round of enquiries.

 

[jonessa]

For me the main thing is: underpinning isn't necessarily an issue, and if you're savvy and/or practical in a building sense you can get a great deal on a lovely house and have no issues.

The big issue is if you ever want to sell. It's a huge stigma. You have to wait for the 1 in 10 people that are willing to take on the insurance, OR get a good deal out of you; or wait for a national psyche to change regarding underpinning.

Update and reply below.

After asking a number of tactical questions, I was finally provided with documents illustrating the whole story. They had purchased the property in a damaged state. There was both internal (main spine wall!) and external wall cracking, recorded on the engineer report as "most likely" due to hedgerow/laurel tree root growth causing issue with the foundation, discovered by a test hole and inspection being carried out. They were advised to remove the vegetation and allow 12-24 months before re-assessing the ground. On re-inspection 2 years later, the ground was still found to be in an unsuitable condition to allow serviceable support to the property, therefor the underpinning was done.

This is a bit different to the story we had been allowed to formulate in our heads, again, however, showing naivety on our part.

As others have said, i'm not sure I can face the risk on the insurance. There's no guarantee that premiums won't continue to rise.

But as dampcat has stated, the stigma is my biggest barrier. I have no doubt the remedial work is excellent and has more than likely resolved the problem. It's all documented with appropriate permission and certificates being in place. "But what if....." will be creeping through every potential buyers mind, unless they are particularly risk-adverse.

It should also be noted that the vendors have spent an astronomical amount of money improving and modifying the property. My guess is that they bought it with the intention of staying for the duration (and therefor bought not being particularly concerned about selling it perhaps, and not giving it much thought?), however, we believe the sale has come about due to them separating.

I'm awaiting to hear back about a couple of other enquiries.

Also, do I need to inform our mortgage lender about this - is it worth getting their take on the value of the property since this information has come to light?

 

[jonessa]

That would be my biggest concern, the insurance you can deal with. But when you come to sell the property in the future, any potential buyer will be going through the same doubts that you have.

How well is it priced? I think I recall you saying earlier that you had offered asking price for it. How well does it compare with similar properties in the area? If it's significantly cheaper and a potential bargain, then could be worth considering. If it's on par with other properties, then you have to ask yourself is it worth the price when other properties possibly don't have any of the concerns regarding subsidence.

Funny you should say that.

It's a detached 4 bed property in a desirable location with a big plot. It's circa 500k (which is the very top of budget). It's had copious extension and modernisation. It's a lovely house.

A semi on the same road came up for sale yesterday. Similar size but not quite as cosmetically impressive. £315k. Had the loft coverted for the 4th bedroom.

I'm beginning to think we overpaid in the first place now anyway - however it's very difficult to say as all the properties on the road are different. There's a massive mix of styles and eras.

 

[jonessa]

I think I'd be strongly considering biting the bullet and heading elsewhere on this one.

That's my thought too. It's tough as I didn't give the full context - My wife and Kids are living 90 miles apart from me as we sold our house and got out as the chain was at risk of collapsing. We've been apart for 7 weeks - my son just turned 11 weeks old.

We're so drained by the whole experience now - wife is leaning towards just gambling. I'm not so sure.

There's no other houses like it. It's pretty individual and exclusive. We've also managed to sort insurance for a reasonable amount(£600).

Waiting for some feedback from a structural engineer friend regarding the reports on the completed work.

What I really need is the answer to the impossible question - does it affect the value? This obviously will be met with "it's worth what people are willing to pay". Considering the house is pretty unique in its location, it's very difficult to put a value on it.....

 

[jonessa]

Another update for those following the saga.

As you have all probably read, I had concerns regarding the wording on the reports produced. My primary concern that the documents' wording was tantamount to describing subsidence and could be considered purposefully deceptive.
Following another round of enquiries, mostly around whether the current owners have declared subsidence, they have finally sent a document which dispels most of my worries and should also re-assure any future purchasers.

The property was owned by the previous, previous owners since 1968. They evidently either passed away or moved out in 2013. The property was placed up for sale and a prospective buyer (I don't think it was the eventual buyers - i.e. our sellers) had a survey done which suggested there may be a subsidence issue (this is referred to in a document I am about to describe). This triggered the owners to start an insurance claim, with a view to confirming the diagnosis of subsidence and organising the repairs. The insurance company at the time instructed a specialist subsidence/structural surveyor to assess the property. The opening letter from the insurance company introduces the report as you would expect, but the following quotes are the most important:

"The engineer has confirmed there is no evidence of recent or progressive subsidence damage to the property and there is no cover for the cost of repairs under the subsidence section of the policy".

In summary - no need to action repairs under subsidence coverage as the engineer has confirmed the damage is not substantial or recent/ongoing enough to be considered subsidence.

Second quote:

"We hope that you are reassured that your property is not suffering from subsidence and that the information provided in the report will assist you in arranging the appropriate repairs".

In black and white. From an insurance company. Not considered subsidence.

Some notable quotes from the report which follows:

"All external cracking is associated with past re-pointing repairs of cracks from the mid 1980s (They must've confirmed they had re pointing done during their ownership) and internal cracks appear to be due to poor past repairs to damaged plaster, given that external cracks only show hairline movement". But then it says "It is not possible to give a diagnosis as to the cause of the past movement, but it is clear that it is longstanding with no sign of ongoing movement". The document also makes a point of identifying the trees/bushes in the vicinity of the corner of the house, but does not blame them specifically for causing settlement or movement.

This is then followed by an explanation of why internal cracking appears when brick walls are adjacent to studwalls - Timber (humidity) and brick (thermal) changes which are incompatible with their movement dynamics.

followed by:

"The cracks are cosmetic in nature and can be dealt with using routine maintenance"

Final conclusion and requirements statement:

"The damage has not been caused as a result of recent or progressive subsidence. The damage is considered to be of a historic nature and longstanding".

This pretty much all adds up now - there was cosmetic cracking identified as not being subsidence. The new owners had their own survey done where it was recommended that the bush and tree next to the house were to be removed as the previous settlement movement may have been caused by root under-mining. They had the trees/roots all removed. Unfortunately, it appears that this didn't help the ground condition (possible even made it worse) and as a precautionary measure, it was suggested that the foundation be underpinned. Work all completed to the correct standard and signed off by the building control. There was no further movement recorded from the time of the initial survey and the final survey, even post - tree removal. It was a further inspection to the ground which deemed it necessary to carry out the underpinning - it wasn't driven by further movement of the walls.

So.... might be a goer now. Can get decent insurance £300 for building /£600 combined with contents (lots of items insured outside of the home for loss)

The stigma of underpinning is still a concern obviously, but i'm glad the whole story adds up now - i'm glad we've got the complete paper-trail.

Even if we only stay for 10 years, the underpinning is irrelevant to insurers after 15 years so it wouldn't be far off.

Any closing advice???

Cheers

 

[jonessa]

My thoughts are to get a new structural survey anyway and also get them to summarise the reports. Sellers are getting pissy as we haven't yet exchanged.

Also, think I should still try and get a discount? We've technically still offered asking price....

 

[jonessa]

for those interested, we decided to go for it. I had a structural engineer review the reports and he was happy. He basically thinks they've hit a nail with a sledgehammer, and that the engineer/builders may have encouraged the work privately to make a few extra quid.

Already exchanged and get the keys Friday.

Insurance wasn't an issue and we'll worry about selling it 10 years or so in the future.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[jonessa]

win win, happy days. As a building surveyor I would always recommend you get a full survey done on the property but that`s because I want to get paid!. In all honesty if you know what you are looking at you can pretty much see if any house you are going to buy has issues. Can I just have a quick look in the loft? you can normally tell by the look of peoples faces how that goes... what normally amazes me is how close to death random people live in houses they have no idea how to manage and or purchased without completing a full survey...

Cheers - when you say survey, do you mean full structural or just a homebuyers?

And as for being "close to death", what are the stats on deaths from domestic properties collapsing?