Soldato
I think I'd be strongly considering biting the bullet and heading elsewhere on this one.
Underpinning... a dirty word?
- Thread starter jonessa
- Start date
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.....
Another way to spin it is how long do you plan to live there with your family. You mention your sons only just been born, so potentially you could be looking at a family home for 20+ years depending on your job etc.
My point being is the future resell value is off less of a concern if you're not intending to sell for at least 10 years - as who knows what will happen to the housing market in 10 years.
My point being is the future resell value is off less of a concern if you're not intending to sell for at least 10 years - as who knows what will happen to the housing market in 10 years.
It sounds like you've found a house that you really like that you can see yourself living in with your family.
however, The moment you mention underpinning to anyone they will usually run a mile but it boils down to this:
- can you get insurance (looks like you can)
- how would you feel about selling the property potentially for less than market value in the future?
It's difficult to predict how it will impact the value but for sure sellers will bargain the price due to its potential defects.
At least you have got insurance sorted and if you really like the house then go for it! it will be good to know how you get on
however, The moment you mention underpinning to anyone they will usually run a mile but it boils down to this:
- can you get insurance (looks like you can)
- how would you feel about selling the property potentially for less than market value in the future?
It's difficult to predict how it will impact the value but for sure sellers will bargain the price due to its potential defects.
At least you have got insurance sorted and if you really like the house then go for it! it will be good to know how you get on
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
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
Last edited:
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....
Also, think I should still try and get a discount? We've technically still offered asking price....
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.
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.
Soldato
Superb
So to sum this up, reports/surveys support no subsidence, but belt and braces approach from previous owner means underpinning has been completed, thus putting the house in to a better state then it was before. I would consider that an overall win/win, as this should also significantly reduce future risk. Nice one OP, and my you enjoy cheaper insurance then you may have had to suffer 
Associate
Shame you didn't use that as a bargaining tool to get the price lower though 
Enjoy your new house!
Enjoy your new house!
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?
Associate
Under-pinning doesn't need to be a complete no-no - you just need to do your homework. We bought a property 13 years ago which had been underpinned 20 years prior to that. The underpinning was not a wall but rather the floor. In some older houses the floor was just laid direct onto the dirt. In prolonged dry spells it would come away from the bottom of the walls (which were built onto the bedrock so didn't move). As such the floor was underpinned.
I had no real issue with insurance as we had the docs. Speaking to one company with our type of issue they were fine with underpinning as it would never need doing again.
TL;DR - Underpinning does not need to be a complete write off - but it does need attention so you have to get it cheaper than market to make it worthwhile
I had no real issue with insurance as we had the docs. Speaking to one company with our type of issue they were fine with underpinning as it would never need doing again.
TL;DR - Underpinning does not need to be a complete write off - but it does need attention so you have to get it cheaper than market to make it worthwhile
They don`t tend to collapse, although saying that I did visit a property once where the tenant had complained to the landlord that some of the tiles were `sagging` on the roof only to open the roof hatch and see that most of the purlins has been cut out. I spoke to the tenant and he was like oh, yeah I did that to make more space. I left fairly quickly, since I would imagine some heavy rain would have been enough to bring the roof down. I have also seen fairly extensive rotting timbers from both wet and dry rot. Its amazing how much damage a small leak can do over time. I have seen immediately dangerous electrics which could have quite easily resulted in house fires.
With regards to the report, there are 3 different levels each more expensive than the previous one ending in a full building survey. A good survey might pick some issues with the house (asbestos, wiring issues, roof repairs) for example that would give you some advise on repair and provides estimates on timings and costs and also what will potentially happen if you don`t carry out the repairs. You can then approach the vendor for a reduction in the purchase price. If the report doesn't show any issues you know it`s money well spent because you have the report! which can then be used to aid future sales. I managed to get £2000 of the price of a house because the condition report said it would need a new roof in the next 5 years. The same house still has the original roof 15 years later!
There are also other factors to consider, how much do you want the house? are you happy to walk away if the seller wont play ball? normally the buyer is in the better position but it might be that they have a number of people interested. Has the house been on the market a while? then perhaps approach the seller about funding the cost of the building survey and see what they come back with. offer to pay 50/50 which shows you are keen to negotiate.