House with history of subsidence

[3ormorecharacters]

DH and I viewed a house today which we really liked. When doing his research online, DH noticed that in the satellite photos there is a big willow tree in the front garden which is no longer there. He knows that willow trees can cause subsidence if too close to a house. He mentioned this to the estate agent, who confirmed that that is indeed what happened. It has been fixed in the last couple of years and is all documented.

Doing some digging on Zoopla, it seems that the house was put on the market in 2018 and sold STC, presumably the survey picked up the subsidence and the sale fell through. The house has been rented since then. It is now on the market at the same price as in 2018, so I guess they've factored it in to the asking price.

Having done some research and asked a solicitor friend of a friend, it seems like this is potentially a dealbreaker. I initially assumed that as the problem had an easily identifiable cause and has been fixed, it would be fine. But it seems like it could cause serious problems with insurance.

Does anyone have any experience of this? We are so sick of house hunting and just want to find somewhere! 😭

@YellowNotRed

I'd do some online buildings and contents insurance quotes to see what the premiums come out as to make sure they're not ridiculous, but it absolutely wouldn't put me off buying a house that had previous subsidence as long as it had been fixed and the cause of the problem removed. :)

I would be careful online. Most online (if not all) are quotes just for standard risks ie no subs amongst other things. If you're going down that route you need to extra sure that they know about the subs

Thanks all. It's so hard to know what to do. We really like the house and are so sick if house hunting. But, we don't want to saddle ourselves with a massive insurance liability and something that will be difficult to sell. Will definitely ask for more information and not rush into anything...

As shown on this thread, some people see the word “subsidence” and think you should run a mile, even where the issues have been rectified. You will always encounter some people like that when you come to sell, so it may make it more difficult in future. You just have to hope you can find some rational buyers!

As for buying it yourself, living in it, and getting insurance, provided you do your homework in advance and are comfortable that the issue was sorted properly, you shouldn’t have any issues. It’s really common where I live in London and like pps have said, better to buy one where the subsidence has been addressed than one where it’s yet to come and you have to deal with the faff of it!

The problem I see with this particular house is that it was underpinned so recently. Usually a house is underpinned and then you have a period of observation to see if it has stopped the problem (and so no further movement). I would be worried that 2 years is not long enough to assess the result. So I wouldn't touch the house with a bargepole as a result.

All the "success" stories on this thread mention underpinning done many years prior. This wouldn't worry me. But you don't know yet whether yours is the same.

And the fact that the big insurers might not touch it would also worry me. I don't want to have to use a small unknown 2-bit house insurance company!

@LooseMooseHoose

The problem I see with this particular house is that it was underpinned so recently. Usually a house is underpinned and then you have a period of observation to see if it has stopped the problem (and so no further movement). I would be worried that 2 years is not long enough to assess the result. So I wouldn't touch the house with a bargepole as a result.

All the "success" stories on this thread mention underpinning done many years prior. This wouldn't worry me. But you don't know yet whether yours is the same.

And the fact that the big insurers might not touch it would also worry me. I don't want to have to use a small unknown 2-bit house insurance company!

There are lots of insurance companies who aren't advertised on Tele or on the comparison websites but just because they're not a household name it doesn't mean they're small unknown 2 bit companies. Your average household insurance company only covers standard insurance so this actually rules out quite a lot eg if the whole roof is flat, non standard construction, flooding in the past, listed building etc etc etc. So it doesn't mean anything bad if for example direct line or whatever declines cover

This is so topical for me and I'm reading with interest.

I am about to put my house on the market due to divorce and subsidence has been identified. It is because of trees adjoining the property and I have filed an insurance claim.

My ex husband needs the house to be sold by January otherwise he will have to pay capital gains tax.

I am not sure if anyone will want to touch it while the insurance claim is ongoing. Apparently the benefit of the claim passes to the new owner but it's a risk for them.

I'm having estate agents round next week to value it... where I live it's clay soil so I think it's a common issue.

Mmmm well I have to say I can't see people wanting to buy when you've got an actual ongoing subsidence claim.
And subs will almost certainly be excluded for the new owners if there's an outstanding claim still

We've now had the paperwork through from the owners. Turns out house didn't need underpinning after all - the insurers just said the tree had to be removed and shortly after the cracks started to shrink. The issue was in 2018 when there was that really long hot summer, which I guess exacerbated things. My DH has done tons of research and is pretty satisfied that it should be ok - we will have higher insurance premiums and excess but shouldn't be ridiculously so. We do love the house so we've put in an offer. Subject to an extensive structural survey obviously! Fingers crossed...

Why would he pay CGT on his marital home? You don’t pay CGT when you sell your main home.

Turning to the OP’s question: If the house has been underpinned (which is a belt and braves solution to subsidence) there really should be no movement 2 years on. If there was any further cracking, either the underpinning was not correctly designed and completed, or there is further cracking due to subsidence in another area of the house that wasn’t underpinned. Underpinning really should be 100% successful - or what’s the point?

Regarding removal of the willow: this could be a problem. Willows generally grow near water. They are very thirsty trees. They take a lot of water out of the soil so there was subsidence. Now the tree has gone, there could be excess water in the soil. It’s no longer drinking it. Excess water can cause heave (expansion) in clay soils which lift the house upwards. This might not ever happen and hopefully the underpinning has guarded against that.

So: get a structural engineers report. Ask about the quality of the underpinning, possible heave from removal of the tree. Look for any new cracks. In bricks or render. If all is well, its insurable and mortgageable. Just take the sensible precaution of getting it professionally checked. Then you will know whether it’s for you or not. If the report isn’t favourable, then walk away.

Hmmm! Just seen your update. Just removing a tree isn’t the best solution. It’s a cheap one. Wouldn’t their insurance pay out? Who recommended just tree removal? The insurance company who wouldn’t pay for a permanent solution? Did the owner get their own structural engineer’s report and fight their corner? As I said above - be wary of heave.

@Guymere DH has looked into it and says the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors says as long as the tree is younger than the property then the heave will at most return the ground to its original position (before the tree was there).

Insurance paid for the removal of the tree and were satisfied that that was a satisfactory solution. Extensive ground samples done etc. We'll definitely get a full and thorough structural survey done but we're hopeful that everything is above board. Going into it with our eyes open though!

RICS are not correct then. Victorian houses can suffer from heave by trees planted in the Edwardian era being cut down. I’ve attached some notes for you. A mature tree (even at 30 Years old) can drink a huge amount and when it’s gone, the water it would have drunk has to go somewhere. Just because this willow might be a few years younger than a house (built in 1980 for example) doesn’t mean it isn’t drinking a huge amount and willows are one of the worst - even if they are fairly young.

Generally speaking cutting down a tree is a cheap “solution” but it takes no account of depth of foundations, which could be inadequate, weight and design of building and the water run off from other buildings. If the tree was cut down 2 years ago, no one has monitored the ground conditions since. Yes, it might be fine, but you do need more info in my opinion.

Most Chartered structural engineers are called in to sort out these problems because surveyors usually run a mile from such problems and defer to a Chartered Engineer - DH is FIStructE.

I grew up in a house that had been underpinned, it was built on clay if that makes a difference. My mum spent her life polyfilling cracks that appeared regularly.

@Guymere thanks for that, that's useful. dH has been reading this book www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0727730894/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fab_HnLzFb17RG2R2?tag=mumsnetforu03-21 which seems pretty authoritatively written. In terms of depth of foundations / weight of the building, it's a 1960s bungalow so I guess this was factored into the insurance company's calculations when they recommended just removing the tree. I guess we'll just have to see what happens now!